Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Electoral Initiative Would Add An Interesting Twist (Larger National GOP EC Majorities Alert)
Orange County Register ^ | 08/25/2007 | Dena Burns

Posted on 08/27/2007 9:33:59 AM PDT by goldstategop

So if this initiative were to get on the ballot and pass, it would mean that even if the state continued to vote for a Democrat for president, as it has for the past four elections, a Republican would still get some electoral votes. Under this method, Bush would have gotten 19 in 2000 and Gore 35. In 2004, Bush would have gotten 22 electoral votes and Kerry 33.

Democrats are furious over the prospect of a district by district scheme.

They say that unless such a change was made in every state in the union, it would be unfair and would virtually guarantee a Republican president from here on in.

Currently only two states – Nebraska and Maine – apportion their Electoral College votes based on congressional districts. Maine has been doing it that way since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996. Neither state has ever split its Electoral College votes. Maine's four have gone to the Democrat and Nebraska's five to the Republican.

Some Republicans are concerned that if the ballot initiative were to pass here, Democrats might try to get similar measures adopted in states that would be favorable to them. I wondered about that and crunched the numbers for the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.

Neither outcome would have changed. In fact, Bush would have won by larger margins.

In 2004 Bush had 286 electoral votes; Kerry 252. Under the district by district method, Bush would have gotten 323; Kerry 213.

And in 2000, Bush had 271 electoral votes; Gore 266. A district by district count would have given Bush 291 votes; Gore 244.

(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: california; calinitiatives; democraticparty; denaburns; districtformula; electoralcollege; electoralvote; gop; hiltachk; hltachkinitiative; orangecountyregister; presidentialelection
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last
No wonder the Democrats are running scared - a switch to a District formula basis such as that in the proposed Hltatchk initiative would guarantee larger Electoral College majorities for a GOP candidate. It would put the White House out of reach for the Democrats. The reason: they do well in a few urban areas that allow them to carry ALL the electoral votes in a state under the current winner take all formula but they don't win a majority of congressional districts. That's where the DF formula nullifies the Democrats' competitiveness. Just crunch the math.

"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

1 posted on 08/27/2007 9:34:03 AM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

It’s a bad idea for anyone who supports states rights. Even though this would help Republicans, doing away with “winner takes all” is a step toward popular vote election.


2 posted on 08/27/2007 9:40:16 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Boy I hope this passes. But then again it has been unfair that Cali’s EVs have been at the will of a few cities on the pacific. Just like it’s been unfair that Pennsylvania’s dem EVs have been made possible by the Pittsburgh area and the New York EBs by NYC.

But, California is big enough to be it’s own country, so this would do the most to level the playing field.


3 posted on 08/27/2007 9:41:15 AM PDT by Tears of a Clown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

So this is a good Republican strategy. This way, if Dems. want to have this happen in every state, not just Calif, then the Republicans would have done even better.

Maybe this is why Dianne Feinstein recently said, just scrap the Electoral College and have direct popular election of the Pres. and VP.


4 posted on 08/27/2007 9:42:53 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
They say that unless such a change was made in every state in the union, it would be unfair and would virtually guarantee a Republican president from here on in.

Until they step up their level of corruption in the elections systems.

5 posted on 08/27/2007 9:43:59 AM PDT by sionnsar (trad-anglican.faithweb.com |Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

actually it a big step for states rights. The state, not the feds have the say so in how the votes are divided. In fact it supports the 10th amendment in that the constitution does not mention the means of distribution of electoral votes, only the means of determining the number. As for elimination of the electoral college,that would take an amendment to do and is unlikely as this has been the subject for debate for decades and no majority against has ever occurred.


6 posted on 08/27/2007 9:48:45 AM PDT by Biggs of Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
It’s a bad idea for anyone who supports states rights

If the states decide, to do it, what's the problem?

I thought (silly me) that states were allowed to decide how they apportion their vote, some states will be all or nothing, some won't, they will act on what is best for them.

My understanding is that California residents feel like candidates come to fund raise, then disappear to states that "Matter" because they are a known entity. This means candidates will have to spend time there, which is good for them.

