Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-27-2007, 2:41 AM
Zhukov Zhukov is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Boise, ID (Previously Hayward, CA)
Posts: 304
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default California Presidential Election Reform Act

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/s...6.3e41beb.html

Last edited by Zhukov; 09-27-2007 at 2:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-27-2007, 12:55 PM
Rob P. Rob P. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 1,223
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-27-2007, 2:14 PM
Dr. Peter Venkman's Avatar
Dr. Peter Venkman Dr. Peter Venkman is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 4,212
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
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.
__________________

"America is not at war. The Marine Corps is at war; America is at the mall."
Quote:
Originally Posted by berto View Post
You're right. There's no possible way that CGN members marching alongside the Pink Pistols in the SF Pride Parade can do anything to dispel the stereotype that gun owners are conservative bigots clinging to their guns and bibles. Not a single person in the crowd is rational or reachable because the parade's for gay folks and it's in SF.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-27-2007, 3:52 PM
grywlfbg's Avatar
grywlfbg grywlfbg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 990
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-27-2007, 4:10 PM
acousticmood's Avatar
acousticmood acousticmood is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Rancho Cucamonga
Posts: 224
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grywlfbg View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-27-2007, 4:35 PM
Stuka Stuka is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Mountains
Posts: 133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-27-2007, 6:34 PM
carsonwales carsonwales is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 282
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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).

Last edited by carsonwales; 09-27-2007 at 6:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-27-2007, 11:52 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,672
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

It's not going to happen:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...G62P.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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-28-2007, 12:26 AM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-28-2007, 11:10 AM
grywlfbg's Avatar
grywlfbg grywlfbg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 990
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-28-2007, 11:34 AM
rbgaynor's Avatar
rbgaynor rbgaynor is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Diego County
Posts: 233
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-28-2007, 6:02 PM
jumbopanda's Avatar
jumbopanda jumbopanda is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Northridge
Posts: 8,206
iTrader: 162 / 100%
Default

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.
__________________
Mo' BBs.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-28-2007, 6:46 PM
Creeping Incrementalism's Avatar
Creeping Incrementalism Creeping Incrementalism is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Walnut Creek
Posts: 1,291
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by grywlfbg View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob P.
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:10 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.