Republicans Move To Stealthily Steal Electoral Votes
By Nicole Belle Monday Jul 30, 2007 1:30pmI'm not a big fan of the electoral college system, but this article doesn't make me feel better about amending it.
At first glance, next year's Presidential election looks like a blowout. But it might not be. Luckily for the incumbent party, neither George W. Bush nor Dick Cheney will be running; indeed, the election of 2008 will be the first since 1952 without a sitting President or Vice-President on the ballot. At the moment, survey research reflects a generic public preference for a Democratic victory next year. Still, despite everything, there are nearly as many polls showing particular Republicans beating particular Democrats as vice versa. So this election could be another close one. If it is, the winner may turn out to have been chosen not on November 4, 2008, but five months earlier, on June 3rd.
Two weeks ago, one of the most important Republican lawyers in Sacramento quietly filed a ballot initiative that would end the practice of granting all fifty-five of California's electoral votes to the statewide winner. Instead, it would award two of them to the statewide winner and the rest, one by one, to the winner in each congressional district. Nineteen of the fifty-three districts are represented by Republicans, but Bush carried twenty-two districts in 2004. The bottom line is that the initiative, if passed, would spot the Republican ticket something in the neighborhood of twenty electoral votes-votes that it wouldn't get under the rules prevailing in every other sizable state in the Union.
If you haven't seen it already, take a look at the video "Hacking Democracy". (h/t Todd for link)
Login or Register to post comments.
how the heck can different states have different electoral rules???
this is bullsh!t
bill @ 1:
I still say if the Repugs legalize pot we'd all be too stoned to vote.
IF the Reps didn't steal votes- they wouldn't get more than a few % from the ultra rich who own them.
It might be OK as long as all fifty states follow suit.
Or better yet, let's just pitch the electoral college. Look what it cost us in the 2000 election.
You gotta love these pukes - they had a whole argument against the electoral college in 2000 in case the court cases didn't go in their favor. Then they became champions of the Electoral college. Now, faced with the absolute certainty that CA will be solidly Democratic for generations, they try to change the rules.
I wonder when we'll start hearing the whole "Electoral College is unamerican" arguments.
We shouldn't look to amend it, we should look to abolish it.
Right now, it's unevenly balanced. The voters in Florida essentially have their vote count more toward the election than say a voter in a predominantly republican state like Kansas or predominantly democratic state like California.
All votes should count the same. We don't need to account for the different regions -- that's why we have state-elected senators and representatives. This is a NATIONAL election, so every vote should carry the exact same weight.
I understand the counter-argument -- that if you abolish the electoral system, it will just cause presidential candidates to bypass states with lower populations. But that's what's happening now. How often do you hear about candidates visiting Montana or North Dakota? This won't change.
WILL THE REPUGS CANCEL (!?) THIS ELECTION?
AND IF SO... WHAT WILL YOU DO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
We expect morals from the Corruption Party? Really?
Also, as mentioned previously, how is this legal?
The time for populist revolt is NOW, more than ever.
Oh, this is bullshit.
Reforming the Electoral College this way only works if it is national, not state-by-state. If you only do it in 'blue' states, Republicans benefit disproportionately and if only in 'red' states then Dems would benefit. This is an obvious attempt by the GOP to steal yet another election.
Would it balance out if Texas had the same rules and the Dems could pick up a minimum of 40% of their votes.
I like the idea in practice but only if its all 50 states and only if we must retain an electoral college.
Eric @ 11:
Indeed.
This is wonderful!
Another great Machiavellian move by the Republicans!
I can see this going a few different ways. In California, more counties have gone blue over the past few years. It's one reason the latest two abortion bills (would have made abortion illegal) have been shot down. But with a breakup like this and with Republicans having a harder time bringing in funding, this will allow them to focus all money in just a few areas. We all know money buys votes. Sheeple won't vote in their best interest if you flash bright lights in their eyes.
So I guess we will have an election next year afterall. Just trying to find a silver lining where I can.
It's easy now. You have plenty of food. You can afford gas(for now). You own a computer, but do you own any balls.
What is happening now is WRONG.
People here are smart.And we all know the bullshit that has ...
aaaaaaaaghg
removing this constitutional disease will be painfull.
I propose the "your full of SHIT ammendment"
Originally, the Electoral College was set up to help guard against morons like * being put in office just because they managed to charm the people out of enough votes. A bunch of states decided to make it a crime for their electors to vote differently than the statewide vote, which had the effect of mooting a lot of people's votes even when the candidate they'd chosen was fit for office. In this age of whoever-spends-the-most-money-wins, if we had electors of good will, not partisan hacks, I think it would be far better to let each vote his or her conscience.
That's the crux of the matter! The only reason our system, as originally set up, is failing us is because there's nobody acting in good faith, nobody putting country before party, nobody who even remembers that spin doesn't change truth. THAT is also why jerks who talk about putting morality back into government get so much attention too. People are desperate for the times when we could expect people to choose the Constitution over perjury, and the good of the nation over the power of the party.
Steal? Hardly.
By stealth? Perhaps.
Btw, this plan sounds just like the way Maine allocates its electoral college votes.
wipinflationnow @ 18:
And then turn into reality T.V.
Politicians of all stripes cleansing their colons on tv like American Idol.
We can vote on density and color of the resultant matter
99, if there were gold stars here on my keyboard I would place one right on your comment, #19
As a constituent of a nominally conservative district in California, I'm actually pretty happy with this. California Democrats have been lax in their voting practices, as have Republicans, who believe that California is a given in Presidential elections for the Democratic party. Now, not only will candidates visit the entirety of the most populous state in the nation, but the constituents will actually have to (gasp) vote for the candidate they want to win!
