August 2, 2007
If You Can't Beat 'Em: Change the Rules
So California is pretty much a Blue State, right? And it'll probably be bluer than blue over the next few decades or so considering the Republicans have been hell-bent on pissing off every Hispanic voter lately, right? So what's a Republican to do to change all that? Better ideas? Better Presidents? Better wars? How's about changing the rules so that the Republicans can get some of that California's electoral gold.
Thomas Hiltachk, a Sacramento lawyer with connections to the California Republican Party, is working on getting an initiative on the 2008 ballot that'll divvy up California's electoral votes by congressional districts. So the presidential candidate who wins the congressional district will get one electoral vote for it. The only thing winning the state will get a candidate is just two votes, a pair of tickets to Great America, and a gift certificate to In N' Out Burger. Now while Democrats have more congressmen than Republicans, there are enough Republican congressional districts out there to throw up to twenty points a Republicans’ way. Considering the tightness of the past two elections and the South's inability to get a clue, those twenty votes could very possibly swing the election to whatever Republican runs. Those twenty votes, for instance, are the same as Ohio and as we all know Ohio was the difference in 2004. Which means that in 2008, the Republicans won't have to worry about stealing Ohio. Or maybe they still will.
Proponents of the bill are trying to get it put on the June 2008 ballot and since there's nothing really going on for that election, the turnout will be loooow. That could mean that whatever side has the more motivated voters could win and Republicans could be ultra-motivated pass this. To help sweeten the deal, they're also throwing in a lot of conservative red meat into this election, like the ole stand by, more gay bashing measures.
So far, Arnie has yet to weigh in on this.
|
When you say "South", I assume you're speaking of South Dakota which, UNLIKE every Dixie state, outlawed abortion even in the event of rape and incest.
If anyone needs a clue, it's the whole country, not just Southerners. Californians shouldn't be so smug, especially when it's the prison guards' union calling the shots in Sacto, not liberals.
California: First in Prisons, Last in Education.
Sounds like a good plan. Go Republicans!
I find it disgusting, personally.
http://povertybarn.typepad.com/povertybarn/
What's so disgusting about it? Doesn't it kind of suck that just 50%+1 votes is all it takes to award all of a state's electoral votes to one candidate? Would it be equally disgusting if this was proposed for Texas? Personally I think all states should adopt similar proposals.
Electoral college bullshit clearly has to be abolished - and should have been, decades ago! - just not one state at a time!
Yeah guest 4, nothing disgusting at all.
Ya know, kinda like the 2000 election when Gore won the most votes, but a Baby Jane Hudson faced [Harris] in Florida did all she could to throw the election to Shitscum Bush.
Oh, forgot to mention the activist judges that the Republicans hate so much except when it's the 5 right wing cretins on the supreme court.
It's hard to say whether awarding electoral votes by congressional district (for all states) is more fair, because those districts are drawn by whichever party is in control after each Census.
But it's definitely not fair to make this change just for CA. It's one of those things people will pretend is being done for a legitimate long-term reason, but is really all about tilting the 2008 presidential election towards the R's.
What [7] said. The electoral system is broken, but this would only break it more -- splitting the vote in California when other large states still go by all-or-nothing is immensely unfair.
The presidential election is definitely one of those issues where "states' rights" just mucks things up.
there have been so many half-assed attempts by states to screw up the electoral college, it is no wonder it "doesn't work."
the point of the EC was to act as a check on the power of the "mob" and the idea was that in a case such as 2000, where no matter if Gore or Bush won, anyone coming out of that was going to be a 50% president, the EC (if it wasn't hamstrung by every state passing strange laws to hamstring its abilities by placing conditions on the electors) could have stepped in and acted as a referee.
remember, up until the early 1900s Senators weren't even elected (and Im' not so sure that's a bad idea anymore ,given all the campaign finance corruption). so to, the EC was created as a firewall against the rule of the mob.
sounds bad, but it really is a good idea. this idea sounds great on paper but given the crazy gerrymandering in this state, I'd say it's bogus.
Hell bent on pissing off HISPANIC's? as a hispanic you suck, I followed the rules applied for citizenship and came herre legally. F&*K the fence jumpers!
Its called Law and order stupid!