Calif. Measure Would Split Electoral Votes

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

(CBS)  Actor Bradley Whitford is in a political fight, not on the set of The West Wing, but on the real political stage of YouTube.

"This would be a great story," he said on YouTube. "Big money, intrigue, dirty tricks. But this isn't TV ... and we have to stop them."

He wants to stop an initiative that could shake up California politics and send shockwaves through the presidential campaign, reports CBS News correspondent Sandra Hughes.

While California, like most states, is winner take all, a proposed initiative would slice the state's electoral votes up by district.

Republican Dave Gillard and his team are collecting the 500,000 signatures to put the initiative on a California ballot.

If the rules change, it could give the Republican candidate 20 more votes in 2008 -- as many as the entire state of Ohio.

"We're Californians, and we're tired of being ignored," said Gillard, the campaign manager of California Counts.

But Mark Peterson, a professor of public policy at University of California, Los Angeles, says this initiative has sinister motivations.

"It really would mean that there were only special unique circumstances for a Democrat to win the presidency of the U.S.," he said.

California Democrats agree and are fighting back.

"Our job is to make sure that everybody in the state knows that it's a simple dirty trick," said Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of The Courage Campaign.

The dirty trick, according to the Democrats, who taped the signature gathering and posted it on the Internet, is bundling together three initiatives to disguise the intentions of the third:

"We're trying to have more money for children's hospitals and more funding for child disease research and we have two other petitions ... the last one we have, we're trying to redistrict the electoral college," a signature gatherer told a voter in a YouTube video.

According to Jacobs, that signature gatherer disguised the electoral vote issue.

"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.

But even if this initiative passes -- most legal scholars agree the constitutional challenges would make the decision over hanging chads seem simple.

[firststate]

mudrose
If you want to do it in California, may we assume that you''d agree to the same in other states with lots of electoral votes? This is another hair-brained idea where the proponents fail to think it through to its logical extensions. The same folks who are so fond of the concept in California would have a stroke at the thought of Texas electoral votes going to a Democrat. Maybe that''s why most solidly RepubliCON states don''t want the initiative process in them. Let the people pass laws, my God, what''s next restoring habeas corpus, limit spying on citizens, banning torture?

[gce651]

It''s called proportional representation. On the surface it may seem like a good idea and a more accurate showing of how the population votes, but does any other state do it? No? That may be for good reason! There''s a good reason the GOP is proposing it in California, which typically swings Democratic. But how about also doing it in states like, oh, Texas, Florida, Virginia, Ohio, etc? Better yet, let''s do it on a national level! GOP wouldn''t stand for this, nor would it stand a chance.

[mudrose-2009]

Wow, imagine that the Dimnowits can''t win an election by a landslide. Wow, imagine that Bore could have lost the election and the Supremes had to tell him to stop counting those chads. Now California can''t have it''s winner take all. Gee, isn''t that terrible that the people of California would go for it?

[firststate]

Anyone who wants to change the way electoral college votes are allocated to make it fair to all the voters should push to eliminate the electoral college and use the popular vote. That''s the only way to guarantee that every individual voter''s vote carries the same weight, but the sponsors of this initiative don''t want that. They just want to split the electoral votes of the largest state, that just happens to lean toward the Democratic Party. You don''t see them trying to do the same thing in Texas, the second largest state because it leans toward the Republicans.

[ubrew12]

jbaker314 said: "I not not let talk radio tell me how to think." You sure? The idea is for pundits to be SOO far to the right that the reasonable listener thinks he''s being centrist by only thinking ''some'' people should be tortured. I''ve heard no less than Bill O''Reilly suggest that we should invade Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, and N Korea. So, the voice of ''middle America'' is that invading only Iraq is reasonable. Glen Beck pretty much thinks Global Warming is a liberal conspiracy and Armageddon is around the corner, so reasonable voters think Global Warming is probably oversold and Armageddon may be a hundred years off.