Not that it matters, I say let them do what they want, besides, it's constitutional, Grin.
7 posted on 08/27/2007 9:48:55 AM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

Well as long as they don’t force it upon other states-let california do what it wants if they want to keep it the same-fine, if they want to go a congressional district aportionment-fine..


8 posted on 08/27/2007 9:49:01 AM PDT by JSDude1 (Republicans if the don't beware ARE the new WHIGS! (all empty hairpieces..) :).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

It IS states’ rights. The Constitution mandates only an electoral college with seats apportioned between the states, with each state choosing how those votes are cast.


9 posted on 08/27/2007 9:49:35 AM PDT by mak5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JSDude1

Direct popular election will probably never happen, because the electoral college and electoral vote system is written right into the constitution. So it would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of it entirely.

But that wouldn’t stop efforts to change how states give their electoral votes to presidential candidates.


10 posted on 08/27/2007 9:52:04 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
Maybe this is why Dianne Feinstein recently said, just scrap the Electoral College and have direct popular election of the Pres. and VP.

Study that one real hard. Without the EV, the red states would be discounted...The Big Cities, read Blue, would rule supreme. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.

Think on this: Hitlery is determined to kill the EV. That should tell you all you need to know.

OTHH, My state, Maine, does have the District formula and splits the EV's according to the district votes. This at least gives the republican voters some say.

11 posted on 08/27/2007 9:56:24 AM PDT by maine-iac7 ( "...but you can't fool all of the people all the time." LINCOLN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mak5

Yes I see the point. One would think those clamoring for popular vote election of Presidents would accept this rather than putting forward plans to award electors based on a national popular vote...but that would be states rights too I suppose since it is the state making the decision to do this. Nonetheless, I doubt the founders had anticipated either plan.


12 posted on 08/27/2007 10:02:07 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

I never would advocate for Direct Election, but if states want to go the conressional distric appotionment;let them..

that isn’s unconstiutionl, and doesn’t disenfrachise anyone the way direct elections would.


13 posted on 08/27/2007 10:03:26 AM PDT by JSDude1 (Republicans if the don't beware ARE the new WHIGS! (all empty hairpieces..) :).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rhombus; goldstategop
It’s a bad idea for anyone who supports states rights. Even though this would help Republicans, doing away with “winner takes all” is a step toward popular vote election.

Actually it's not. It would make the electoral college function closer to the way it originally worked before 19th century big city machine bosses got the legislatures to switch to the winner take all format to enhance the power of big cities in national politics. What scares the hell out of the DemocRATs is that much of their national electorate is concentrated in congressional districts designed to elect radical leftist congressmen with 80% or 90%+ proportions of the vote. They would have to abandon much of their agenda to appeal to the marginal congressional district.

It's not surprising that the former mayor of San Francisco is upset that radical left wing big cities would have less national clout. But this was intended by design. Alexander Hamilton understood this perfectly. You should read the federalist papers, especially #68.

14 posted on 08/27/2007 10:10:13 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
I'm curious to see what a district-by-district, plus 2 more votes to the popular vote winner of a state, EV count would've been in the past several elections.

I view this as a state's rights issue (OK, state's powers, as they can't have rights, not being individuals). From that narrow standpoint, it is OK. I'm not so sure of the wisdom of this (even if it would be tremendously advantageous to Republicans in Cali and NY). It comes dangerously close to effectively eliminating the Electoral College (even though literally doing so is almost impossible, given that it requires an Amendment), which is what the Dems seem to want (for now, until one of their candidates wins the EV and loses the popular vote).

15 posted on 08/27/2007 10:10:47 AM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

You know that if the Democrats don’t like it, it must be a good thing.


16 posted on 08/27/2007 10:19:13 AM PDT by Old Retired Army Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggs of Michigan
In fact it supports the 10th amendment in that the constitution does not mention the means of distribution of electoral votes, only the means of determining the number.

But the US Constitution does have specific wording that the state legislature determines the selection method for electors. It's arguable whether or not an initiative, rather than a legislative act, can be used to change that method. I'd expect that the initiative sponsors have already considered this point but I don't know what their conclusions may have been.