Yes, it's bullshit that the Republicans did this to pick up 20 electoral votes. But the Democrats in Texas (#2 most populous state) should respond in kind, doing exactly the same thing to even the field and pick up a corresponding number of votes for their party.
It's not evil partisan politics, IMHO. It's a move to give a more balanced representation in the electoral college than currently exists, and should be done nationwide.
the junta carnies are always thinking of new ways to fleece the country
This will get nowhere. The state legislature will be against it and it would greatly diminish the importance of California in the national race.
Colorado was considering a similar tactic then they became a swing state in the previous election and everyone decided it was a bad idea.
Good for California, honestly. It's a step in the right direction. Now what needs to happen is, yeah, for the other 49 states to do the same.
Though I would rather have direct voting, with multiple choices of candidates (1st choice, 2nd choice, and so on), where the candidate with the least first choices gets eliminated, and so on.
As others have posted, proportional representation instead of a winner take all electoral college is a good thing, but it has to be Nation wide or else it's just an attempt to rig the election.
Personally, I really like instant runoff voting and would love to do away with the Electoral College entirely.
http://fairvote.org/
pissed off patricia @ 22:
Thank you very much indeed. I meant it.
Mauro @ 26:
Maine and Nebraska already do it, so it's really 47 states.
The best argument against this is that it would set off a continuing battle within each state to redistrict or reset the boundaries of congressional districts in order to provide one party a numerical advantage. So, redistricting would be done, as it was by Delay in Texas, to not only enhance the power of each party in the House but also in the presidency. If the objective is to further divide the nation, this would be throwing fuel on the fire.
Hell, if it were actually based on what people wanted, poor Republicans would never get elected.
So what now? What do we do? Who do we contact?
Let Texas adopt that system first.
Only afterwards should Californians should consider.
The Cons will do anything to remain in power. Even when it means further corruption of the system they claim to champion.
Doesn't the standard have to be the same for all 50 states? If we are going to alter the system, why not just go by the popular vote. This has been talked about for years and is the purest form of democracy. That way, every vote actually goes to the candidate it was cast for.
Kevin @ 23:
This is what is known as a lie. He does support making democracy work better, he does want better representation. He wants the Rethugs to win. Thats it - thats all.
There is an initiative that if passed in enough states, 30 something I think, or enough big states, would allocate all state electoral votes to the winner of the NATIONAL general presidential popular vote country-wide -- and NOT the result of that states LOCAL statewide vote for president.
Under this system even if only a subset of states passes this - the winner of the popular vote nation-wide would be guaranteed enough electoral votes to win and become president. This would be an end run around the problem of changing the constitution to remove the electoral college. It just puts States in control of the electoral delegates and votes.
As I remember, and I'd love the help, many states have already passed this law, which only comes into effect if enough states pass the law.
This is the system, the method, and the outcome we want. Easy to put in effect democratic reform that means real change, real representation and end to the crime of the electoral college. And it does so without being forced to beg the "giant dirt states without people" to please, please, honor democracy.
Can some-one tell me how this project is doing, how many more states need pass it, where states are in passing it, etc.
What happened to the initiative that was being heralded last year to by-pass the electoral college altogether? If I remember correctly, the big states were considering passing laws that gave their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote nationwide. The law would only kick in when a majority of the electoral college votes were in states that had passed the law. Seems to me, the GOP is just trying to stop that little ditty from passing and skewing it so that what they can't win by respectable means they win through manipulation. But, that's nothing new, witness the past 30 years.
xargaw @ 35:
Nope.
Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..."
"...but this article doesn’t make me feel better about amending it."
AMENDING IT? Get rid of it all together. It kicks "one person one vote" right in the private bits. Just like Diebold 'Voting' Machines.
The as suggested above Electoral College System should be abolished in favor of a direct, popular election, just like the system we use to elect our members of congress. The Electoral College System is one of the most undemocratic features in our constitution. It is an error prone system, riddled with inequality.
When we vote for these Electors in the national presidential election, we usually don't know who these electors are. Often, these electors don't even show up to cast their electoral ballot, and someone else is chosen to cast it. Electors are free agents. Yes, some states do have laws against an elector casting a deviant ballot, but no elector in the history of this nation has ever been prosecuted for doing so, as far as I know. Yet deviant elector voting has occurred in 8 of the last fourteen presidential elections. So the electors we vote for can and do vote the way they choose, not the way we elected them to.
In most states, the names of these electors are not even on the ballot we cast. In some states, the ballot does not even have the term "electors of" on them, just the name of the presidential candidates.
If that isn't bad enough, a contingient election, as provided for in the XII Ammendment, is even more unfair and undemocratic. I won't get into it.
One day, I hope to vote for my president, but unless Article II of the constitution is ammended further, I never will.
Heloo agian,
We are in deeper constitutional DOOOOO-DOOOOO than any of you are really ready to accept.
Waiting for the Dem congress to do any thing is redicluos.
The real problem is: so long as none of you has to fight and or die the issue is hypothetical.
Kevin @ 23:
As a blue voter in a red state, I can understand where you're coming from on this one. I feel like my vote doesn't REALLY count. Though we are becoming more of a swing state. On the other hand, I feel like the only way to fix this is to get rid of the Electoral College and go to a popular vote. That would fix the problem of people like us not really having a vote, among other things. However, if you just split a state's electoral votes like this, as another commenter already pointed out, you're going to see states redistricting like crazy to insure that blue state electoral votes stay blue, and vice versa.
