Posted on 07/17/2011 11:24:59 AM PDT by thecodont
It's a complaint that arises every four years, then quickly fades: the disproportionate power a small number of states have over the presidential contest.
California lawmakers want to do something about it - in fact, they've tried for years, but were blocked by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. So just as they did in 2006 and 2008, legislators this week approved a proposal to make California relevant.
Here's how it works: California's electoral votes are awarded in a winner-take-all manner. If a presidential candidate wins the majority of popular votes in California, he or she gets all the state's 55 electoral votes. This legislation, already adopted in eight other states, would award the electoral votes of participating states to the candidate who wins the nation's popular vote.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/15/BAST1KAHH6.DTL#ixzz1SO4vkHdA
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
If the SF Comical thinks it is a good idea, then I am against it. Every time they want to F*&K with the electoral college it is not for the greater good, but for their greater benefit. Hell no.
The constitutional sidestep that probably isn’t constitutional.
And so they dilute their own power. Be my guest!
And when they tell us, “Here how it works” we should all remember how all that other $#!t they have crammed down our throats is working so damn well as we fly off the proverbial cliff.
California lawmakers... tried for years, but were blocked by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger... Here's how it works: California's electoral votes are awarded in a winner-take-all manner. If a presidential candidate wins the majority of popular votes in California, he or she gets all the state's 55 electoral votes. This legislation, already adopted in eight other states, would award the electoral votes of participating states to the candidate who wins the nation's popular vote.IOW, this "news" story doesn't make sense -- award the electoral votes based on the pop vote for the country, or for just CA? If the latter, should have listened to Ahnold, you Demwit asswipes. We will guarantee that Calfornia's electoral votes will never again go to a Demwit for Prez.
Just a power grab for the lefties ,, what this does is give leverage to the rat strongholds over the rest of the country where they can manufacture votes such as Philly where 110% of the people vote... and New Orleans , Chicago , Detroit , Miami , New York , Mass etc. etc.
If I recall, the states can determine how to apportion their votes. No federal requirements at all.
Would the CA voter be happy with their electoral votes going to Palin to push her over the top?
That said, the Constitution allows a state to award their electoral votes on ANY basis they see fit as long as it is not contrary to some other part of the Constitution. HOWEVER, if an election is held in that state to determine the Electors...every citizen in that state has a right, ensured by the Constitution, that their vote counts equally with all other votes cast.
My opening scenario shows why this will not pass Constitutional Muster...at least in a sane world.
MD [where I live] passed this law which will not take effect unless enough states [totalling 270 electoral votes] do the same.
It is an INSANE proposition - and if the GOP wins the next election, the citizens of MD will go berserk. MD will NO DOUBT go for the DEM candidate, BUT they will THEN realize that [had this law been in effect] their electoral votes woulda gone to the GOP ...
I am NOT a fan of the current system [winner-take-all, except for ME and NE].
The FAIREST way to ensure that all votes count [down to the lowest levels of citizenry] is to award the electoral votes by district in each state. Win the district - win the one electoral vote assigned to it.
There are [of course] two electoral votes left over [assigned to the Senate seats]. These would be awarded to the winner in the overall state vote - as a “bonus”.
Therefore, in 2008, instead of Obama winning 10-0 in MD, he would won something like 7-3.
I notice from the article that Ohio (2004 election) is still a sore point for the Democrats. Ohio, so far, hasn’t introduced such a bill.
This law (if passed) would only last until such time that California’s EV’s were awarded to a Republican, who then wins the Presidency because of this law.
Give every county in the country 1 vote. Win the county, get a point. Most points win. This way a city like Philly doesn’t determine the pennsylvania vote.
Plus if you are a county and want to cheat, you don’t disenfranchise the rest of the state.
It can and has been mathematically proven that this idiotic scheme actually LOWERS the voting power of the voters who participate in this scheme. How?
Think of a baseball series of 3 games. Analogize the games to states, and runs to voters.
Currently, if you win 2 games by 1 run and lose the third by 3 runs, you win the series. The first two games mattered.
With their proposal, if you win 2 games by 1 run and lose the third game by 3 runs, you LOSE the series. The first two games (states) did not matter.
So all this sounds like it’s good for the third game (state), and bad for the first two games (states), and therefore their voters. The math gets a bit hairy here, but the result is that because each game (state) has a chance of being one of those that doesn’t matter, the total voting power of each run (voter) in ALL of the games (states) is lessened.
Of course the people driving this mendacity understand this. The GOAL is to lessen each individual voter’s power. That means MORE power for the rulers.
I’ve really simplified this and therefore it’s not real precise. Anyone interested in the nitty gritty should look at MIT Physicist Alan Natapoff’s work on voting power.
PS There are some (allegedly) math based counter arguments. The ones I’ve read have been pathetic at a minimum, but probably sufficient to bamboozle those who don’t understand math that well...
See my Post #11 ...
Why don’t they just go all the way and only allow one party on the ballot?
There is a reason why the founding fathers created a republic and not a democracy. A pure democracy is mob rule. Two wolfs and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
This is a power grab pure and simple.
Hmmm. So, in 2004, CA would have gone to Bush? LOL! There would have been riots in the streets....
Let's say a state has 57 electoral votes.
Two electoral votes are awarded winner take all for the entire state.
The other votes are awarded to the winner in each congressional district.
So, if the Dems win 40 districts and the state, they get 42 electoral votes, and the GOP gets 15.
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.