17 posted on 08/27/2007 10:21:12 AM PDT by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

I don’t see this plan as effectively eliminating the Electoral College. On the contrary, I see this as making it more representative of the people who are voting.

The Electoral College is after all, a legislature that sits for a single purpose. It is far from archaic. It is the most modern and innovative method for choosing a national executive. Currently, due to the winner take all system, the College represents only the states (except for Maine and Nebraska). A change would make it represent both the states and the people and would thus parallel the Congress, as intended.


18 posted on 08/27/2007 10:25:05 AM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Biggs of Michigan
In fact it supports the 10th amendment in that the constitution does not mention the means of distribution of electoral votes, only the means of determining the number.

Actually the Constitution specifically states that the legislatures of the states decide how the electoral votes for their states are distributed.

19 posted on 08/27/2007 10:25:06 AM PDT by VRWCmember (Fred Thompson 2008! Taking America Back for Conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

Well, two states already do partial apportionment of their electoral votes. And I don’t think adopting this rule would really hurt the smaller states, or states rights.

I do agree that unless a good number of states adopt it at once, a single state doing so could really throw things off.

Remember, Colorado tried to do this in 2004, but the voters rejected it. In the end it wouldn’t have mattered, but it would have cost Bush 4 electoral votes.

On the other hand, if Florida had this rule in 2000, Gore wouldn’t have been compelled to fight so hard for the few hundred extra votes, because it wouldn’t have changed the results (no district would have switched, and the two extra “senate” electoral votes wouldn’t have been enough to change the outcome).

The beauty of the electoral college is that it does allow disputes over votes to be confined to small areas. A popular vote for President would mean that in a close race a candidate would have to fight for recounts in all 50 states, with the EC they only have to contest close states.

With a district-by-district apportionment, they’d only have to fight over close districts.

On the other hand, there might be a lot more close districts than there are close states, so maybe there would be more fighting, not less.


20 posted on 08/27/2007 10:27:54 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
It would put the White House out of reach for the Democrats. The reason: they do well in a few urban areas that allow them to carry ALL the electoral votes in a state under the current winner take all formula but they don't win a majority of congressional districts.

That argument might have made sense between 1995 and 2006 when we had the House. However, the Democrats now control a majority of the nation's congressional districts and that's not likely to change in 2008.

21 posted on 08/27/2007 10:29:01 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Gravitation is a theory, not a fact. It should be approached with an open mind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Thanks, will do.


22 posted on 08/27/2007 10:30:51 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

It’s probably the cynic in me but why do I feel that if the roles in the 2000 Presidential election were reversed (so that Bush won the popular vote but lost the EC) that you never hear any concern about the EC reform.


23 posted on 08/27/2007 10:32:10 AM PDT by CommerceComet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
They say that unless such a change was made in every state in the union, it would be unfair and would virtually guarantee a Republican president from here on in.

It's only "unfair" because California has 55 electoral votes. The next largest state has 34 electoral votes. I doubt they'd scream if it were for a 5 EV state.

-PJ

24 posted on 08/27/2007 10:38:49 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Repeal the 17th amendment -- it's the "Fairness Doctrine" for Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
On the other hand, if Florida had this rule in 2000, Gore wouldn’t have been compelled to fight so hard for the few hundred extra votes, because it wouldn’t have changed the results (no district would have switched, and the two extra “senate” electoral votes wouldn’t have been enough to change the outcome).

When the DemocRATS still held the Florida legislature, they tried to pass legislation allowing division of Florida's electoral vote by congressional district. They wanted to help Clinton out in 1992. Ironically, if this system had been in place in Florida while none of the other states changed, Gore would have been elected in 2000.

25 posted on 08/27/2007 10:39:06 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
Maybe this is why Dianne Feinstein recently said, just scrap the Electoral College and have direct popular election of the Pres. and VP.

Perhaps Feinstein's misundertanding of federalism comes from the 17th amendment.

The President is not the ruler of the people, he is the head of the federation between the states. The governors are the leaders of the people.

Just as Senators were to be selected by state legislatures to represent the states in the Congress, Presidents were to also be selected by the states to oversee common defense, foreign affairs, and relations between the states.

