Posted on 08/07/2007 12:04:24 PM PDT by BlueDragon
SACRAMENTO — California GOP strategists, seeking to reshape the electoral map in their party's favor, plan to begin raising money this week for a ballot initiative they hope will help a Republican win the White House in the 2008 election.
As it is, Democrats assume they must win California's electoral votes to win the presidency. California supplies 55 electoral votes, more than 10% of the 538 nationally.
The nascent initiative, aimed at the June 2008 ballot, would change California's winner-take-all system to require that electoral votes be apportioned by congressional district.
With Republicans holding 19 of the state's 53 congressional seats, a GOP candidate theoretically...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Typical, short-sighted idiots... This will bite them on the ass one day. If this nutty idea catches on in too many states, the GOP will find itself locked out of the White House. In case they hadn’t noticed, there are more Dems in Congress than Pubies as has been the case for most of the last half century.
Stupid is as my Party does.
and what many people don’t realize is that the GOP holds the majority in registered voters in 35 of the 58 counties;
a 17 county switch in the last 12 years.
While the Lefties are aborting their offspring, Conservatives are busy raising theirs.
The people of this bill must actually believe that there are more conservatives than dimbulbs in the Socialist Republik of Kalifornia.
I have as good a chance of being selected Pope as anything like this does of being passed in Kalifornia
I don’t understand why they want the votes apportioned by congressional district instead of just by percentage, unless they think there’s something to be gained because the districts are gerrymandered. Does apportioning by district get them more electoral votes than they’d otherwise get?
Actually, the district apportionment system would favor the GOP nationally.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Your reasoning is somewhat broken - look at WV electing Byrd statewide yet voting for Bush.
Between their love of asinine, mobocratic “ballot initiatives”, and their desire to run roughshod over the electoral college, the California GOP again shows themselves to be populist, rather than conservative.
About time is all I can say.
I’m sick of the GOP abandoning the so-called “blue states.”
I have no idea. Good question, though.
You should stick to playing the drums since obviously don’t know squat about CA.
You might want to read my previous post, #4 just to enlighten yourself on reality.
and finally, fyi, there are more registered Republicans in CA than any other state in the Union.
“Socialist Republik of Kalifornia?”
you must have been “educated” in public schools. LMAO
You might want to read my previous post, Post # 3 just to enlighten yourself on reality.
The Electoral College was killed long, long ago. Prior to the Civil War, the electors were entirely independent of the populace as well it should have been. Now, they're forced to vote "winner take all," meaning less populated areas of states get the disproportionate shaft. At least this measure would restore some sort of fairness to the system.
You are most likely correct. That is, I'm assuming you're not posting from the Vatican, eh?
Well apparently they don’t vote because that has been a blue state for quite a while. What good is is to have more registered republicans than any other state when they are outvoted by dimbulbs?
The last time I looked, 233 was a bigger number than 202.
And I agree with your comments on the earlier thread, too.
Either there's something there, or we're both wrong?
Mob will rule soon anyway and pretty much already does with all the corruption and illegal voters.
That is not a map indicating what CD's voted Democrat and Republican but rather a map of counties and parishes and how they voted in 2004.
Big Difference.
That map is by county. The blue one in the middle of So. Cal. is L.A. County; my county. It’s stuffed with little, Gerrymandered, Democrat, Congressional districts.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
We vote!
It’s just that there are more registerd Democrats in CA than Republicans. The registered Independents who account for practically 20 percent of the registered voters are the ones who actually turn elections here. As proven by the recall of the Dimwit Gray Davis in 2003. And if everyone including FReepers who said they would vote for Tom McClintock had ACTUALLY VOTED FOR TOM MCCLINTOCK; we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in today!
Class Dismissed!
Dear good ol' Clem;
According to the freeper "AuH2ORepublican" who contributes a good post on the previous thread, #24, here, this might not really equate to "running roughshod" over the EC. But it would change how it works in California, if it were to pass, that much looks certain.
Two-and-more than a half, "Ohio's", electoral votes-wise, deserve to be broken up a bit, I think. It would be fairer to Republican votes that get ignored in California, and fairer to the rest of the nation, that presently gets hit with that huge block of EC votes that CA has long been tossing to the 'Rats.
This could be interesting.
Bush won 33 states and lost 17. Therefore, if you count the electoral votes for the two senators from each of these states, the actual vote count under the CA GOP’s scheme would be 268-267 in favor of the Republicans.
