PDA

View Full Version : Presidential Election Reform Act (ballot initiative)


Pthfndr
09-08-2007, 8:15 PM
I'd like to hear what you have to say to say about this one.

What are your arguments for or against?

Explain either of the above please.

The text can be read here: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/2007-07-17_07-0032_Initiative.pdf

I know Bill W has some serious thoughts about this I'd like to hear explained in more detail.

Scarecrow Repair
09-08-2007, 8:48 PM
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

States sign up to the compact but it doesn't take effect until enough states have signed up to be a majority of the Electoral College. Once it takes effect, all those states' apportion their Electoral College votes proportional to their popular vote. Note: each state apportions their own Electoral College votes, they are not apportioned by all the signed-up states combined.

I'd actually prefer a constitutional amendment to just discard the Electoral College altogether, but the parties don't seem to like it as much whne they get into power as they did when out of power.

I don't like this amendment because it is cherry picking. Do all the states, or at least a majority, or none.

elenius
09-08-2007, 8:48 PM
EVERY state should do this. If only some do, it creates an unbalance. If this went through, then Texas and Florida should do it too, to make things even again. That is, if the republican minority in CA counts, then they will want to count the democratic minorities in the large republican states.

Which other two states do this now?

Of course, the best thing would be to get rid of the electors altogether and just go by direct popular vote, preferrably in a two round system, like in France and Finland for example.

CCWFacts
09-08-2007, 8:50 PM
'Tis a Republican power grab. I'm voting for it. Ultimately, all states should allocate electoral votes proportionately. If California alone does it, it hurts Democrats in a big way.

Long-term, what happens is that pres candidates (of both parties) don't even bother campaigning in "safe" states like CA. That's bad. They don't care about our concerns. This act would change that. Suddenly we'll see a lot of both candidates here. That's good.

For me, I really don't want to have President Clinton Part II or Pres. Obama. So I'm voting for this.

dfletcher
09-08-2007, 9:04 PM
The Electoral College requires that national candiadates run a national campaign and that is as it should be. Presidential election by popular vote - as is the proposal of (my) Republican Party in California - would encourage candidates to spend time only in those states which they believe they can do best and run up a huge plurality, thereby off setting losses in the many smaller states. Do we really want the Kerry, Gore, Clinton & Obama types focusing on and running up huge numbers in NYC, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Detroit, etc and negating the votes of folks in Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Wyoming, Maine, NH, etc?

With respect to CA specifically - this is defeatist politics. Let's face it, if Republicans had a chance of taking the state apportionment would not even come up. We have had for the most part Republican Governors, there is no reason why we can not as a state vote for a Republican President.

Maybe I'm out of touch - I still don't like Senators being directly elected either.

M. Sage
09-08-2007, 9:35 PM
'Tis a Republican power grab.

Then why has it been mentioned so favorably on NPR and in the Chronicle?

No state should do this. The people who wrote it need to learn how the country is supposed to work.

SemiAutoSam
09-08-2007, 9:39 PM
The country changed how it worked and how we worked with it some 137 or so years ago.

If you care to look into it the search terms are: Original Jurisdiction, senator, Congressman, Governor, ect. the act of 1871 also had something to do with how things changed in government and elections.

The years 1938 and 1944 also had something to do with the changes.

Back in the late 1800's and or early 1900's to vote you had to be an elector, This means you had to own land to vote this change happened around the same time as the jurisdictional change.



Then why has it been mentioned so favorably on NPR and in the Chronicle?

No state should do this. The people who wrote it need to learn how the country is supposed to work.

LAK Supply
09-08-2007, 9:57 PM
Back in the late 1800's and or early 1900's to vote you had to be an elector, This means you had to own land to vote this change happened around the same time as the jurisdictional change.