"You say that rural voters who do not receive farm subsidies still benefit from them. Perhaps you would care to elaborate?" I know an Apple orchardist in the NW who receives no farm subsidies and says so, but in the next county are wheat farmers getting paid $$$ not to grow wheat. I ask him, has he ever thought what those wheat farmers WOULD be growing if their gov''t payments ceased, and what it would do to his business?

"the proposed electoral change in California... can be looked at as leveling the field " For a national election, who decides that ONLY California should get its playing field ''leveled''? If we''re going to open up the electoral votes, we must do it NATIONALLY, as befits a national election. Opening up only CA is like telling voters in Ohio they don''t matter (cuz in that case, they don''t).

[mcvet]

The liberals have a stranglehold on California so, one wonders how it could be a Republican dirty trick. This seems like an attempt to even the playing field to me, nothing more or less.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by denn034 at 04:20 PM : Dec 02, 2007
+ report abuse

Oh come on! You fascist are only attempting to fix the game after the play has started. Doing this will almost make another fascist president and will result in the SAME thing that the corruption in Florida and Ohio resulted in. For a Party that so clearly and obviously can''t govern the nation to attempt such things is going to do what for that party? ROFLMAO For some reason you fascist think you can just ignore the will of the people...that''s what ended you folks up on the WRONG side to start with wasn''t it? Sieg Heil Bush!!

[jbaker314]

ubrew12,

Actually, talk radio is somewhat interesting (on occassion), but I not not let talk radio tell me how to think. Most of those I know feel the same way. It is useful in that it raises issues other than the propaganda we get from the MSM.

You say that rural voters who do not receive farm subsidies still benefit from them. Perhaps you would care to elaborate? If have lived in the rural South for more than 50 years, and have yet to benefit from any farm subsidies.

I expect my privacy to be protected when I am communicating with other Americans. If an American citizen is communicating with a foreign terrorist, I have no problem with the conversation being monitored, and do not agree that the 5th amendment provisions apply in such circumstances.

BTW, I understand the concept of checks and balances vervy well. I just do not think that they should be used to protect terrorist who are at war with us.

As far as the proposed electoral change in California is concerned, it can be looked at as leveling the field or as a power play. In any case, it does not serve any constructive purpose and is unlikely to be enacted.

[ubrew12]

clgl_fubar said: "let the densely populated cities elect the President and leave out those people who actually do something "
***?? Rural voters already are worth 3-80 times an urban vote. This CA change will WORSEN THAT STATISTIC. To think as you do may make you a (rural) conservative. But your an enemy to democracy, all the same.

[ubrew12]

jbaker314 said: "Most news media is far left" Talk radio lives off painting MSM as left. I don''t find it so, although it is often trivial. The loss of newspapers is the biggest loss. People who listen to talk radio want to be told what to think by people who seem like ''ordinary guys'', ie they aren''t listening to arguments, but to arguers.

"MOST rural voters do not receive farm subsidies." Not directly. They benefit nonetheless. Rising tide and all that.

I don''t get your third point. The prez should not be listening in on American conversations without the judicial branch looking over his shoulder. To think otherwise is to not understand the concept of ''checks and balances''.

"Fourth, I understand the reasoning for the proposed change in California. " Its a power play, pure and simple. Since this is for a national election, impose it nationally, or not at all. Imposing it on a blue state is a power play.

[jbaker314]

clgl_fubar,

That is exactly what the liberal community wants - to control everything without contributing anything.

[denn034]

The liberals have a stranglehold on California so, one wonders how it could be a Republican dirty trick. This seems like an attempt to even the playing field to me, nothing more or less.

[jbaker314]

ubrew12,

You arguments have numerous problems.

Most news media is far left, with FOX being the one notable exception. ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC can hardly be considered middle-of-the-road, much less conservative.

Second, MOST rural voters do not receive farm subsidies.

Third, if the intelligence services are monitoring the communications of a terrorist and that terrorist calls someone in the United States, should the intelligence service have to hang up? Not likely.

