PDA

View Full Version : Electoral College petition


Kestryll
11-29-2007, 8:38 PM
A friend of mine at work brought in a petition to alter the electoral college vote disbursement.
This is one of those things that sounds good on the surface but something sets my teeth on edge and triggers my caution alarm.

I know this has been discussed before but I can not remember the argument for and against it, I seem to recall leaning towards against personally.

I think this is the petition drive: http://www.calcounts.org/

FortCourageArmory
11-29-2007, 8:44 PM
Actually, it might put CA's 54 electoral votes into play as far as the presidential races are concerned. If one or the other candidates can just count on a slam-dunk of 54 votes, that's a HUGE advantage. If the losing candidate in the state could still gain 40% of the available votes, that means they would have to pay attention to us and actually be held somewhat accountable at the polling place. Had this been in place in 2000 that whole Florida thing would have been moot.

bwiese
11-29-2007, 9:23 PM
If it's just CA, that's good - because 40% of the votes going for Rs would be good for progun status.

However, if replicated elsewhere, 'winner take all' rewards in many other states would go away, esp in smaller states where there's an urban/metro skew to population distribution. Those states that go R by skin of their teeth all of a sudden throw weight to urban centers.

Sometimes it'll be a wash, and the CA thing - short term - can help R's and gun rights.

Longer term, given population concentrations increasing in density and surrounding former 'suburban' areas aquiring more political character of the city they surrond - well, it's not probably too good. It'd be a pity to be so shortsighted to win a battle to lose the war.

If it just turns out to be a CA thing and doesn't spread, that's good for the Rs.

DedEye
11-29-2007, 9:42 PM
If it's just CA, that's good - because 40% of the votes going for Rs would be good for progun status.

However, if replicated elsewhere, 'winner take all' rewards in many other states would go away, esp in smaller states where there's an urban/metro skew to population distribution. Those states that go R by skin of their teeth all of a sudden throw weight to urban centers.

Sometimes it'll be a wash, and the CA thing - short term - can help R's and gun rights.

Longer term, given population concentrations increasing in density and surrounding former 'suburban' areas aquiring more political character of the city they surrond - well, it's not probably too good. It'd be a pity to be so shortsighted to win a battle to lose the war.

If it just turns out to be a CA thing and doesn't spread, that's good for the Rs.

Which is more or less of the exact opposite of what I'd like to see. I'd love it if this were nationwide, and I'd posit this is a step towards third party candidates coming closer to even being remotely relevant (read: having a chance at winning).

jmlivingston
11-29-2007, 9:53 PM
even being remotely relevant

That's what Ross Perot was when he ran for president, and what did he do? Screwed over the conservatives by dividing the vote. He took what, 19 or 20 percent of the popular vote as I recall? He was relevant, but not in anyway that was good. (I confess, I voted for the guy. I liked the way he addressed the people and used his late-night infomercials with the flipcharts to explain things.)

John

bwiese
11-29-2007, 10:42 PM
Which is more or less of the exact opposite of what I'd like to see. I'd love it if this were nationwide, and I'd posit this is a step towards third party candidates coming closer to even being remotely relevant (read: having a chance at winning).

No, all they'd do is still end up as spoilers, with a slight magnifying effect.

Still'd be like Perot getting Clinton elected. (I hope Perot spins in his grave for that.)

I'm not sure multiparty buys much of anything. Look what happened to the Polish Sejm.

aileron
11-30-2007, 5:37 AM
MOB RULE SUCKS.


We have a republic, not a democracy. I will stick with the electoral college.

FortCourageArmory
11-30-2007, 10:12 AM
I'm all for sticking to the Electoral College system, but with a more fair distribution system than winner-take-all....at least here in CA. If the GOP candidate could score say 20-22 of those 54 votes we have, it would make the candidates more likely to pay attention to us out here and not take it for granted that they had an automatic win/loss.

LECTRIKHED
11-30-2007, 5:35 PM
It would actually be a very bad thing for the nation. The entire country needs to stay in the same electoral college system or abandon it for a popular vote. This is simply a way to award the vote to Republicans, so that they do not need to run a strong campaign. Also times change. California has voted republican in the past for the president, and this would have effect those votes.

It is not fair, if they split the votes in California but not in Texas.

The electoral system is broken, but it needs to be changed at a national level, not a state level.

jmlivingston
11-30-2007, 7:39 PM
I strongly disagree, in that it is the right of the state to decide how their electoral votes are used and what method one state chooses to use should be independent of the others. In fact the setup is strictly designed such that states can choose their own method of allocating their votes, which Maine and Nebraska have already done differently and in such a fashion as to allow their electoral votes to be split. The electorates are also not obligated to follow the vote of the populace either, and in many instances have not. This is very much a States Rights issue.

A comment regarding your statement: "This is simply a way to award the vote to Republicans, so that they do not need to run a strong campaign." In a tight race, in a state like CA where there are strong liberal as well as conservative regions, I think it's more likely that the nominees will campaign even more vigorously as this situation provides electoral votes to be lost or gained; where previously a weak campaign may not have bothered as it would be too costly to do so considering the likelihood of gaining nothing.

