PDA

View Full Version : Reworking California's electorial votes


thekwyjibo
09-10-2007, 10:06 AM
The story is written by a typical nitwit who wants a nationwide vote to be where all of our electoral votes go, but she talks about the republican initiative on the table that seems like a good idea. It boils down to this; instead of sending all of California's electoral votes to the winner of the state results, tally up votes for each district and send send the electoral vote for each district based on who wins.
Sounds like a good idea to me.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296205,00.html

bwiese
09-10-2007, 10:52 AM
It may be a slightly-useful short-term approach for Republicans.

Long term, it will be disastrous for Republicans - or, more importantly, pro-gun interests.

On a national basis, removing the 'electoral effect' reduces effect of lower-population states that are usually pro-gun and allows greater sway for metro/urban areas that reliably vote left (and generally antigun).

AKman
09-10-2007, 11:12 AM
+1 Its a short-term power grab by Republicans to give them an advantage in the electoral college. The last two elections would not have been close if this was how California apportioned their electoral votes.

12gaugederringer
09-10-2007, 11:21 AM
This is a very good thing for California.

I've lived here my whole life and I'm sick of throwing my vote away every time I vote for the president. CA is too diverse and too big for a winner takes all allocation to work in a fair way. Small states will always fight to have a winner takes all system because it makes small states interesting to candidates. As a side note I think it's worth discussing whether or not it's even in the nation's interest for presidential candidates to care about specific local concerns and special interests.

Regardless, each state has the right to assign votes as it sees fit, I think this is a lot more fit for us.

bulgron
09-10-2007, 11:22 AM
Under the constitution, the individual states are free to divvy up their electoral votes however they want to. So there's nothing inherently illegal or wrong about any of the ideas forwarded in that column. But I do think that tinkering with how California handles its votes is a bit short sighted. What happens if in a couple of generations the Dems and Republicans positions are reversed in this state? Will the Republicans then whine and fight to change things back to the way they were?

On the other hand, eliminating the winner-take-all system in CA might actually put CA on the map where national politics are concerned. As things stand now, CA is a "safe" state for the Dems, so neither side pays us much attention come election time. If we went proportional, national politicians might actually start to care about CA again.

Of course, if people want the Republican party to once again be relevant in this state, the better answer is probably for Republicans to say things that work with California's culture. This probably means leaving gay marriage, creationism, and abortion politics behind, and instead looking to find a conservative message that resonates with California voters. Arnold seems to understand that Republicans need to do this, although it's pretty clear that many, if not most, of CA's Republicans flat-out disagree with him.

So long story short, the Republican party will continue to dwindle in numbers and influence in this state until either this is a one-party state, or enough of the extremists have left for redder pastures that the Republican party can once again reinvent itself.

In the meantime, let's hope for a very favorable outcome in Heller. Because without it, this state is going to be one giant wasteland where gun rights are concerned.

bwiese
09-10-2007, 11:29 AM
Bulgron, you said it nicely.

12gaugederringer
09-10-2007, 11:40 AM
I do think that tinkering with how California handles its votes is a bit short sighted

Of the Republicans? Yes of course it is, but who cares?

What happens if in a couple of generations the Dems and Republicans positions are reversed in this state?

I'd hope once it's made more democratic we wouldn't turn back. Without cracking the electoral college we'll never have the chance of getting a third party elected. The way we elect the President state by state just feeds the broken two party system that only cares about power and control.

M. Sage
09-10-2007, 6:40 PM
This is a very good thing for California.

And that's why it's a very bad idea.

VegasND
09-10-2007, 7:34 PM
The purpose of elections is NOT to maintain the status quo. The aim of politicians is to keep their seats secure.
Until we can make the republicans and democrats worry about being removed from power, things will not improve.



Without cracking the electoral college we'll never have the chance of getting a third party elected. The way we elect the President state by state just feeds the broken two party system that only cares about power and control.