A new deal, or how to steal an election
AlterNet: Home GOP Powergrab Scheme in California Could Swing 2008 Election If It's Not Stopped
By Barbara Boxer, HuffingtonPost.com. Posted August 20, 2007.
Just when it seemed like the Democrats had a good chance of taking the White House, along comes a cynical power grab by GOP operatives to divvy up California's electoral votes based on the number of congressional districts each candidate wins.
Just when you thought it was safe to start thinking about having a Democrat in the White House, along comes a cynical power grab by Republican operatives. And unfortunately, it's happening right here in my own state of California.
If you haven't heard already, Republican strategists recently announced plans to begin raising money for a dangerous initiative that would radically change the way California apportions our electoral votes in presidential elections.
Rather than awarding all of California's electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote -- the way it works in every single state except the small states of Maine and Nebraska -- their scheme would divvy up California's electoral votes based on the number of congressional districts each candidate wins.
What does this mean? Well, if the last few elections are any guide, rather than the Democratic nominee winning all 55 of California's electoral votes in 2008, this new partisan scheme could hand 20 of California's electoral votes to the Republican candidate and only 35 to the Democrat.
Don't get me wrong: After the 2000 and 2004 election debacles, I'm a strong advocate for election reform. But it's absolutely wrong for California to go it alone. It's just patently unfair for a large "blue" state like California to change our system for awarding electoral votes while other large states which trend "red" like Texas and Florida don't change their system at the same time.
This isn't reform -- this is a partisan power grab by Republican operatives in the Karl Rove tradition.
The initiative's sponsors claim that their plan will make the presidential candidates spend more time campaigning in California. That's nonsense. Their scheme won't make candidates come to California during a general election any more than they do now -- which is rarely, and only to raise money.
Just look at the 2006 election. In 2006, only 2 of California's 53 Congressional districts were truly in play. In the remaining 51 districts, the margin of victory for the winning Republican or Democratic House candidate was always more than 6% -- and in most cases, the difference was 20 or 30 percentage points or more.
The number of competitive districts in the 2008 election will not be much different than what we saw in 2006 -- so apportioning our electoral votes based on the winner of each Congressional district would clearly do nothing to bring the presidential candidates to California more often.
If America wants real election reform -- and I know I do -- we need to elect our President directly by the national popular vote, plain and simple. Then the candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia would be elected President. That's the fair thing to do.
A new deal, or how to steal an election
"Rather than awarding all of California's electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote -- the way it works in every single state except the small states of Maine and Nebraska -- their scheme would divvy up California's electoral votes based on the number of congressional districts each candidate wins."
Sounds like a plan.....a fair plan.....a plan that everyone could embrace.:D
I think that this type of system really gives a good notion as to how the voters are actually voting........I'm SURE you'd be in favor of it IF it were a primarily Republican state.;)
Have a good one!:s4:
A new deal, or how to steal an election
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud
"Rather than awarding all of California's electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote -- the way it works in every single state except the small states of Maine and Nebraska -- their scheme would divvy up California's electoral votes based on the number of congressional districts each candidate wins."
Sounds like a plan.....a fair plan.....a plan that everyone could embrace.:D
I think that this type of system really gives a good notion as to how the voters are actually voting........I'm SURE you'd be in favor of it IF it were a primarily Republican state.;)
Have a good one!:s4:
As the article states, if it were to be accross all states, then it wouldn't be a problem, but to pick the largest state that always goes Democratic and start this division is definently un-called for. The repukes in texas have done this gerrymandering to the point of where there are barely any Democratic districts left in the state, Another joint effort from Carl (Criminal) Rove and Tom (Criminal) De-Lay. Thats the Repukes game. When you can't win by the rules, change the rules. I certainly hope the people of Ca. see through this subterfuge and stop it in it's tracks.
A new deal, or how to steal an election
Quote:
Originally Posted by medicinal
As the article states, if it were to be accross all states, then it wouldn't be a problem, but to pick the largest state that always goes Democratic and start this division is definently un-called for. The repukes in texas have done this gerrymandering to the point of where there are barely any Democratic districts left in the state, Another joint effort from Carl (Criminal) Rove and Tom (Criminal) De-Lay. Thats the Repukes game. When you can't win by the rules, change the rules. I certainly hope the people of Ca. see through this subterfuge and stop it in it's tracks.
Most of the time the race is called before the Cali vote even comes in. But your right.....there should be a uniform system across the states to put everyone on the same playing ground.
Have a good one!:s4:
