Republican's strategy to take the white house in 08
 

I find it funny that the Republican's aren't pushing to have Texas, Florida, or any of the other Red states split their electoral votes also. Personally I think states splitting electoral votes according to voting percentages is a good idea but only if the methods come down as a constitutional amendment that all states must follow. If this bill were to pass it would greatly and unfairly offset American politics.

Illinois is one of the better examples of this issue.
75% of the population lives in chicago, an ultra liberal, majority democrat area. How is it fair representation that the 80% of the state, which only has 25% of the population is basically ignored because a huge population base resides in a certain locale of the state?

This is not a new issue -

Colorado

More

It was ultimately voted down by CO voters -

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...lectoral_x.htm

DK how fair is it to only have the largest democratic state do this. Republicans are fine with all or nothing states when it is to their advantage but not when it isn't. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

There is another approach that is gaining momentum that would require a state to cast all its electoral votes for the candidate with the largest NATIONAL popular vote.

It get around a Constitutional amendment to end the electoral college (which has failed on several recent occasions) by having the states sign interstate compacts.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Its an interesting approach.

Perhaps this is an indicator of how Bush "stole" two presidential elections. It seems you look for fairness, when Republican strategist look to win. My thought is Republican push the agenda that is in their best interest, and Democrats would do the same. I guess Gore was sitting around thinking - I can get a fair recount in Florida, a state were the Governor is my opponents brother. Perhaps he didn't deserve the presidency on that basis alone. Perhaps Gore needed a guy like Rove to suggest perhaps a recount in a few other close states other than Florida.

So ace you think election fraud is fair game? What ever happened to the party of morals? I am a devote Christian and I do not believe in cheating the system to win. Whats the point of losing what is most important to gain the world?

What the Republicans are trying to doing in California is not election fraud.

I do not think election fraud is o.k. When votes are counted, however, it would be foolish not to have your party represented in the counting room.

What happened in Florida was not proven to be election fraud. However, Gore was foolish to think he would get any "homer" calls in Florida. While on the other hand Bush would do whatever he could within the law to make sure his brother won the election.

Kennedy "stole" a presidential election. The precedence was not started with Bush.

Voting "irregularities" happen in every national election and in every Chicago election (I am from the state of Illinois and followed Chicago politics with great interest, perhaps that is why I am so, so cynical).

This is total crap. Either keep it the way it is, abandon the EC, or make all states use the same things.

Wow. Survival of the most vicious. :no:

It's like with Karl Rove. The man is extremely talented at getting elected, and extremely deficient at governing. Getting elected takes vastly different skills than governing. I'd like to redesign the system so that the best person for the job gets the job. The world-view you propone, ace, will inevitably lead to some of the WORST people getting the job (as, I note, is currently the case).

How possible is this? I mean is there real support and the possibility of this passing?

I feel like it should remain the way it is. The president is a representative of the individual States, not neccissarily the citizens of the United States. Breaking the electors up like this really brings out the negatives in a democracy, instead of a constitutional republic in which the United States was founded.

Well put and I totally agree.

The "Wow" to me is the seeming surprise by what seems so obvious. I would not trust people in the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green, or any political party. When people with agendas get together in groups, and "group think" takes over, even the most honest people will do things and be a party to things their mothers would not approve of.

At least in this situation, what they tried to do was in the open. Its kinda like my uncle used to say: Every so often you have to ask the prettiest girl around for a kiss, you never know when she might say yes. California's electoral votes certainly look pretty. :oogle:

I've always thought that the major problem with political campaigns is that the only penalty for shady behavior is "you don't get elected". So, as long as you aren't as shady as the other guy is, or your shady behavior is so effective as to critically damage the other guy, you can still win the election. :grumpy: Sure, there are occasional fines, but what's a fine compared to getting elected?

This seems to differ only in degree and not in kind to what Maine and Nebraska already do.

What is important to all candidates is that they know the rules of the game before the election is held--enough in advance to plan for how it will be done. I thought the argument that Gore won the popular vote and therefore was cheated was ridiculous on its face, as neither candidate were out to win the popular vote. Bush didn't try to lose in California by a narrow margin, as Gore didn't spend much if any money in Texas to try to grab some additional votes in that state. If a candidate is going to lose a state, it doesn't matter now if it's 70-30 or 55-45; resources can be allocated in the states where there is a fighting chance.