I’ve never understood the winner-take-all system for the electoral college.
Theoretically, if you had a large enough state — say 51% of the total US population — and a candidate took that state with 51%, you could be electing a President supported by barely 25% of the total US population even though 75% voted for the other candidate.
As a Californian, I’m tired of my vote not counting in Presidential elections.
A. The biggest problem is the number of illegal aliens that the Dems have put on the voter roles through the “motor voter” law and the destruction of all hope at verification of eligibility through the use of provisional ballots.
B. Tom would not have won the recall election as you say. Arnold won because he got the independents (which you mention as the determing factor), and some democrats to vote for him. Tom, whome I, and every other Republican I know voted for in the last general election, could not even win the Lt. Governors seat.
C. I like Tom as much as you, but if we (those of us that voted for Arnold instead of who we would have liked to) had done as you say, Davis would have defeated the recall. The last general election confirmed that.
Not to mention ALL of the Central Valley counties. The only one that is close is Fresno, and it’s still Red for the time being. We have 2 “safe” GOP congressional districts and 1 almost safe Dimbulb one. My GOP congressman won with over 80% the last time ‘round. The one I had before I was gerrymandered out of his district won with 70% or so. California is nowhere near lock-step Dimbulb.
What I miss is the idea of splitting CA up into several smaller states. There was a plan a while back to cut it into 5 states, which would have worked out well, really. The dividing lines were determined by political philosophy. They had SF and LA as states, and then 3 other states made up of the rest. 3:2 GOP win there.
How the public relations aspects will be handled by the proponets, is yet to be seen. Maybe Maldonaldo [if he were to support this] could regain some of the good will he recently lost, among the CA GOP...
I like it, I like it! 6 senators, to 4 little Barbara Boxers.
aah, but who are we kidding? They'll never go for it, in this State. It's too rational of an idea, for starters. Then we'd have the opposition from the 'Rat dominated State employees unions, who wouldn't want their power diluted, along with all dirty tricks coming from the dirty 'rat (Party of Willie Brown) dominated legislature.
Maybe we should make it illegal for State employees to vote on State political issues. Voting for bread and circuses is a sure way to push a Republic into decline, as history clearly shows...
“Typical, short-sighted idiots... This will bite them on the ass one day. If this nutty idea catches on in too many states, the GOP will find itself locked out of the White House. In case they hadn’t noticed, there are more Dems in Congress than Pubies as has been the case for most of the last half century.”
Actually the current math helps the GOP.
But things change.
It has documented time and time again by the last poll before the election in 2003 that if the election had been between Bustamante & McClintock with RINOld out of the race; McClintock would have won overwhelmingly.
True, but the liberal numbers are being replenished by the Anchor Babies all the Illegals are having
.you may think that but the documented stats prove you wrong as I posted in post #3
This is already the law in two states (Nebraska and Maine) and it did not change the outcome one iota, it just allowed the ENTIRE state to have a voice over who they wanted for President, rather than the big cities in those states outvoting everyone else and getting EVERY electoral vote when only 51% of the state's total voters favored that candidate.
In case you hadn't noticed, many voters around the country are not straight ticket hacks and will cast a split ticket in favor of one party to be their President and ANOTHER party to be their Congressman. President Bush won all over Arkansas, even though 3 out of 4 of their Congressmen are RATs. (By contrast, Gore won overwhelmingly in Conn., even though 3 out of 5 districts had GOP Congressmen at the time) Congress was overwhemingly RAT in 1984. Do you really think all those RAT Congressional districts voted for 49-state loser Walter Mondale as their President? Alot of Democrat controlled Congressional districts in the south and midwest have socially conservative Dem Congressmen and will not be caught dead voted for a New England socialist Dem at the top of the ticket. Get a clue.
Stupid is as Redcloak does.
Please, Redcloak's position could prove out to be correct, at least at some future time, particularly if changes in the way "electors" are selected to the EC, were to occur nation-wide, rather than just here in CA, at the moment. I wouldn't call that freeper, stupid. Of differing opinion, but in regards to the subject matter of this thread, contrary opinion does not = "stupid".
I thank you BB, for your help, otherwise. You've brought good info and insight to the discussion.
What are you talking about? Pelosi wasn't running for President, and even if she was, the only "Congressional District" she's ever won is her own. KERRY was the Dem nominee for President, and Bush won more Congressional Districts in the country than KERRY did.