Fourth, I understand the reasoning for the proposed change in California. However, like many other conservatives (that does not mean Republican), I do not support the proposed change. My reasons for not supporting the proposed change have already been communicated in this forum.

[ubrew12]

ImpeachNOW said: "The Californication measure is a step in the right direction"

Surely you understand Republicans have no intention of ''stepping'' further than California on this matter.

[ubrew12]

This is how it works:
1. you fund massive media consolidation so that (mostly rural) voters, ignorant of history and the world, can have their patriotism exploited by ''tough on terror'' Republicans. Every rural vote is worth 3 urban votes in a presidential election, and 80 urban votes in the U.S. senate. Keep rural voters happy by heaping on the farm subsidies and with constant references to the ''heartland values of America'', etc.
2. Promote a ''unitarian executive'' so that all you need to do is win Presidential elections to control the government. This demi-God starts wars, spies on Americans, etc with impunity from the other branches of government.
3. Rig the electoral college (in blue states only) so getting Dems to lead the executive (ie become Prez) is next to impossible.

And THAT''s how America becomes Russia...

[jbaker314]

jncc1701,

The Supreme Court got involved because the Democratic Party was playing games and the Florida Courts were playing games.

They wanted a recount in selected Democratic areas, but when they figured out that the recount still would not give Gore the win, they decided to seek recounts in more "selected" areas.

It was a blatant attempt to maipulate the system.

It would have been wholly different if they had requested a statewide recount in the beginning.

[jbaker314]

fibonacci_,

I don''t agree that "almost all" Americans are bad at geography.

I do think that many are, largely because the education system is more interested in being "politically correct" than in teaching the basics.

I also think that the news media goes to great efforts to find the dumbest of the dumb, particularly when it has anything to do with the South. When do you ever see the news media present a Southerner in a positive light?

I have travelled to most areas of the continental US and have found that intelligence and ignorance are universally present in all areas, with no area have any particular claim of superiority over any other.

[jncc1701]

Posted by omega39 at 02:16 PM : Dec 02, , as Bush vs. Gore was winding its way through the courts, the Republican Florida legislature was lining up its delegates to give to Bush no matter how the final vote came out.

---------------------
True but this is what the Founders intended, the elected legislature would have placed Bush in the White House but have to answer for it in the next election (many in two years.) As it turns out, because the Supreme Court got involved - we the people had no recourse.
There is a subtle run on the Constitution by the GOP all in the name of winning - our Republic will not survive long if this stands. Elections will eventually become similar to Venezuela and Russia.

[omega39-2009]

So, if every state''''s legislature were to direct its electors to vote 100% for whoever wins the state''''s popular vote, the electoral college would become redundant, and a true democracy implemented without a constitutional amendment. The Campaign for a National Popular Vote is trying to do this.
ubrew12

In 2000, as Bush vs. Gore was winding its way through the courts, the Republican Florida legislature was lining up its delegates to give to Bush no matter how the final vote came out.

[fibonacci_]

jbaker314, I think Americans are almost all pretty pathetic at geography and cultural awareness. So I dont disagree with you wholly.

"I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some people out there in our nation don''t have maps, and, uh, I believe that our.."
- Mrs. Teen South Carolina

[ubrew12]

You can''t really ditch the electoral college without a constitutional amendment (60% approval), and too many (Republican) congressmen would vote against it.

Lately, constitutional scholars have found another way out of the electoral college without an amendment. The Constitution actually only requires that each state''s electors be appointed ''in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct''. So, if every state''s legislature were to direct its electors to vote 100% for whoever wins the state''s popular vote, the electoral college would become redundant, and a true democracy implemented without a constitutional amendment. The Campaign for a National Popular Vote is trying to do this.

Note that when the CA state senate voted to use this system last year, Governor Swartzenegger vetoed it. Clearly, a popular vote is the LAST thing republicans want.