As a closing note, one of the other problems with the electoral college is how unevenly it represents the people of a state. Someone I know went through and looked at electoral votes per capita. I don't remember the specifics but I do remember a resident of a lower population state(Montana I believe) has their vote counted 2x compared to a California resident.
Rigging elections is hard work.
Yes, does anyone have a solid answer as to how California could do this? It seems to me that the presidential elections are federal elections and therefore not subject to changes made by the states. I don't care for the electoral college system, but it would have to be amended or done away with on the national level by constitutional amendment and not state by state.
Remember when the Repugs ribbed Kerry for only using the riggings on his sailboat?
To say these fascist pig Republics are undemocratic is a gross understatement.
The electoral college will always be fucked with as long as it is an opportunity to take votes cast for one candidate and shift them to another. When will our votes get counted?
Maintaining democracy is hard work!
Those of us who believe in the concept of true representative government have been excepted long ago!
This needs to change!
I was in Boston not long ago. I read the names of the men who died on Breeds Hill.
They were not many, but we hold a debt to them that we do not honor now!
re: #25
the article said that it was a "ballot initiative" which means that it's trying to bypass the state legislature. It's one of the crazy ways we do things in CA. What to do? Influence the voters of California.
Why don't we use direct democracy? Because we don't want to vote on the zillion things our reps vote on every day. That said, it is really nutty to take the ONE THING the whole country votes on and "protect" us from a direct vote. A friend once argued that we needed the electoral college to keep the big states from ganging up on the little states. I asked him to describe the scenario where Texas, New York and California got together and elected a president that could somehow shortchange the small states and cater to the biggies. It is a joke to consider that as something that might happen. I always compare it to college basketball coaches voting on how many timeouts they can call at the end of a game. Even though they are equally likely to get burned by manipulating the clock as to take advantage, they always think they can work it to produce a win. Neither party wants to give up that leverage until they are on the short end of the lever.
If you can't win under the rules as written - cheat as in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 or change the rules as in California in 2008.
Silly folks, we are not a democracy, no matter how many times our leaders say so or we think it. We are a Republic with democratic tendencies and procedures, but not a true democracy.
We cast ballots for our Representatives. The Founding Fathers thought that was fine. But, since most were landowners and, well, the 1700s had their own way of doing things, because these guys didn't really want mob rule (see current GOP to figure out why), most decided that the state legislatures would elect Senators to the Senate. This chamber is so much more dignified. That changed over time, so that Senators now are directly elected by the People (who happen to show up and are allowed to vote).
But the Big Cheese, well, he's special. You vote and it gets counted so that the people the 2 political parties decide get to vote in the Electoral College vote get an idea of what their vote should be. It's not one man (or woman), one vote. It's vote and we'll see what happens. Some states do have penalties for not voting properly, but I don' t know of any that get to do over their vote (could be wrong there).
It's not democracy, but we've been saying it so long who's going to believe otherwise. We should teach our children more history and civics in elementary and high school. it can be useful later in life.
Excuse me, but you're putting words into my mouth, and doing it poorly at that. Yes, I do support making democracy work better, and yes, I do want better representation (I think you were looking for a couple "n't"s there, yes?) I do NOT want Republicans to win, and if this passes will work my ass off to help the Democratic party in the 26th district, going even so far as to run against juggernaut Dreier if I can get party support.
Your disagreement with me on the merits of this proposal doesn't make automatically make me a liar. And if you continue to claim so, I've no problem talking to you offline and arranging a time and place to settle this properly.
I am in a quandry. I have lost faith in the political system I was raised to believe in. I dont believe my goverment has my best interest at heart. And as a soldier in the first gulf war I am disheartened by the lack of care available for soldierrs of this war.
I AM VERY ANGRY
cobalt @ 43:
Not with Diebold on your side;
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/5015111.html
I am from the great state of California and I can say that NO, republican can win in that state and yes I am saying that even though Democrats were not into the Governorship in 2006, Arnold only won because of the black boxes as most all republicans are winning now days across the states. They have those machines planted all over California and that bastard who was the President of the Republican National Committee, came to this State with a gang of republican criminals staked out in every prescient, along with these ignorant supporters that were playing all kinds of games with these elections and at the time these illegal events took place, I was a leading federal official (not over the elections process, but the info was brought to my attention and I did take the time to ck on it and it was true) in a community that was in fact right wing all the way, however these people were controlling the voting process and managed to destroy any vote that came into the prescient, that was not for this right wing administration away. This shit was and continues to go on in every state.
Make no mistake about it folks. The only reason we made out in 2006 is because we came out in record numbers, but do you think that is going to make a difference in 2008?. You are crazy if you do. They now know that they must feed these machines more votes then they anticipated last election and they continue to have Attorney General Gonzales in office and the right wing Rupert Murdock media in play to make it go away.
When are you folks going to wake up and smell the coffee?. The republicans are not going to win anything unless they steal it and you continue to rely on poll numbers that are pushed in your faces by right wing media lunatics, in addition to that the polls do not include people of color, whom happen to be the largest pool of voters, providing you allow us that dame right.
The elected officials are not the only people that should be blamed for the mess this country is in.
I am calling on American citizens all over this country to wake all the way up and see this shit for exactly what it is
You are not getting any kind of truth from national media of any kind and that includes your local news stations and your local papers, all have been targets of this administration to make sure no truth is heard and the poll numbers you get also come from these people and I don't give a dame if they do put Dem's on top. They have no other choice in the matter as 80% of the country understand there is something very wrong in this country under this administration even though they are not getting the whole details.
