Posted on 08/20/2007 7:50:44 AM PDT by SmithL
Most Americans have never heard of the Electoral College or have no idea what it is or how it works.
Absolutely excellent article — Thanks
California can allocate its electoral votes in any way it see fit, provided it is based in some fashion on the expressed desires of the electorate. If they want to dilute the democrat ascendency in the land of fruits and nuts, I personally have no problem with it.
I like the electoral college. If it didn’t exist, candidates would promise to rob the rest of the country to bribe voters in a few large, urban areas.
What we really need, though is a government weak enough that we can safely ignore who controls it. Fat chance of that, though.
Yes.
The states were originally the sovereign entities, and the Senate is to represent the states as entities. The House is representative of the people.
Yes, and no. The senate was originally constructed to contain people loyal to *gasp* their STATE, and NOT beholden to any nationalized political party. When senators became direct-election buffoons, the states were divested of their direct voice in the federal government.
Basically, the state legislators worked to make sure that the senators they sent to Washington would serve the interest of the state, rather than their party.
.
How is any ballot initative either dirty politics or undemocratic? It is neither, rather, it is a legitimate way for the people to have a say in the government. If the people of California want to split their electoral college votes, they are legally entitled to vote to do so.
Many Americans don't like education either, and the media that treats them as eight-year olds don't help the situation. However, abolishing the public schools might seem a tad drastic. Even abolishing newspapers because Americans are fed up with them strikes me as extreme. Besides, I have every confidence that newspapers will find a way to go out of business without help from anyone else.
.
This is a non-issue. As someone pointed out on another thread, Article II of the Constitution gives the state legislature the power to determine how their electoral votes will be cast and not a popular referendum. Even if it passed it wouldn’t survive the court challenges, and the California legislature is not going to weaken the Democrat hold on the state’s votes.
It’s hard to say. Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and the balance is certainly close. But you can’t just look at past elections and reanalyze them by county or whatever, anyway, because candidates would campaign differently if an election were held under different rules.
What the heck are you talking about? Just about every state already has a winner-take-all system. I think only Maine and Nebraska break them down proportionally.
Different situation. In his first election, he was in a three way race with Bush and Perot. I think he still got the most votes, though not more than 50%, so he still would have won had a popular vote system been in place, neglecting the effect of different campaign tactics.
Did he lose the popular vote to Dole in ‘96? If so, I didn’t remember that.
So your comment is right on. Had Kerry, or Gore won, it they would have been elected by NYC, San Fran, LA, and a handful more urban areas that vote 70% for any Democrat.
Actually, that brings up an interesting question. The Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." In California, the ballot initiative process was added to give the people a route AROUND the legislature to enact popular policies.
This makes me wonder if a ballot proposition for changing the way that electors are apportioned is unconstitutional because the legislature didn't direct it. Sure, some legislature at some time voted to amend the state constitution with the proposition process, but that seems to be a bit indirect insofar as directing the choosing of electors goes.
Has this been discussed before?
-PJ
I know, I live in Maryland. A the mayor of Baltimore, a city with one of the highest murder rates, despite his promises to end the killing, was elected gov. by winning a lib county and baltimore city over the incumbent who created a surplus. Now we have a deficit and taxes across the board are about to be raised. There’s a handful of places in America where people just pull the lever next to anyone with a D next to their names. Mindless morons.
BTW: check out those cities you mention. Run by dems for years, total messes (except Chicago, but you can add new orleans).
I’d be fine seeing it go based on districts.
How are you confused about what I am saying? Whether you are factually correct or not I will have to check, but, regardless, it does not affect the point I was making.
The key is this part, "A vote for the candidates for President and Vice-President named on the ballot is a vote for the electors..." This is the case for 48 states -- it's known as the "winner-take-all system." The other system, known as the "district system," is observed in both Maine and Nebraska. In these states, two electors' votes are made based on the candidate who received the most votes statewide. The remaining electoral votes go by congressional districts, awarding the vote to the candidate who received the most votes in each district.
However, that does not change the principle I was espousing.
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.