PDA

View Full Version : California Presidential Election Reform Act


Zhukov
09-27-2007, 1:41 AM
Don't know if this has been posted before or not.

Apparently, people are trying to get a statewide ballot signed that would adjust our electoral votes from a winner-takes-all situation to a district-by-district system.

What do you guys think about the idea? Personally, I do think it would be more representative of the views of California...and it would show that it's not entirely a "Blue" state. Hell, we'd actually have more swing/power in the presidential elections IMO. Right now, people just assume a Dem will get it and ignore us completely.

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_electoral26.3e41beb.html

Rob P.
09-27-2007, 11:55 AM
It's a bad idea. First of all we live in a republic and not a democracy as most seem to think. Under the republic style of government, the voting populace voices their opinion and an electorial college then meets to authorize their votes for the selected candidate based upon the whole number of votes cast. You do not need a 51% majority to be the winner under this system.

In a democracy, you DO need a majority of 51% in order to be the winner. Most of the parlimentary system countries constantly change their gov's because of this. Whenever one ruling party drops below the 51% majority, they're ousted and a new party becomes the leader. You cannot be the leader/winner with less than 51% because that means that any 2 other factions can band together and defeat your greater number of votes. So democracy style governing isn't that simple while a republic is much simplier and cleaner in elections.

Republics also tend to be more stable while democracys flip-flop & change leadership in relatively short periods of time. Most of the volitile countries (Israel, Italy, etc) have parlimentary style gov's.

Dr. Peter Venkman
09-27-2007, 1:14 PM
So democracy style governing isn't that simple while a republic is much simplier and cleaner in elections.

That's debatable. Our system of government is anything but 'clean and simple', especially when talking about the E.C. or the misrepresentation thanks to Gerrymandering and things of that nature. Beyond matters of larger numbers not being necessarily right with their beliefs, or even those elected by a republic style system, tossing out roughly 40% of people's opinions and letting the other 60% run the show takes place both in a Republic and a Democracy.

grywlfbg
09-27-2007, 2:52 PM
The only way I would support this is if there was a clause which stated that the law only goes into effect if ALL other states pass similar measures. At that point we effectively eliminate the electoral college which I am a big fan of.

acousticmood
09-27-2007, 3:10 PM
The only way I would support this is if there was a clause which stated that the law only goes into effect if ALL other states pass similar measures. At that point we effectively eliminate the electoral college which I am a big fan of.

That would be tragic. The less populated states would be subjegated. The central states would not be well represented and might even consider seceeding. The electoral college is a crucial part of bringing all of the states together under one republic. Study the Federalist Papers before espousing a rejection of our current system. They really are brilliant.

Stuka
09-27-2007, 3:35 PM
The electoral college is a joke. Its the single biggest reason many people do not vote. I do vote, even though I know my vote has never counted in a presidential race. Because the winner of CA takes ALL the CA votes. Even though I know the county I live in (Tuolumne) is almost entirely conservative, non of the votes here get cast for the candidate that most people in this county vote for. Instead they go towards whomever the big liberal cities along the coast and down south vote for. Its complete bull****. It should be done by congressional districts, across the country.

carsonwales
09-27-2007, 5:34 PM
Whoa guys....did any of you actually read the petition?

The petition has nothing to do with changing the electoral college system. Rather it proposes that INSTEAD OF A WINNER TAKE ALL, that the California Electoral College votes would be apportioned based on districts.

Some states already do this.

What this would do is force the democratic presidential candidates to campaign all across the state...instead of showing up in liberal cesspools like San Francisco, Berkley, Hollywierd, Sacramento and Los Angeles just to rake in millions in fund raisers in a state they don't even bother campaigning in because they know they have all the EC votes locked up anyway.

For once our red county brothers on the interior would have a voice in the presidential election.

My guess is that 10-20 electoral college votes would go conservative every time....

Sounds like a great idea.

The electoral college is a brilliant system. This has nothing to do with tampering with it.In 2004, all 55 of California's votes went to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, who was the actual winner in only 31 districts. Under this system, Kerry would have received 33 votes and President Bush would have received 22.

"We're really more of a purple state," Eckery said. "We don't vote unanimously."

Accounting for the 22 votes Kerry would have lost, the proposed change would have amounted to a 44-vote swing. No single state outside California has more than 34 electoral votes.

Thus, Bush's narrow Electoral College victory in 2004 would have been significantly wider. (Howard) Dean said there is no question that the proposed initiative would ensure a Republican president in 2008.
Anything Howard Dean is against I am for (generally speaking).

CCWFacts
09-27-2007, 10:52 PM
It's not going to happen:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/09/27/BA72SG62P.DTL&tsp=1

I would have supported it, just because I don't want to see Hilary in the whitehouse. I realize that's not the most wonderful reason to support something, but anyway, it's over.

bulgron
09-27-2007, 11:26 PM
I would have supported it just because I think it would have gotten CA some attention in the national election cycles. Too bad it went nowhere. Oh well.

grywlfbg
09-28-2007, 10:10 AM
But this happens the other way in "Red States". My vote never counted in Oklahoma because the state always went Repub.

So that was why I made my statement, I think this is a great idea, but not until ALL states do this. Then it's fair. Otherwise Cali is just giving votes to the repubs and dems in other states are still being suppressed.

rbgaynor
09-28-2007, 10:34 AM
While I'm all for making voting more representative this particular legislation is not about fairness, it's about tossing 20 more electoral college votes to the red candidate. Here's a suggestion - let's let Florida and Texas go first - if it's such a good idea it should be good for them too.

jumbopanda
09-28-2007, 5:02 PM
I too would have supported this, because I think it's just a far more fair way of doing things in very large states. I wouldn't be against Texas and Florida doing the same thing.

Creeping Incrementalism
09-28-2007, 5:46 PM
But this happens the other way in "Red States". My vote never counted in Oklahoma because the state always went Repub.

So that was why I made my statement, I think this is a great idea, but not until ALL states do this. Then it's fair. Otherwise Cali is just giving votes to the repubs and dems in other states are still being suppressed.

The fact that other states also decide their electoral votes in an unfair way does not mean that we should do things the wrong way too. Your argument is like the old, "If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?" saying. Also, California splitting the vote would hopefully lead others to do the same.

Most of the parlimentary system countries constantly change their gov's because of this. Whenever one ruling party drops below the 51% majority, they're ousted and a new party becomes the leader.

That happens because parliamentary systems don't have set terms for the winner of whatever consensus is built. If the prime minister got a fixed term, the sudden changes wouldn't occur.

It's a bad idea. First of all we live in a republic and not a democracy as most seem to think.

A republic is a type of democracy. What you are thinking of is a direct democracy.