American people are going to have to kick Congress out of the dame way and take control of this voting process like we know it needs to be done. I sick of these people not paying attention to real Americans, who have been way ahead of all of them from the very start of this Bush shit. We are losing our country and distroying any kind of decent life for our children fooling around with these people who are playing games with honor and truth and all of them that fit this bill, know and understand who the hell I am talking about. They need to pack their asses up and get the hell out of office so we can get our country back or the the dame job. This is not a free for all as many of them are making it.
We need to prepare to stake out in front of every Sate Officials office that have anything to do with voting, with protest signs and demands they make sure that the process to which they control is not going to be a problem in any way.
We need to demand that each and eve vote is processed and counted and NONE, are wasted or thrown away period.
We want to demand that paper ballots are available for all of us who want them and each of these ballots should be numbered for any kind of machine used to record the information at the very least so that if we experience any kind of problem in that district, the people can come forth with their copy bearing the numbers that should be in that machine.
We really want paper ballots in all the States is what we need so that we have a paper record to re-count when necessary.
These people are playing us for the biggest fools in town, by refusing to do anything with this voting shit and I am personally tired of it . These bastards know that black and brown people in record numbers do not support any of the policies they spew and they are also mindful of the very fact that we control the voting numbers that is going to reach out and slap the shit out of all of them, which is the main reason they are pulling this shit in California which is the dominate State and will not ever be foolish enough to elect any Republican.
The above crap they are now trying to pull, should make every American in this country understand why the hell they will fight to keep Attorney General Gonzales in office with the current gang of prosecuters that will commit any crime they are directed to commit, by George Bush and Karl Rowe.
We need some smart leaders in Congress and Senate, that are going to learn how to fight these bastards with all they have. They need to get in the faces of these old lying ass greedy, power hungry bastards and shut all of them down and most of all stop paying attention to CNN and Fox News and all of this other Rupert Murdock controlled media.
Any Democrat that puts IMPEACHMENT, on the table needs to be very worried about their position. There is no question about it that Bush and his entire administration need to be removed from office and at the very least STOP, giving this bastard our money to F up with this illegal war. The only funding he should get is to bring our kids home period and we are going to be all over any of them that votes to give this fool any dame more to F up.
Tired as hell of this shit
There is no sane defense of the electoral college. We need to ditch it in favour of a simple alternative-popular vote wins-i.e the quaint idea of democracy.
Is it really that fucking hard for people to understand? Who can really defend this archaic system and not be against democracy?
NONE OF YOU ARE WLLING TO STAND THE COURAGE OF YOUR CONVICTIONS. I INCLUDE MYSELF.
BUT EACH DAY THAT GOES BY MAKES ME BOLDER AND ANGRIER
And by the way FUCK YOU CALIFORNIA For rejecting Grey Davis in the first place. You dumb fucks were taken in by enron AND let it affect your politicks. Shame on you
ARNOLD SCHWARTZNEGGER. ARE FUCKING SERIOUS!
YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY!!!!!
CALIFORINIA UBER ALLES, CALIFORNIA UBER ALLES
Hard to believe that Jerry Brown was the target of that song!
Or maybe not
There's more to standing up and having the courage of your convictions that just rising up in arms, which appears to be what some people are suggesting. While I do like Jefferson's idea that every generation should have its own revolution, it's really impractical for orderly society. Right now we have a process. Only about 50% of the population participates in the process. Oh, its rigged. Oh, it sucks. Oh, whatever.
If you're lurking around here, feeling pissed off and have never voted or gotten involved in any cause having meaning to you, get off your ass and do so NOW. Call your fucking Congressman, woman, child. Call your Senator. Call your state representatives. Tell them you've been paying attention and like X, Y or Z and hate A, B or C. If everyone took the time to get involved in whatever makes them tick and took the politicians to task when they ruffled those feathers, life would be much better for all. The evil corporations hire people to do this. Ordinary folks have to do it themselves. Like all the other let the consumer-choice bullshit the GOP and companies spew out, it takes time and energy. But, hey, living takes time and energy and most of us spend it on our ass anyway.
To quote John Lydon, "anger, is an energy" Use it
get rid of all electoral votes. president should be voted on by popular vote just like in most republics.
po @ 63:
YYYYYEEEEESSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Methinks moving stealthily would prove difficult in jack-boots.
I have a job that allows me many days off at a time. I want to spend this time restoring our represntative government to what it should be.
I AM AN AMERICAN;and I believe our country can DO so much better.
I know you are all so much smarter than me. You folks know about the democratic process, but I have news,smartypants,THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY
there's only what you, and the other 300 million or so of us, make.
Juba @ 57:
Well, the Founding Fathers created the system. Are you saying THEY were against democracy?
mister mix @ 64:
AMEN!
Swashbuckler @ 69:
The problem is that the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned mass media as it exists today. The electoral college was created to give smaller states a bigger voice in the elections: the fear was that candidates would focus their attention on larger states (then Virginia and New York), campaign there, and ignore the smaller states. The Fathers did (wisely) permit us to amend the Constitution -- now is a good time to act.
Well, Swashbuckler, although I wasn't the original author I guess I'd say that. Giving props where props are due, for their time, the Founders were for wide open democracy, but only as to white, landowning males. That was their paradigm. Women and minorities (i.e. the native population of what they called America and slaves -- free or otherwise) weren't invited to that democratic free-for-all.
Over time, things change. It's the way life evolves. Its what makes the GOP faithful fearful and most other people insane (either because it happens too quick or not quick enough).