The 17th amendment replaced state appointment of Senators with popular election, and repealing the Electoral College will replace state selection of the President with popular election, too.

-PJ

26 posted on 08/27/2007 10:43:35 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Repeal the 17th amendment -- it's the "Fairness Doctrine" for Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CommerceComet
I remember a lot of worries before the 2000 vote when it looked like it was possible for President Bush to win the popular vote but loose the electoral vote. There were even some calls from the right to eliminate the elctoral college. Oh, how little we knew at the start of November 2000.
27 posted on 08/27/2007 10:51:32 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (May the heirs of Charles Martel and Jan Sobieski rise up again to defend Europe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

As the fertile soil for every whackjob idea to come down the pike, I think California should definitely do this!

If nothing else, it would provide an object lesson to the sane parts of the country.


28 posted on 08/27/2007 10:58:51 AM PDT by Redbob (WWJBD - "What would Jack Bauer Do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Can this initiative really pass? Why would a majority Dem state vote it in?


29 posted on 08/27/2007 11:05:40 AM PDT by Greg F (Ann Coulter is smarter than most of us and quicker witted than all of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7
"My state, Maine, does have the District formula and splits the EV's according to the district votes."

Really.

How many electoral votes has George Bush gotten from Maine?

30 posted on 08/27/2007 11:07:51 AM PDT by Redbob (WWJBD - "What would Jack Bauer Do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

The Democrats were pushing this change for Colorado in 2004, where they would have picked up a few EVs.


31 posted on 08/27/2007 11:12:57 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

If I were a Californian, I’d want to split my state into at least two states, because they really get ripped off when it comes to Senate representation.


32 posted on 08/27/2007 11:15:13 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus
One would think those clamoring for popular vote election of Presidents would accept this rather than putting forward plans to award electors based on a national popular vote...but that would be states rights too I suppose since it is the state making the decision to do this.

I see this initiative as a "put up or shut up" to those pushing a nationwide popular vote instead of the EC. This method makes the vote closer to the popular vote, doesn't require a change to the Constitution, and reflects directly the way Electors are apportioned.

The big sticking point is that the Constitution gives sole power to assign the method of choosing electors to the state legislatures. I don't believe mandating it by initiative would be constitutional; at the least, it will be instantly challenged and head to the courts.

33 posted on 08/27/2007 11:23:21 AM PDT by LexBaird (Tyrannosaurus Lex, unapologetic carnivore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Greg F
Can this initiative really pass? Why would a majority Dem state vote it in?

Possibly, because hardly any presidential candidates even bother to campaign in California during the general election campaign.

34 posted on 08/27/2007 11:27:18 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
That argument might have made sense between 1995 and 2006 when we had the House. However, the Democrats now control a majority of the nation's congressional districts and that's not likely to change in 2008.

You assume that because a Dem is the Representative, that the Presidential vote will be the same. That isn't so; ticket splitting is common. Congressional races are far more likely to be decided on local issues, Presidential races on national issues.

35 posted on 08/27/2007 11:31:50 AM PDT by LexBaird (Tyrannosaurus Lex, unapologetic carnivore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Possibly, because hardly any presidential candidates even bother to campaign in California during the general election campaign.
______________________________________________

Makes sense, California’s power is not really exercised on a national stage with the current system. Republican politicians are hardly panting to consider California’s well being in lawmaking when we can’t get a Senator or Presidential vote out of CA. Dems can just take it for granted. So CA has their numbers in the House and that’s it. Could be more powerful politically with the change.

Only the elites with their money are courted in CA.


36 posted on 08/27/2007 11:33:59 AM PDT by Greg F (Ann Coulter is smarter than most of us and quicker witted than all of us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

They’d have to REALLY step up, because now they just have to have serious vote fraud in one or two districts in heavily populated areas where it’s harder to detect.


37 posted on 08/27/2007 11:38:18 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
It's only "unfair" because California has 55 electoral votes. The next largest state has 34 electoral votes. I doubt they'd scream if it were for a 5 EV state.

The Dems understand that although there are numerous realistic scenarios in which the Republicans win the White House without winning California, there are NO realistic scenarios in which the Dems win without California.

