Comments on: Calif. Measure Would Split Electoral Votes

Dems Call Ballot Initiative, Which Could Give GOP Candidate Up To 20 More Votes, A Dirty Trick

[jbaker314]

fibonacci_,

I find it interesting that all that one need do is to watch Jay Leno or David Letterman to see all of the coastal residents of Los Angeles and New York who are so woefully educated that they can''t find the US on a map, can''t name the President of the US, can''t name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, etc.

All things considered, midwesterners seems to be much better informed.

[farmerbb]

Speaking as a non-resident, this story lacks a key element for similar users who might wish to understand the issues. We need a clear description of what the system is NOW, versus what is being PROPOSED. Normally, you get broad support for "representation by population". If California is growing in population, then it would seem fair to give it more votes, no ?

[edward1975-2009]

This country was never set up to be a democracy, know your history. It was set up to be a republic and there is quite a difference between the two. And it is our continued slide away from this that will eventually lead to our demise. As for the electoral college, do away with it. Time to get back to choosing our leaders by majority vote, or at the very least if you insist on the college, make each state worth one vote, no state greater than another.

[fibonacci_]

It makes perfect sense that the smarter people, or at least more internationally aware people would live in the coastal states. Those red states in the middle are so isolated a great deal of them cant even find America on a map. Good thing Republicans lose big in my home state of California. Go back and take a wide stance in a mid-west bathroom.

[jumkey]

Yeah it sounds real fair tiddsanbeer - except they''re not proposing this for ALL states, just California. And the purpose in proposing this ONLY in California is to swing electoral votes to the Republicans, "Fairness" and "democracy" have nothing to do with it.

But you knew that of course, didn''t you?

[jbaker314]

tiddsanbeer,

You put forward a good analogy. However, I suggest that the consequences may be worse than the problem.

In South Carolina, as a consequence of the Voting Rights Act, the State Senate, which previously had one Senator per County, was changed to be like the State House, with representation allocated by population.

The effect has been that the heavily populated areas of the State control everything, and the rural areas have no say in anything, we get no road money, we just get to pay the taxes.

The elimination of the Electoral College or a national popular vote would extend this problem nationwide.

This is exactly what the founding fathers feared.

I suggest that my previous recommendations may be a more reasonable approach.

[nothappyatall]

""The mere idea that they would stoop so low as to use children''s cancer as the bait to get people to sign a petition, says everything. It''s outrageous, absolutely outrageous," said Jacobs. "

Why would anyone be surprised at anything the repubicCONS do? they used dead people''s votes in previous elections.

[jbaker314]

l8c6,

I don''t like the fact that the Courts long ago decided that corporate entities are "persons" for the purpose of Constitutional Law.

Is corporation-purchased political advertising free-speech as envisioned by the founding fathers? I don''t think so.

Should a multi-millionaire like Soros be able to expend vast sums to control the outcome of an election?

There are all issues that need to be addressed in any determination of a reasonable set of revisions to the electoral process.

The proposed change in California is unlikely to pass, and in any case, will not serve to improve the situation.

Splitting the largest states, and setting a Constitutional limit on the size of a state (in terms of a percentage of the national population) "may" be a viable part of the solution, but I would like to hear other opinions.

Also, limiting campaign contributions to eligible voters, and amounts to a percentage of the average income of the voters eligible to vote for the office in question "may" help to eliminate the corruption elicited by the vast sums of money that curren tly flow into political coffers.

[jerr11]

I think this is a fair measure if it''s applied across the board.

That means Texas, and all the other red states will have to operate under the same rules.

If this is the case, I''m all for the initiative.

If not, it''s just a Republican dirty trick.

[jbaker314]

wheezel3,

Comments that convey something intelligible would be useful.

It is easy to find both good and bad people, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and others.

Demonizing a group serves no constructive purpose.

But to get back on the topic, I can understand the desire to split the electoral vote in California. I just don''t believe that it will serve any useful purpose.

I also oppose the related idea adopted by Maryland of delegating the electoral votes of the state to the winner of the national popular vote.

The approach basicly tells the voters of Maryland that their votes are meaningless.

We clearly need some revisions to our electoral process.

So far, IMHO, none of the proposals or enactments are for the benefit of the people. They are for the benefit of the politicians.