In theory, I like the idea of congressional districts each having a vote, but there is one major problem with it. Voter fraud claims would multiply greatly--it's harder to steal an election in an entire state, and even if there is fraud in one area of the state, it may not effect the entire slate of electors.

so changing election laws in order to favor your party is ok? Let's bring back gerymandering. I trust you don't have any problem with Hugo Chavez wanting to change the laws so he can get elected again.

When did it go away?

Sure, I have a problem with it. I don't like him. If I liked him I would support the changes he is proposing.

P.S. - Have you read the quotes under my posts?

If the people of California vote to make this a law, so be it. It is their state.

And if the measure goes national so be it also, I think the dems would be in for a big suprise, New York , Jersey and other states that the dems count on would change the whole aspect of the vote, because now the cities would no longer take the whole state.

I love the idea of parceling electoral-college votes.

I live in a state (Maryland) where the political destiny is determined by three of 24 jurisdictions (Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, and Baltimore City) that overwhelmingly lean to one party while the rest of the state is much closer to 50-50.

It would be much nicer if, say, the electoral votes were split up by congressional district, with the winner in each getting that vote, and then the two that represent the senators go to the statewide winner.

Likewise the red states would be surprised at the libs in their midst.

Either every state counts for one vote or everyone gets broken up. If those idiots out there really want to vote for more idiots, let them.

Sure, we're clear where you stand. I guess it's just a little shocking, for those of us who actually want freedom and political balance, to encounter such cheerful support for underhanded electioneering.

I think it should be broken down by the percentage of votes. If candidate A gets 52%, candidate B gets 30% and candidate C gets 18%, the winner should get 52% of the electrorial votes + 2, the second place place person should get around30% and the third place person should get around 18%. But make it nationwide.

Or just make it a straight election with no electroial college, but rules that state that the candidates have to travel to every state and have to spend 20% of the time in rural counties.

don't think I ever said I was fine with it the other way either. Personally, I think gerry mandering (or anything that reduces any voters power) should be considered a near treasonous offense since it literally takes the power out of a certain group of peoples hands.

This is partisanship.

How about 1 vote per person, and leave states out of it? Why not switch from a constitutional republic (what we have now, what's in the Constitution), and switch over to democracy?

Because the electoral college is made up of the most intelligent people who first and foremost have a duty to this country and would not vote along party lines should someone akin to a dictator be elected? :orly:

What do you do when you cannot evenly divide electoral votes by this method? Say those are the results in a state that has 3 electoral votes?

What penalty would you inflict upon politicians that choose not to go to the rural counties? Given the current political climate, its a waste of resources for a candidate to go to the rural areas. Most of them are solidly in one side, so it makes no sense for the candidate who essentially has no chance of getting thier votes to go there, and it doesn't make sense for the politician that is most likely to get their votes to go there either, when either one could be appealing to the places where the people are more likely to be swing voters, or "soft" voters to one side.

It is transparent partisan crap to award California's electoral votes by congressional district while letting Texas and other award their red votes winner-take-all. But it would still be a problem even this method were adopted by all states.

First of all, it doesn't solve the problem of all votes being equal. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the 40% of Californians who will vote GOP in 2008 but not get a single electoral vote (note that I am quite confident that the ballot proposal will fail miserably in June). But in a system that awards electors by congressional district, my progressive vote will be lost because I live in a heavily gerrymandered GOP district.

Secondly, and most importantly, it doesn't solve the problem of the Electoral College itself. It's true that if all states adopted the congressional district method the state-by-state results would more closely reflect the electoral votes within the respective states, but the popular will would still be thwarted. That's because all states get a number of electoral votes equal to the number of their congressional districts PLUS TWO!

This grotesquely favors the small states, whose "bonus points" often equal or exceed their number of congressional districts. On benign, magnanimous days I can kinda, sorta see an argument for unequal representation in one house of congress, but not for the selection of the president.

The only way to ensure one-person-one-vote representation is to eliminate the Electoral College entirely and choose the president by popular vote. Since that would require a constitutional amendment and therefore be virtually impossible, I support the proposed agreement between the states totalling 270 electors mentioned above by DC_DUX. By the way, that proposal will be on the same California ballot as the dirty tricks GOP proposal.

It appears that this attempt by a few republicans to alter the electoral process in California has failed, or at the very least, is teetering on the brink.

It also appears that the majority of funding for this movement was funded by someone linked to Guilani's campaign which would be a violation of election laws.

I thought the Rebublican strategy to in in 08 was to run ANYONE against Hilary or Obama. :)