Article

2007-09-19 Home Front: Politix

GOP Looking to Split California Electoral Baby

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by eltoroverde 2007-09-19 15:20|| || Front Page|| [3 views ] Top

#1 It puts California back in play in the primaries and the actual election, jerks the state right out of the Democrats paws, and distributes the electoral candidate votes in a much more fair and equitable fashion.

What's not to like?

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2007-09-19 16:49|| 2007-09-19 16:49|| Front Page Top

#2 It dilutes the power of the small states.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-09-19 17:20|| 2007-09-19 17:20|| Front Page Top

#3 Two for the state is two too late to justify the existence of the state as a single entity in the federal system. There is no need for redundant governmental layers if they want to make it a popular vote. The 49 United State plus something less. Although there are some governmental subunits north and south of the border who might like become number 50.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-09-19 17:33|| 2007-09-19 17:33|| Front Page Top

#4 It doesn't dilute the power of small states at all. The Constitution provides (Article II, Section 1, as amended) that a state shall elect its Electors as it may direct, and if a state wishes to divide its votes up by congressional district, so be it.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-09-19 17:43|| 2007-09-19 17:43|| Front Page Top

#5 If you think this ends in anything less than the popular election of the president, you're naive. Resisting the first step is the most important. Once the idea of proportionality creeps in, direct election is inevitable and another balance is removed from what appears more and more to be a house of cards.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-09-19 18:18|| 2007-09-19 18:18|| Front Page Top

#6 I'd like to see some other states go that way too, like Michigan and Illinois.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2007-09-19 18:30|| 2007-09-19 18:30|| Front Page Top

#7 Good point Nimble but is this worse than Dems running the US?

Posted by jds 2007-09-19 20:16|| 2007-09-19 20:16|| Front Page Top

#8 Nimble, it would take a constitutional amendment to go to direct election of the president, an amendment that would be fought to the death by the small states. If big states like California, Texas, Florida, etc. want to allocate their electoral votes on some system other than winner take all, that should not affect how Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, et. al. allocate theirs.

Posted by RWV 2007-09-19 21:46|| 2007-09-19 21:46|| Front Page Top

#9 Maine and Nebraska have been doing this for years. I don't think they have actually ever split, though.

This is not proportional voting; if you get 50%+1 in every district, you get all the EVs.

Posted by Gary and the Samoyeds">Gary and the Samoyeds 2007-09-19 22:54|| http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html]">[http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2007-09-19 22:54|| Front Page Top

23:51 Swamp Blondie
23:47 Zenster
23:43 RWV
23:42 JosephMendiola
23:36 SteveS
23:35 JosephMendiola
23:26 JosephMendiola
23:25 Zenster
23:16 Muggsy Phump4546
23:14 JosephMendiola
23:11 JosephMendiola
23:09 Muggsy Phump4546
23:07 JosephMendiola
23:06 Muggsy Phump4546
23:04 Zenster
23:01 JosephMendiola
22:59 Redneck Jim
22:54 Gary and the Samoyeds
22:53 Remoteman
22:51 Muggsy Phump4546
22:51 Zenster
22:48 Gary and the Samoyeds
22:48 Muggsy Phump4546
22:40 Anonymoose