And, there's no reason why a perfectly good, yet archaic, system can't be improved upon. Unless of course you're a purported strict constructionist (but those don't really exist, they just hide behind that label)
Overtime, our values have changed.
I think our Founding Fathers tended to be Aristotelian in the view of national polity. Aristotle considered democracy to be a corrupt government of everyone voting their personal interests, and not what was best for the collective. Our Founding Fathers feared what they called mobocracy, laws passed by whoever could collect the largest mob. The French Reign of Terror probably cemented that attitude.
Of course the repubs can win in 2008, both in Congress and the White House.
Corporate money and religious stupidity will join forces again, and will likely prevail. Over the last several decades, I can count on one hand the times that combination has failed.
Oh, christ. Who ever thought it wouldn't be this way since 2000 is a delusional pollyana.
The only way they can have government positions is to steal their way in. It's the same.
ysbaddaden @ 73:
Bingo!
The Founding Fathers were well aquainted with Aristotle's Politics, and there is no way that they would have wanted the idiot masses to have too much power.
Swashbuckler @ 69:
YES! The founding fathers were for against democracy for non White Male Landowners.
The Electoral system is a completely outdated system. It was put in place when the population of the US was largely centralized in a few northern states, and when there was no good way for individual candidates to effectively campaign outside their own region. The obvious results in a popular election under those circumstances is that for the first many decades of this nation's history, we would have had presidents only from New York, the most populated state in those times. Big states would be able to elect their homeboys while candidates from smaller states wouldn't have had a chance. And since back then you had to be a white, male landowner to vote, the southern states were at a disadvantage. Therefore, the Electoral system balanced that out and gave all the regions a more or less equal standing in national elections.
But now, with major population centers scattered all around the nation, and with a fairly even mix of liberal/conservative representation across the nation (look for that purple rather than red state/blue state map), AND with national media, all the reasons for maintaining the Electoral system have gone. The only thing left is tradition.
It simply needs to go away. Sometimes change is good.
Swashbuckler @ 69:
I don't think the Founding Fathers thought their newly crafted system would be twisted beyond recognition by a faction of murderous religious extremists who would trash and paint the document with their own feces, either.
equilibrio @ 77:
The founding fathers did approve the system during the constitutional Convention of 1797, but they recognized that it was flawed.
The the deliberations of the committee charged with devising a way to choose a Chief Executive were problematic and full of uncertainty. During the debate the options of direct elections, legislative vote and an electoral college were all considered. As these issues were mulled over, a series of votes and deliberations continued over a period of fourteen weeks. Ironically, an Electoral College proposal was initially voted on and went down in defeat. On the same day, June 3, 1787, a vote to select the president by the national legislature was approved. That vote was reconsidered a week later. In all, there would be sixteen formal votes approving, reconsidering or disapproving various proposals. Ultimately, the delegates twice voted against an electoral college and once to reconsider approval of an electoral college. Finally, on September 7th, the delegates formally approved the Electoral College plan for selecting the president. By that time, they were running out of time and were at their wits end. So they threw up their hands, so to speak, and figured that it would have to do. Simply put, the Constitutional Convention could barely come to a consensus on any system and did a rush job on it.
One need only listen to the words of Thomas Jefferson. In 1823, after being elected President in a contingent election as set forth in the XII Amendment, he had this to say, “I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election ultimately by the legislature voting by states as the most dangerous blot on our constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit.” He was speaking of the contingient election, which an element of the Electoral College System.
Obviously, the founding fathers knew it was deeply flawed.
Well if nothing else, republicans have proven to be pretty good at this stealthiness shit.. (hey got to given them the credit they are due).... As for truthiness??.. Ehh not so much.....JD
crazylove @ 75:
Whenever an election looms the repugs plop a dose of the Date Rape Drug into the waterglasses of every democrat and proceed to rape the country. That way they can openly, even casually drag us into the next 6 months of news cycles of the horror stories born after the next election theft.
Just watch, the dems will predictably DO NOTHING PROACTIVELY thus assuring another four years of misery.
Just curious. What additional evidence are we waiting for to take matters into our own hands. we cannot expect change unless we do it ourselves.
I have been saying this since the 2004 election- In 2000 they stole Florida, In 2004 they targeted Ohio, In 2008, it will be California.
The Republicans gave up trying to win the hearts and minds of Americans back in the 1980's, and put their efforts into just winning the elections.
ysbaddaden @ 3:
If the Repugs legalize pot....... assuming they start to indulge in the herb superb, there will be .......... no more Repugnicants.
Kevin @ 23:
Electoral votes wouldn't be based on who constituents voted for. It will be based a given party from winning a congressional district.
This will just discourage more from voting. Because it's the California politicians who lay out the districts. And they are bi-partisan when it comes to gerrymandering districts to maintain a status quo between the 2 parties.
Changing the rules just give more power to GOP and Democratic parties.
You all don't seem to have read the article. The Dem's are doing it in North Carolina, too. There should be national rules governing national elections. Each state should do it the same way. Either electoral college votes are done at the state level, or at the congressional district level . . . or preferably not at all in a nationwide popular election.
Don't worry too much about us out here in California. During the last election, most of the GOP candidates (including the Terminator) omitted any indication of party affiliation from their advertising. The local GOP headquarters did the same.
This was the home state of Nixon and Reagan. Now, thanks to Pete Wilson and lil' george, we're true blue.
Why Republiscums cannot win legitimately.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4lftBQcBCo
Wow. Lots of opinions. Assuming that the initiative is placed on ballot, and then assuming it passes (it may not) the next hurdle is from all of the other states that will either want the same or want the opposite. So the initiative will be stayed while the courts sort everything out. While it may be exciting to focus on the worst possible outcome from the tidbit of information thrown at us, reality suggests that something between heaven and hell will occur.
If in fact the electoral college had been representative rather than winner take all in 2000 our present and our future would be very different indeed.
Yeah... the electoral college is more screwed up than most people believe. Most people believe that each state tallies their votes, and the candidate with the most votes wins the seats for that state. However, each state has their own rules and get this... the votes that are reported don't even have to match actual election results!
Yep... whoever reports the votes for that state can vote for any damned candidate they want regardless of what that state's election results are! In fact, this did happen sometime in the early part of the 20th century, when one state's reps voted for the candidate that lost the state.
There are a couple of states that do split their votes according to which districts won, but they only have a few votes to the college (I think Maine is one such state). There needs to be solid rules that should apply to all states or the whole electoral college system needs to be scrapped. It has been broken for too long.
Repeat after me, it's called "Compromised Morals". It's how you be a Republican and convince yourself that you're the good guy.
also, see DoubleThink
ThingFish@85,
"This will just discourage more from voting. Because it’s the California politicians who lay out the districts. And they are bi-partisan when it comes to gerrymandering districts to maintain a status quo between the 2 parties."
Rest assured the repugs are not doing this in the name of "fairness". Their testing ground was Texas. They're preparing something else to take votes, and we know from experience it is a laying of groundwork to fuck us over.
We should all be pushing for this reform in every state. Democrats would pick up votes in the Midwest just like Republicans would on the coasts. States like Ohio and Florida who have swayed the election the last couple of times wouldn't seem so powerful if electoral votes were awarded proportionately, and it would throw a wrench into the damn exit polling that keeps some people home as the news media calls winners before polls close.
hap @ 93:
Who's kidding who. We'll take the old fashioned people's vote which the repugs know they can't get because most constituents are onto their game. The game is too long a list. It's the repugs way of not fucking off when the people want them fired.
I think that we could go a long way towards fixing a lot of the problems in our country by increasing the size of the House of Representatives. It used to be that the size of the house would be periodically increased as population went up and that ended when the size of the House was fixed.
Since then, the House, which is barely larger than the state assembly for the state of New Hampshire, has grown so that nearly 700,000 people are representative by one Member, a huge step over the original Constitutionally-mandated maxim of one Representative per 30,000.
At that rate, we would have a House with 10,000 members! I can agree that is too many. Yet I also believe that where we are now is way too few; it could easily be increased by a factor of two or three and it would be incredibly beneficial.
First of all, imagine the current legislative districts cut into halves or thirds or smaller, with progressive areas getting their very own representative, conservatives another, instead of one person attempting to meet the often widely divergent needs of such areas.
Since the Electoral College is based on the number of Representatives plus the number of Senators, by increasing the size of the house, you have made the electoral college vastly more democratic.
And none of this solution would require an Constitiutional changes or Amendments, just for the Congress to increase the size of the House, which is probably going to be hard to get them to do.
I think it would fix so many problems, it is worth talking about.
[...] Clark Contact the Webmaster Link to Article dick cheney Republicans Move To Stealthily Steal Electoral Votes » Posted at Crooks [...]
Text of the proposed initiative -- http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/2007-07-17_07-0032_Initiative.pdf.
What a ridiculous post. Every state has the right to determine how they assign their electoral votes. Why should we have a winner take all system? The Dems should be trying to get red states to split their votes too. (Oh, and that Hacking Democracy video is garbage. It is already been disproved, so why are you posting it here?).
YeahRight @ 97:
You must be referring to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre-Style redistricting..Hmmmm?
Our memories are not that short.
mrsisk @ 86:
Were trying to do it in North Carolina. The NC GOP sent out a self congratulatory email today bragging about how the issue was stopped.
Look, this is nothing new and it's not illegal. States are allowed to decide their own election laws. There are already a couple of states that do the proportional electoral vote thing. California is just the first mega-state and first mega-state that leans decidedly one way or the other, in this case blue, that's contemplated doing this. However, it just points up the fact that all serious reformers point out: You can't do it piecemeal; either everyone goes proportional or you just make it that much more unfair, and the winner-take-all states have that much more power. A big state like California is only going to make things worse for its citizens -- and the rest of us, too -- by going this route alone. And does anyone seriously think it's possible in a few years or so to push this sort of thing -- or any single issue -- through in 47 STATES?? Unless every state is singing from the same hymnbook the result is not going to be fair. Unless there's some way to mandate this nationally all at one time it actually makes the EC more unfair because the minority voters in the winner-take-all states get doubly screwed if their candidate is the winner in a non-winner-take-all state, especially a big one like California.
Personally, I'd rather see the whole thing abolished. Otherwise, we're just rearranging the deck chairs on the EC Titanic and confusing the hell out of people at the same time. The more complicated the formula the easier it will be for the devious and the bureaucrats to mess with it. Marbotty has it right above. Whatever sense the EC made in 1789, in a loosely allied set of states with poor communications and transportation and very "tribal" in their identifications and with clear differences in viewpoint and need, it makes little sense now in a country that you can crisscross in a matter of hours and easily live in half a dozen states over your lifetime, in an age in which you can carry on spirited discussions with Australians and Zimbabweans on the Internet and many of our parochial differences have been smoothed out through common national media like television and Hollywood, not to mention Madison Avenue, and with an economy that's not just national but international in its scope so that we're all affected not only by what happens in another state clear across the country but by what happens in another country or region clear across the world.