38 posted on 08/27/2007 11:38:39 AM PDT by Terabitten (Virginia Tech Corps of Cadets - E-Frat '94. Unity and Pride!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
The Democrats were pushing this change for Colorado in 2004, where they would have picked up a few EVs.

Colorado is a 9 EV state. There are only four possible outcomes of a prorated distribution with 7 congressional districts and 2 Senate EV's to the winner:

California's 55 EV's put this in a totally different league than Colorado.

-PJ

39 posted on 08/27/2007 11:38:53 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (Repeal the 17th amendment -- it's the "Fairness Doctrine" for Congress!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: rhombus

It doesn’t do away with the “winner take all” approach. It just divides the regions into finer granularity.

The concept that helps our Republic is the fact that at some point, and with some granularity, getting 51% of the vote is all the good you can get from that group of people. You have to move on and garner support elsewhere, which causes the President to have broader appeal.


40 posted on 08/27/2007 11:42:18 AM PDT by krb (If you're not outraged, people probably like having you around.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

This is definitely a bad idea, because it would allow the GOP to continue to act like democrats and still win the White House. I’d rather make sure they have to work for every vote they get.


41 posted on 08/27/2007 11:45:50 AM PDT by deaconjim (Because He lives...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

My understanding of this methodolgy is that you can go all the back and the only election that would change hands as a result of using this formula is the election Kennedy stole from Nixon.

I looked but couldnt find the report.


42 posted on 08/27/2007 11:47:36 AM PDT by hobbes1 (Hobbes1TheOmniscient? "I know everything so you dont have to...." ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

5-4 is also possible, since the 2 “senate” electors would be picked by popular vote of the state, and so you could win 4 of the 7 districts but still lose the state.

But you are right that the numbers are much less daunting.

But if they had done this in 2000, Gore would have won the election, as I think it would have swung 3 evs to Gore, giving him a 269-268 victory.


43 posted on 08/27/2007 12:04:52 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
From the article: And in 2000, Bush had 271 electoral votes; Gore 266. A district by district count would have given Bush 291 votes; Gore 244.
44 posted on 08/27/2007 12:09:16 PM PDT by NeoCaveman ("I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week." - Romney on B. Hussein Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

So if this initiative were to get on the ballot and pass,

There is no way that this will pass. We are talking democrats are majority of people 3 to 1 at least. If we were discussing Ohio or Pennsylvania than perhaps it might pass if Republicans worked hard for it.


45 posted on 08/27/2007 12:12:40 PM PDT by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

OK I’m convinced. How often do you read that on FR? :-)


46 posted on 08/27/2007 12:15:40 PM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

If we went district-by-district all over the country, wouldn’t state politicians just gerrymander so that their party has an advantage.


47 posted on 08/27/2007 12:22:11 PM PDT by WinOne4TheGipper (Now more popular than Congress!* *According to a new RasMESSen Poll.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhombus; hedgetrimmer
It’s a bad idea for anyone who supports states rights.

I'm thinking the same thing. After all, the state itself no longer would be choosing their candidate, each district would.

Even though this would help Republicans, doing away with “winner takes all” is a step toward popular vote election.

It also could represent a move to Regional, vs. State, Governance.

48 posted on 08/27/2007 1:04:41 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman

That is true, but we were discussing Colorado’s attempt to change their state. the poster I was responding to had said that Colorado’s EV count was small compared to California, so I was noting that if Colorado had adopted this policy in 2000, Gore would have won.

I would expect over the next few years, Democrats will be pushing to change the EV system in republican states, and Republicans will do so in democratic states.

I think Ohio was looking at this as well, although recently the Democrats stopped pushing for it, I presume because they feel they will win Ohio in 2008. Maybe soon the Republicans in Ohio will push for it.


49 posted on 08/27/2007 2:46:49 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

A MORE PERFECT UNION A video on our constitution electoral college
http://www.byu.tv/index.html?start=0&stop=7200&show=&ep=http%3A//qmplive.xlontech.net/byutv/stream/070707.qvt

takes a little time to download


50 posted on 08/27/2007 4:40:37 PM PDT by restornu (Elevate Your Thoughts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson