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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
OK I’m convinced. How often do you read that on FR? :-)
If we went district-by-district all over the country, wouldn’t state politicians just gerrymander so that their party has an advantage.
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.
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.
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
What they should do is divide each state population by electoral (e.g California’s electoral 55/population). It comes out to around 650k per electoral. Then they have the repub and dems assign three judges (every two years) that will establish electoral sections. This a close concept to districts but a bit different.
Then they need to adjust the primary process in which a runoff establishes ideal candiates among practical, and reduce it down to 2 candiates for the final run. Otherwise you’ll likely see Ross Perots taking away the chance of a majority electoral.
It would be a better system. It would show us whom is really good for the vp spot, and it would require both popular support with a broad concensus. I could see a moderation on many issues, but generally I think American politics would lean to the right in both parties.
Thoughts?
Of course that's true, but what's faulty is your assumption that Republican federal candidates will do better on a Congressional district level than they'd do on the state level.
That assumption no longer really holds any water following last November's elections -- on the contrary, it increasingly seems that GOP strength is concentrated in a relatively small number of heavily conservative districts. The marginal districts in many places (classic example: C0-07) are, as of late, trending pretty Democratic and I suspect that that will be true in Presidential races as well.
As soon as that situation is resolved (one way or another), the loony left is going to lose all the anti-war supporters who are otherwise fairly moderate. They aren’t going to support the rest of the radicalist agenda that the DC dems are moving to. The old rally cries aren’t what they used to be; the race card is tattered by overplay, the feminist “equality” agenda is accomplished leaving only the “womyn”, the homosexuals are only 3-4%ers, and unions continue to decline.
The margins they gained in ‘06 were razor thin and built on deception by new Dems representing themselves as far more conservative than their leadership has let them vote, and on the apathy of the Republican base. Both of those situations can be turned quickly, if targeted by the RNC and the individual GOP candidates. All they need do is break themselves of the habit of “support the incumbent” thinking, and re-target the money and support to candidates with the resonant messages and fresh thinking.
thats right, that is my point completely. They left it up to the states to decide. Who decides is the state legislators, how is totally up to them. My point is that the constitution and the feds, god help us if the courts got involved, give no direction as to the final distribution of the votes.
Really, a better solution would be to divide CA into two or even three states.
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.