Own land? You mean you had to be a citizen with a vested interest in the country and not just somebody looking for a handout to vote? Why would anybody do this? :confused:

chris
09-08-2007, 9:57 PM
I'm against doing away with the electoral college. due to the fact i do not want to see states like this one deciding presidential elections. we know that most democrats and liberals live in the major cities. were this to happen we would only have liberal presidents and so on.

i do not think we should mess with this country that was bequeethed to us and change the electoral process. it will not serve us well let alone the people living in small states. i'm glad and mad that our vote president is a wasted but the rest of the states make up for it when a pro-gun president is elected. sound like single issue minded person? yes i'am for the fact for when the guns are taken away all rights are gone so after.

don't mess with the electoral college. it was given to us by wiser men than we have today. today we have opporunists who want to do something other than standing up for what they swore to defend. instead most subvert it.

SemiAutoSam
09-08-2007, 10:08 PM
When this change happened things started to decline in politics. Back then You had to have made something of yourself to be involved in picking a president and a senator state and federal. And If I remember correctly the federal and state governments were not incorporated either they were a real government of the people.

And each public servant had to swear a oath of office and was bonded as well its still suppose to be that way now but I dont think it is.

Of also attorneys had to actually be licensed as well and also swore an oath that was on the back of their bar card.

Own land? You mean you had to be a citizen with a vested interest in the country and not just somebody looking for a handout to vote? Why would anybody do this? :confused:

bwiese
09-08-2007, 10:53 PM
The Electoral College concept has, if not by design, a similar result/concept as having a bicameral legislature: one house (Congress) represents the varying populations while the other (Senate) assures each state has an equal measure of representation there.

The Electoral system allows smaller states votes to not be washed out by populous ones and gives their states more weight. While some may feel that may be unfair and it should be more population-based, it makes the election at least somewhat "election by region".

Little or none of the small/less populous states would ever go for electoral rejiggering: they wanna maintain their 'weight'. And this makes a constitutional amendment trying to address this similarly unreachable.

LAK Supply
09-08-2007, 11:09 PM
The electoral college has been perverted many times over the years. The issues started to arise with the 12A (IIRC) when the political parties got their hands on things. It's all been downhill since......:(

berto
09-08-2007, 11:13 PM
Great idea. It only works if it goes nationwide for consistency.

It's possible to win the presidency by winning the 11 largest states under the current system. Turnout hovers around 50%. 50%+1 vote of 50% turnout in the 11 largest states is hardly a mandate to rule. Higher turnout still doesn't provide a great mandate and a third party presence like Perot lowers the numbers.

The winner take all invalidates the vote of the losing side. It also means you're 20% home if you win California. Does this supposed clout mean anything to us, the California voter? We pay more taxes than we see returned in govt. services. Maybe because one side writes us off and the other takes us for granted. Make the candidates earn the votes congressional district by congressional district and maybe we get better government (I won't hold my breath).

This is called a power grab because it helps republicans right now. Reverse the end result and the two parties switch arguments.

Essentially the result mirrors the House results with bonus votes going to the candidate that carried the state. When is competition a bad thing?

elenius
09-09-2007, 12:34 AM
The Electoral College concept has, if not by design, a similar result/concept as having a bicameral legislature: one house (Congress) represents the varying populations while the other (Senate) assures each state has an equal measure of representation there.

The Electoral system allows smaller states votes to not be washed out by populous ones and gives their states more weight. While some may feel that may be unfair and it should be more population-based, it makes the election at least somewhat "election by region".

Little or none of the small/less populous states would ever go for electoral rejiggering: they wanna maintain their 'weight'. And this makes a constitutional amendment trying to address this similarly unreachable.

The proposed law has nothing to do with Congress representation, does it? You would still have the 2 senators per state, to ensure each state's voice gets heard.

GSequoia
09-09-2007, 12:53 AM
Own land? You mean you had to be a citizen with a vested interest in the country and not just somebody looking for a handout to vote? Why would anybody do this? :confused:

Gee, why don't we just take away the vote from Woman, Hispanics, and Black people as well? I mean it was land owning white males who were originally allowed, right?

Oh, can't do that? I know, we'll set a poll tax to make sure people are responsible, that worked out real well after the civil war to keep that riff raff from having a voice!


