Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-16-2007, 07:42 AM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Republican's strategy to take the white house in 08

Quote:
Top California Democrats Join Hollywood Producer to Defeat Measure Boosting GOP Electoral Votes

Thursday, August 16, 2007

LOS ANGELES — Leading Democrats are uniting with Hollywood producer Steven Bing and hedge fund manager Tom Steyer to oppose a California ballot proposal they fear could hand the 2008 presidential election to the Republican nominee.

A lawyer with ties to the Republican Party wants California voters to change the way the nation's most populous state awards its electoral votes — a proposal Democrats call a power grab but that supporters describe as a blueprint for fairness in presidential contests.

California now allots all of its 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections, a practice followed in most states.

The proposal calls for awarding two electoral votes to the statewide winner, with the rest allocated according to results in each congressional district.

California has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. The change — if it qualifies for the June primary ballot and is approved by voters — could mean a Republican could be positioned the following November to win 20 or more electoral votes in GOP-leaning districts.

Nineteen of the state's 53 congressional districts are represented by Republicans. President Bush carried 22 districts in 2004, while losing the statewide vote by double digits.
Related

It takes 270 of 538 electoral votes to win the White House. Only Maine and Nebraska currently allocate their electoral votes by congressional district.

In what is shaping up as an important subplot to the 2008 race, a political committee is being formed by Steyer that will raise money — possibly tens of millions of dollars — to defeat the GOP-backed idea.

The committee is being supported by Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Democratic leaders in the Legislature.

The proposal is a "power grab orchestrated by the Republicans," Feinstein and Boxer said in a joint statement. It's "another cynical move to keep the presidency in Republican control."

Democrats were scheduled to announce formation of the committee, Californians for Fair Election Reform, on Thursday.

It will be headed by Steyer, who is raising money for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign. A longtime Democratic donor, Steyer also raised funds for John Kerry's 2004 campaign and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"Democrats would lose 20 electoral votes and very likely the presidency if California abandons the winner-take-all system while large Republican states like Florida and Texas do not," Steyer said in a statement.

The Presidential Election Reform Act, as it's dubbed, is being pushed by Thomas Hiltachk, a lawyer in a Sacramento firm that represents the California Republican Party and has worked with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"In a state as large and diverse as California, what can be fairer than using congressional districts to apportion electoral votes," said Kevin Eckery, a spokesman for Californians for Equal Representation, a committee backing the proposal.
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.
Rekna is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 08:00 AM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
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?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 08:15 AM   #3 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Near & There
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
soundmotor is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 08:22 AM   #4 (permalink)
Junkie
 
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.
Rekna is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 08:34 AM   #5 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
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.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 08:41 AM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
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.
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.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 08:48 AM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
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?
Rekna is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 09:42 AM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
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).
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 10:44 AM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
kutulu's Avatar
 
This is total crap. Either keep it the way it is, abandon the EC, or make all states use the same things.
kutulu is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 10:56 AM   #10 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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.
Wow. Survival of the most vicious.

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).
ratbastid is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 11:04 AM   #11 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
How possible is this? I mean is there real support and the possibility of this passing?
Willravel is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 11:12 AM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
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.
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.
samcol is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 11:20 AM   #13 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 01:18 PM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Wow. Survival of the most vicious.
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.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."


Last edited by aceventura3; 08-16-2007 at 01:23 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 01:29 PM   #15 (permalink)
Devoted
 
Redlemon's Avatar
 
Donor
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
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.
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. Sure, there are occasional fines, but what's a fine compared to getting elected?
__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.
Redlemon is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 01:36 PM   #16 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Greenwood, Arkansas
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.
__________________
AVOR

A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.
AVoiceOfReason is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 01:38 PM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
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.
Rekna is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 01:50 PM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Let's bring back gerymandering.
When did it go away?

Quote:
I trust you don't have any problem with Hugo Chavez wanting to change the laws so he can get elected again.
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?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 02:49 PM   #19 (permalink)
Thank You Jesus
 
reconmike's Avatar
 
Location: Twilight Zone
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.
__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?
reconmike is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 03:06 PM   #20 (permalink)
Baltimoron
 
djtestudo's Avatar
 
Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD
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.
__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun
djtestudo is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 03:07 PM   #21 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 04:41 PM   #22 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
P.S. - Have you read the quotes under my posts?
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.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 05:07 PM   #23 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
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.
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 05:23 PM   #24 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
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.
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.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 05:28 PM   #25 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Sure, I have a problem with it. I don't like him. If I liked him I would support the changes he is proposing.
This is partisanship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
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.
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?

Last edited by Willravel; 08-16-2007 at 05:29 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Willravel is offline  
Old 08-16-2007, 06:00 PM   #26 (permalink)
Psycho
 
albania's Avatar
 
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?
albania is offline  
Old 09-16-2007, 08:42 PM   #27 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Orlando, Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
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.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
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.
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.
Terrell is offline  
Old 09-19-2007, 12:59 PM   #28 (permalink)
Tilted
 
nonplussed's Avatar
 
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.
nonplussed is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 06:55 AM   #29 (permalink)
 
dc_dux's Avatar
 
Location: Washington DC
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.
Quote:
A proposed California initiative campaign that could have helped Republicans hold on to the White House in 2008 was a shambles Thursday night, as two of its key consultants quit.

Unable to raise sufficient money and angered over a lack of disclosure by its one large donor, veteran political law attorney Thomas Hiltachk, who drafted the measure, said he was resigning from the committee.
...
There remained a chance that the measure could be revived, but only if a major donor were to come forward to fund the petition drive. However, time is short to gather the hundreds of thousands of signatures needed by the end of November. And backers said Thursday that they believed the measure was all but dead, at least for the 2008 election.

" 'Shambles' is the wrong word," said strategist Marty Wilson, who curtailed his fundraising efforts weeks ago. "The campaign never got off the ground."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...0,507304.story
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire
dc_dux is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 09:54 AM   #30 (permalink)
Junkie
 
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.
Rekna is offline  
Old 09-29-2007, 04:47 PM   #31 (permalink)
Banned
 
I thought the Rebublican strategy to in in 08 was to run ANYONE against Hilary or Obama.
JohnBua is offline  
 

Tags
house, republican, strategy, white


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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:05 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360