And I seldom see anyone make this argument, but it seems the most obvious to me, maybe because I've spent so much time as a lone blue fish in a sea of red: Why do we elect national leaders by state?? (I mean rhetorically, philosophically; I know why factually: because it was set up that way) I don't vote for the f'ing president of Alabama when I vote for president, nor did I vote for the president of California or New Jersey when I lived there. And I'm not voting for the president of the South or of the West Coast or of the Northeast. It's immaterial to me which state or region I live in when it comes to voting on national issues and national candidates (though I think it well behooves the people of this country to live in more than one state or region in their lifetimes; it would probably broaden their political perspective, so that at least you're thinking of how something might affect a wide and diverse range of people and places). And what's so magical about a state as a unit of identification anyway? I live in Mobile. I have much more in common with people on the Florida Panhandle, the Mississippi Gulf Coast and New Orleans than I do with people in Tuscaloosa and Huntsville. Katrina and FEMA are big issues with me. They might be a blip on the radar for someone in Birmingham who's not personally affected by hurricanes or doesn't have a cultural affinity for a city like New Orleans or doesn't have relatives in Biloxi or friends in Pensacola. Most people in New York City probably have more in common with Boston or Philadelphia than they do with people in Buffalo or some small town in rural New York state.
People have all sorts of identifications and experiences and needs that inform their votes, and for me, what state I come from, or even what region I come from, is way down on the list. I didn't change my voting habits when I moved from the South to the West to the Northeast and back to the South. My essential principles when it comes to politics don't depend on where I live. It galls me that my vote in Alabama means zip zilch nada and wouldn't even if we came one vote shy of a blue outcome. And it would take more than one like-minded blue voter in New Jersey to equal the relative clout of one red voter in North Dakota, even though New Jersey's a pretty big state with lots of electoral votes and North Dakota is a much smaller state with a much smaller population. And if I were a conservative in California, New York or Massachusetts I'd be equally ticked off, especially in races that got pretty close.
Why not a novel concept? How about a national election where everyone's individual vote is sought after and valued? How about candidates having to worry about blue or red voters everywhere and not game the system by figuring out the least amount of effort to spend in clusters of states to do the electoral college math? I think you'll find that states and even regions are not the monoliths we think them to be. The system as it is encourages this viewpoint and probably discourages enough voters to make a difference. Let the North vs. South and coasts vs. flyovers and urban vs. nonurban interests fight their battles in Congress. The president should be president of all, not just the handful of states that make up his EC strategy -- whatever that may be, the combination that delivers a Republican outcome or the combination that delivers a Democratic outcome. Why can't they try appealing to people on issues they believe in and can articulate no matter what part of the country they're in? Even the reddest states have 40+% blue populations, and the reverse is also true -- and those percentages might get higher if we ever held a truly national election in which everyone's vote was as important as the next guy's and your blue vote in Mobile becomes as important as a blue vote in Manhattan or Santa Monica or your red vote in Manhattan is as important as a red vote in Dallas or Salt Lake City. Those people deserve representation, too. Put all those votes together instead of handicapping them by state affiliation and you'll get a clearer idea of national opinion, and it might surprise some people.
I don't like it unless all states go the same way. There are alot of things I'd do to change the electoral system starting with making election day a national holiday. It only took me 2 minutes to vote before I was off to work. However had I been in Ohio, it might have taken me 7 hours.
How can they even do this? Shouldn't all the states follow the same rules in a federal election? God, what will these coniving assholes come up with next? The electoral college sucks anyway.
Gee. Look at ALL THESE NEW BLOGGERS, suddenly appearing like roaches after dark in a barrio.
They know oh, so well, that an honest election by the people with traceable votes is going to get their favorite THUG cleaning out his/her desks and out of a job.
Repugs AND your creepy minions are like a gas creeping under our doors.
You people make me puke. Into the microwave freaks. (but we know they just keep going and going and going)
As a Californian, I'm not sure I'm overly concerned by this. The issue will properly be framed in this Democratic state as a "Republicans want change the rules and take your votes" ruse. Not that it can't pass, but I have to assume it'd very much be an uphill battle for the Republicons. Let 'em waste their money supporting it!
@104 if you knew, you'd be pretty upset. Rethugs will try to beat down this door, year in year out. They do it until they can sneak it into some bill package (which prior to 11-06 prevented congress from reading by not giving them enough time). They do what they do for a reason unrelated to the wellbeing of their constituents. Every manner of corruption is literally dripping from the trees in a thick sticky ooze.
To view this as a casual event is a huge huge mistake. Remember what I said.
TC-14, you yourself are no doubt among the gasous gases.
What I expect are swarms of signature takers ask to sign the initiative to permit "popular" vote decide where electoral votes go. You'll be asked to sign because 'all or nothing isn't fair, it's not democratic (you're a democrat right?) And 2 other states already do it!' And other non-pertinent goads.
Then there will be a bunch of stories about the electoral college, it's history, controversy, and "unfairness". With a bunch of editorials on how California has always been a more "progressive" state in such matters.
(I hope this vision is just a piece of undigested bit of beef.)
Thing Fish @ 107:
No, Thing. You've digested it alright. Somebody open a window.
Are you a Ginsu Knife salesman by day?
done. have a restless night's sleep, no more, and please go back to your cages.
107. has it right, unfortunately. As a former Californian, I've seen way too much deception and propaganda and abuse of the initiative process to trust it as far as I can throw it. It's another of those things that in theory sound marvelously democratic but in practice have become a tool of the powerful to maintain their power. This proposal could so easily be spun to sound like something it isn't and fool the inattentive sheeple.