Let's make this simple for you. Example:
________________________________________________
Indiana currently has NINE Congressional districts.
"Democrats" won five out of those nine districts in 2006, which has NO outcome on the Presidential election (REGARDLESS of whether this proposed system is adopted or not).
But KERRY won only TWO of out nine Congressional districts in Indiana, so if this system had been in place in 2004, Kerry would have been awarded only TWO of Indiana's eleven electoral votes.
Bush would have won the OTHER nine electoral votes, INCLUDING the districts that have Democrat congressmen.
Kerry himself failed to win a majority of the vote in all the other Congressional districts in Indiana that are currently held by fellow Democrat Representatives.
________________________________________________
You DO realize this proposal in California would award electional votes based on how the population of the Congressional District votes for PRESIDENT -- NOT based on who they elected as their Congressman, right?
It's really not that hard to figure out.
Not a problem, BlueDragon. As a man who lives in upstate New York, I know what it’s like to live in a conservative part of a blue state and not be heard.
To quote FReeper mewzilla, we say “upstate needs its own state” because New York City interests tend to dominate politics in this state and it’s led to near ruin. I’m sure that a lot of inland Californians feel much the same way.
Wow. That’s really good news. THere’s hope for California after all.
yeah.
But it may be possible to change that condition...by getting this placed directly, as ballot initiative, before the entire electorate.
I wouldn't bet the farm on it's passing, nor quit my day job just to promote it's passing, though.
[now if the GOP wanted to PAY me to promote it, and have it BE my day job for 18 months, well, that would be different, hehheh]
even though some attempt to claim that i resemble it at times ;^)
They're always wrong, of course!
I’d like to see that documentation. Got any links?
If Ohio falls (most likely), so do national GOP aspirations.
Eying California while the bottom falls out of Ohio shows just how out of touch some GOPers can be.
Psssst....there are a lot more people in those dem counties.
Double psssst...conservatism isn't hereditary.
While it's theoretically possible a Dem President would thrawt the national mood by somehow carrying all the currently Dem controlled Congressional districts, you have a better chance of "theoretically" having Congress pick the next President because of an electoral deadlock under the current "winner take" all system. Both are technically possible, but stand little chance of happening in reality.
======================================================================
Let's try a "red state"
GEORGIA:
15 ELECTORAL VOTES
13 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
6 out of 13 Districts currently DEMOCRAT controlled
Georgia's Presidential vote, 2004:
By County
By Congressional District
No. of CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS won by "DEMOCRATS" = 6
No. of CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS won by KERRY himself = 2
No. of ELECTORAL VOTES won by KERRY under PROPOSED system = 2 out of 15
No. of ELECTORAL VOTES won by KERRY under CURRENT system = 0 out of 15
Georgia Dems control nearly half of the state's congressional districts, but Kerry picks up a paltry 2 out of 15 electoral votes in that state, not much of a benefit over his original total of 0 electional votes in that state. This is because Kerry was a socialist Mass. Senator who was far too liberal for MOST of Georgia, except the most leftist regions in the state.
=================================================================================
Now let's try a "blue state"
OREGON
7 ELECTORAL VOTES
5 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS
4 out of 5 Districts currently DEMOCRAT controlled
Oregon's Presidential vote, 2004:
By County
By Congressional District
No. of CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS won by "DEMOCRATS" = 4 out of 5
No. of CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS won by KERRY himself = 2 out of 5
No. of ELECTORAL VOTES won by KERRY under PROPOSED system = 4 out of 7 (two Congressional districts plus two Senate districts)
No. of ELECTORAL VOTES won by KERRY under CURRENT system = 7 out of 7
Democrats control all but one of the Congressional districts in Oregon. But instead of Bush winning a lone electoral vote from that state, he gets a impressive 3 out of 7 electoral votes, given the fact that Oregon is a highly contested swing state. This GREATLY improves over the current system which awarded Bush 0 electoral votes, even though he won over almost half the voters in that state.
=====================================================================================================================
ok, have never thought of it that way...
As Ohio goes, so goes a [voting-wise] bellweather of the nation? In that regard, maybe ya' got something. In other aspects, this is more the CA State GOP who is looking at the huge electoral college advatage that the 'rats win by default, that is larger than the total EC count of Ohio, even. Not to ignore Ohio, but more to quite ignoring the grossly lopsided EC results in CA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.