SFist: If You Can't Beat 'Em: Change the Rules

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 21:38:59 -0800

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!

Greg

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:41:19 -0800

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.

pantsgolem

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:32:22 -0800

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.

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:01:00 -0800

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.

mariconsoy

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:37:01 -0800

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.

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:02:42 -0800

Electoral college bullshit clearly has to be abolished - and should have been, decades ago! - just not one state at a time!

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:00:48 -0800

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.

Chaigrl

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:53:51 -0800

I find it disgusting, personally. http://povertybarn.typepad.com/povertybarn/

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:49:59 -0800

Sounds like a good plan. Go Republicans!

guest

Thu, 02 Aug 2007 14:36:41 -0800

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.