California has 55 electoral votes. These votes account for over 10% of all votes, and 20% of what is needed to win the presidency. The state with the next highest total is Texas at 34 votes. Obviously voting blocks of this size are extremely influential in the tally and yet they may not demonstrate the reality of a closely contested election within the state. States such as Wyoming with only 3 electoral votes are not nearly as significant to the final outcome as the more populous states. By allowing the electoral vote to be split by congressional district, the system gravitates towards one oriented closer to a populous vote without the hazards associated with it. (I.e. 71 electoral votes have been changed because the candidate which the elector was supposed to vote for died.)

One must remember that we are a democratic Republic and not a Democracy, I personally don't think a Democracy would have made this country as great as it is has become (flaws and all) and I respect what our founding fathers have given us. As times change we have an ability to adapt our system of elections and that is through the Constitutional Amendment process. Since that has not occurred yet, it would appear that most of the country really isn't ready yet to go to a populous vote system.

There is an excellent article on how the Electoral College system works at http://articles.gourt.com/en/United%20States%20Electoral%20College.

John

acousticmood
12-01-2007, 10:30 AM
MOB RULE SUCKS.


We have a republic, not a democracy. I will stick with the electoral college.

+1 - this was set up to get the less populous states a fair shake. Even tho' the less populous states don't have the people that doesn't diminish their contributions to the nation.

Do not eliminate the electoral college!

DedEye
12-01-2007, 10:46 AM
+1 - this was set up to get the less populous states a fair shake. Even tho' the less populous states don't have the people that doesn't diminish their contributions to the nation.

Do not eliminate the electoral college!

Changing it to a distribution by counties wouldn't eliminate it, it would mean poeple in states that are either very liberal or conservative would actually have a shot at getting their voices heard.

dustoff31
12-01-2007, 10:46 AM
MOB RULE SUCKS.


We have a republic, not a democracy. I will stick with the electoral college.


The way the delegates are currently allocated is mob rule. The bill is not about eliminating the electoral college, just a proportional re-allocation of the delegates.

MedSpec65
12-01-2007, 11:39 AM
I read Tom McClintocks's review of this initiative and signed a copy of the petition. I'm surprised this issue hasn't been publicized more. It's hard to believe the majority of Californians want all their electoral votes to be handed over to the Democrat party, which is what has happened in every election since Reagan. If you look at the county by county Blue/Red political map, it looks like millions of Californians are being denied their voting rights. Many of us on this forum have resigned ourselves to CA being handed to Hillary. Why should we? The State is home to many folks who don't share the views of the LA and SF Bay Metropolitan Areas.

bwiese
12-01-2007, 11:42 AM
The way the delegates are currently allocated is mob rule. The bill is not about eliminating the electoral college, just a proportional re-allocation of the delegates.

Our Founders were bright enough to realize that there were disparities in populations in given states, and that populous states should not be able to drown out less populated ones.

Wyoming or Utah, etc wants its electoral votes to count in the face of CA's or NY's. It's the only way smaller/less populous states can get traction, aside from each having 2 senators that have same voting powers as senators from large states. The 'winner-take-all' stance serves as a 'magnifier' for the small states.

I'm for keeping things the way they are.

MedSpec65
12-01-2007, 11:58 AM
Our Founders were bright enough to realize that there were disparities in populations in given states, and that populous states should not be able to drown out less populated ones.

Wyoming or Utah, etc wants its electoral votes to count in the face of CA's or NY's. It's the only way smaller/less populous states can get traction, aside from each having 2 senators that have same voting powers as senators from large states. The 'winner-take-all' stance serves as a 'magnifier' for the small states.

I'm for keeping things the way they are. This initiative could not change the Federal Electoral College process. The initiative petitions for consideration of the disparities in COUNTY populations within the State and suggests a more fair allocation of the State's electoral votes.

chris
12-01-2007, 11:59 AM
Don't F with this system. It is not in our best interest as a country. Since the people running for Pres are not the greatest and the one that may win is not going to have this country's best interest in mind (you know who I'm talking about.) I for one will never support any measure that messes around with the Constitution in anyway. We have politicians (traitors) for that. Don't mess with it at all.

bwiese
12-01-2007, 12:04 PM
This initiative could not change the Federal Electoral College process. The initiative petitions for consideration of the disparities in county populations within the State and suggests a more fair allocation of the State's electoral votes.

I understand this, but "if California goes, the rest of the country goes..."

So I think a possible short-term payoff in CA may ultimately make things worse nationally as other states try this. I think this wouldactually cause metro area skews to votes that were otherwise diluted by suburban/rural votes.

dustoff31
12-01-2007, 12:19 PM
Our Founders were bright enough to realize that there were disparities in populations in given states, and that populous states should not be able to drown out less populated ones.

Wyoming or Utah, etc wants its electoral votes to count in the face of CA's or NY's. It's the only way smaller/less populous states can get traction, aside from each having 2 senators that have same voting powers as senators from large states. The 'winner-take-all' stance serves as a 'magnifier' for the small states.

I'm for keeping things the way they are.

Your point is well taken. And I agree with the point you made eariler that if it's only CA, it might not be a bad thing, at least for now. Long term, you might be right.

Being registered to vote in a smaller state, our relatively small number of delegates would have more traction against 30 or 40 from CA than the entire 55. Selfish? Hey, we're talkin' politics here.

Also, I'm trying to look at this strictly from a RKBA point of view. I believe that we stand the best chance with Rs, despite whatever else one might disagree with them on. As long as we keep our guns, in an absolute worst case, we can fix all the other stuff. If we let the guns get away because people are fixated on other issues, we are done for.