This is bulls*** boys. Land owning should not be a criteria to vote, hell I don't own a square inch of land, does that make me a nobody looking for a handout?


You'd think that people in California of all places would realize that a land ownership requirement is just a way to keep the lower class oppressed. :rolleyes:

bwiese
09-09-2007, 1:02 AM
You'd think that people in California of all places would realize that a land ownership requirement is just a way to keep the lower class oppressed. :rolleyes:

No, it's to protect owners from theft of nonowners - after all, property owners are the ones paying the taxes, as huge swaths of renters in metro areas don't pay (directly or indirectly) much property tax due to rent control.

I pay a ton of prop taxes and no kids but some crap *** renter has 5 kids going to school and doing nothing much there.

Sure, renters should be able to vote - on matters unrelated to items having to do with property taxes.

And I'm all for restoration of a poll test: idiots shouldn't vote on subjects they don't know about. Let's say microstamping or nuclear power come up for a ballot initiative: if you don't know how a gun works or atomic fission, you don't get to vote.

People are lower-class because they deserve it: they didn't do something right to get out of it.

dfletcher
09-09-2007, 6:54 AM
I don't think we should cut to fine a distiction of who should vote where, depending on a person's interest. I own a home in East Sandwich, MA. While I am a CA resident - should I be allowed to vote in Massachusetts general elections? In theory I suppose yes, as I have an interest in taxes & such in the Commonwealth. But I believe such a system would be impossible to administer and subject to fraud.

I was going to say I support a poll test, but find that it is incompatible with my belief tjat, like gun owners, a person should not be required to take a test to exercise a right. However, having reviewed the Constitution, I do not find a "right" to vote in national elections - there is mention of no person being discriminated against in voting, but I do not find any language of the "all persons over the age of ...." with respect to voting.

Scarecrow Repair
09-09-2007, 7:52 AM
And I'm all for restoration of a poll test: idiots shouldn't vote on subjects they don't know about. Let's say microstamping or nuclear power come up for a ballot initiative: if you don't know how a gun works or atomic fission, you don't get to vote.

Oh ya, good idea. Freakin' BRILLIANT idea. Then the gun grabbers come to power and change the test for eligibility to vote on microstamping from gun knowledge to sociology knowledge. No Ph.D. in sociology? Tough! Obviously you don't know what the proposed law is all about, you naive simpleton.

Who watches the watchers?

SemiAutoSam
09-09-2007, 8:16 AM
HELL YES I'm in favor of a ELECTOR being just that qualifies to vote IMO talking this qualification away in the early 1900's led to a decline to the quality of the elected official.

If you cant pull yourself up by your boot straps you dont get to vote weather your black or white or any other color and IMHO you would need to be naturally born here as well. Don't worry its just my opinion it does not mean this will happen the politicians want every vote they can BUY with their entitlements and things they can promise the illegal aliens.

Gee, why don't we just take away the vote from Woman, Hispanics, and Black people as well? I mean it was land owning white males who were originally allowed, right?

Oh, can't do that? I know, we'll set a poll tax to make sure people are responsible, that worked out real well after the civil war to keep that riff raff from having a voice!


This is bulls*** boys. Land owning should not be a criteria to vote, hell I don't own a square inch of land, does that make me a nobody looking for a handout?


You'd think that people in California of all places would realize that a land ownership requirement is just a way to keep the lower class oppressed. :rolleyes:

M. Sage
09-09-2007, 9:51 AM
The proposed law has nothing to do with Congress representation, does it? You would still have the 2 senators per state, to ensure each state's voice gets heard.

He means that states and regions would have their voices effectively muted in a Presidential election. It wouldn't affect our legislative representation, but it would make a huge change on how the President gets into office.

Think about where this is coming from. "Wah! Wah! Our guy won the popular vote, but lost the electoral! He should still be President! Wah! Wah!" Sound familiar?

I'd actually like to see a return to the days of State legislatures electing the Senators. Not that it would help a hell of a lot here, but that's kinda what the Senate is for, to represent the States.