Of course, the Reptilians realize they can't win the popular vote.
They can only win if they
a) cheat (with push-polling, Swift-Boating, intimidating minorities, underfunding Democratic polls, etc.)
b) rig the vote (by rigging the Diebold machines, tossing votes, redistricting, or splitting the electoral votes of big states)
The problem is this: California is a given for the Dems.
The only way they can continue to win (with the most populous states leaning Democrat) is to somehow squeak out an electoral vote here and there (as they did in the last couple races).
And if you want to do that, you don't go after a Reptilian state (which would rob THEIR electoral votes). You go after a Democratic state, particularly a big one like California.
This is exactly the technique—initiatives—they used to install Arnie. They got enough signatures (the threshold is low in such a populous state...all it takes is a lot of money). They deceived the people (blaming Gray Davis for the energy "crisis," when we now are very aware it was created by Cheney and Enron). Then they got a recall election (which is bound to be a popularity contest).
DON'T BUY IT. Once the 47 other states do it, then California can safely join in. Until then, it's only going to diminish the power of California.
1. A 2004 California poll put it closer than I anticipated:
47% Winner Take All, 42% Proportional Vote
http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Release2144.pdf
2. That said, "As a practical matter, this system (proportional vote) would be very difficult to implement...It is usually not in the interest of an individual state to switch to a method of proportional allocation because it reduces that state's influence in the Electoral College."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College''
3. As of 2004 (and currently?), 48 states and D.C. still had Winner Take All. There's no tidal waves of successful state initiatives adopting proportional voting, California or otherwise.
4. Colorado Amendment 36 (proportional voting) was handily defeated 66% to 34% in 2004.
5. "If such a (proportional voting) proposal did come before the voters in California, there would be a huge national campaign from Democrats to defeat it." California Democratic Party Chairman Art Tortes, 11-8-04
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_45_26/ai_n7635584
6. I'm not suggesting Republicons couldn't pull this off -- if they could pull off Dubya I & II, they certainly could sneak this one through. But if I was forced to bet my mortgage on it one way or another, I would certainly bet against it.
"Proportional voting" is just Rove's "secret math". Get things close to 50/50 on average nation wide and then you can focus your energy on the regional areas that are a toss-up.
Maine has 2 districts and 4 electoral college votes. Nebraska has 3 districts and 5 votes. California has and 53 districts and 55. Not really apples to an orange.
News Flash, "CrazyLove":
At about the same time you trash talked me as the "gaseous of gases," whatever the heck that is, you commented, "Rethugs will try to beat down this door, year in year out. They do it until they can sneak it into some bill package (which prior to 11-06 prevented congress from reading by not giving them enough time)."
Hate to tell ya, but it's up to the citizens and legislators of California to determine this issue, and Democrats handily control the California legislature. You seem to be confusing pre-11/06 GOP control in Washington with how Sacramento works. Republicons can't "sneak" anything into Sacramento or "prevent" Dems from reading bills there before voting -- DEMOCRATS CONTROL SACRAMENTO BY A WIDE MARGIN. You might want to bone up on these matters before jumping in feet-first with trash talkin' sarcasm.
BigD145 @ 15:
Except that business doesn't want anything to do with the Republicans. They're bad to do business with right now. I don't really think the "money talks" scenario is going to do much for the Republicans now. And I fully expect them to pull all of their familiar sleazy games that they have been addicted to for years. But, seriously, they're done. The consumer demographic is swinging very much so to the Democratic side. Business is thinking about how it's going to work around that, rather than hoping that they can keep the game going with a new Republican for 4 more years.
Doesn't still mean I'm not worried about something from out of nowhere coming to interrupt the sweet transfer of power from Bush to a Democrat...
Plimpie @ 40:
I made it this far, and need to respond:
At least someone realizes PART of the Constitution here. As you (and you alone to this point) seem to realize, Article II, Section 1 reads: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
That means, it's not bullshit. It's law. Over 200 year old law. There was neither a Republican nor Democrat Party when the law was written. Get over your stipidity, people.
As to your statement that the electoral college is undemocratic, and your implication the Constitution therefore is undemocratic - you're right. Why, it even says right in it: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,... (Ariticle IV, Section 4).
Complain about the laws all you want, but you don't live in a strict democracy (your third grade essay US History class was incomplete, you should have gone on and learned more).
All I can say is that Californians need to get this ballot initiative off the ballot or just vote NO. Thanks for this information. It goes to show how desperate the Republican Party is and the Republican Party can thank the "Destroyer in Chief" for dismembering its party. Ah, Busholini, both destroyer and uniter. This is the first time in a long time that the Democrats are united.
crazylove @ 94:
You do realize your response makes absolutely no sense, don't you? You've made assumptions about who or what I am that probably aren't true. You probably think I'm Republican and I'm not. I'm basically Libertarian with minor exceptions. I want this because it gives 3rd party candidates more visibility on the national stage. As it is, they get 0 electoral votes and aren't covered. What will it do to people's perceptions if they get some electoral votes? Maybe they'll change which would be a good thing in my opinion.
The whole idea of reforming the electoral college misses the point. Some day, some Republican or Democratic candidate will boldly pledge to refuse the presidency unless (s)he gets a majority of the popular vote, even if (s)he gets the college vote. His/her opponents will be under a tremendous pressure to emulate him/her and this will be the end of this stupid system.
In fact, had the founding fathers been able to foresee that all the states would basically delegate their votes to their individual voters, they most certainly would have scrapped the electoral college as an absurdity altogether.
Login or Register to post comments.