Posted on 04/04/2011 7:43:16 AM PDT by SmithL
California is a population powerhouse that's home to 1 out of 8 American voters and a political ATM that pumps millions into presidential campaign coffers. But the state's solid-blue status and election rules make it "irrelevant" in the presidential sweepstakes every four years, state Assemblyman Jerry Hill says.
Hill, a San Mateo Democrat, and Republican Assemblyman Brian Nestande of Palm Desert (Riverside County) want to change that. The legislators are part of a growing crowd of bipartisan backers of a nationwide campaign to elect presidents by popular vote.
The drive has some powerhouse supporters, including Tom Golisano, the billionaire philanthropist and founder of payroll processing giant Paychex, who is supporting Hill and Nestande in what he calls a "very focused, very well-financed" effort to correct a process that he argues disenfranchises millions of American voters.
"It's not only the fact that we're ignored. We're insulted," Golisano said on a recent tour of California that included a stop at the state GOP convention, where he met with lawmakers, bloggers and influential party voices. He says Republicans and Democrats in the state lose under the current election system, in which states are viewed as "battlegrounds" worthy of attention or "flyovers," as is the case with California.
One reason for the inequity, supporters say, is that the winner of the presidential election is determined not by the nationwide popular vote total but by which candidate accrues the most Electoral College votes. Americans cast votes for the electors in the college, and those electors cast ballots for the president. California has 55 electoral votes because it has 53 congressional districts and two U.S. senators. The system became controversial in the 2000 presidential election when, after a dispute involving ballots in Florida, Republican George W. Bush was awarded that state's electoral votes and won the presidency despite...
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
This is actually a very big deal. Liberals see this as a way to gain absolute power by disenfranchising everyone who doesn’t live in a handful of major cities.
It’s a direct attack on our constitutional republic and should not be ignored.
Useful idiots. They come in red AND blue flavors.
Regards,
GtG
The Republic would then indeed become a Democracy, and then devolve into a dictatorship. Not a crytal ball, just an appreciation for history.
This will save lots of money. If this passes everywhere, then politicians need to campaign in only a dozen cities and perhaps seven counties.
And look at how many city precincts get 99+ turnout, all for democrats.
The rest of us can go about our business without having to vote- the decisions will be made by big-city political organizations!
Yes, but so far it’s only being done in deep blue states like CA and MA. If only blue states do it (and it is unlikely red states would do it exactly for the reasons you point out), then it means a Democrat cannot get elected President unless he wins the popular vote, and any GOP candidate who wins the popular vote will necessarily have an electoral landslide.
If they want a true representation of voter intent, copy the states of Maine and Nebraska.....the presidential candidate that carries each congressional district receives one electoral vote per district.
Of course, this would never be allowed in California, because the Republicans would capture half of the state’s electoral votes. The heavily populated coastal counties (and congressional districts) are blue; the inland areas are mostly red.
Wow! Eject the Red and Orange states from the Union!
Fortunately its dead here in Michigan since the GOP takeover.
It could backfire on the Dems.
And I’m hoping it does!
Because, as it stands, GOP candidates will campaign HARD in GOP-leaning states (none of which have enacted this law), AND blue states since raw numbers will help them.
NEVER. THis must never happen. The Constitution/ Founding Fathers hashed over this long and hard, for very good reasons. Their Compromise should stand. In fact, how can the Constitution be voted on, for and against?
If it does, this union is dead.
LLS
It would also be difficult for the Democratic candidate to spend money and time campaigning in suburbs and red-leaning swing districts, since the Dem would have to win the popular vote by deeply mining the blue urban areas that he otherwise wouldn’t have to worry about.
They should call their plan what it is, Democracy, the worst posible form of government!
That’s just stoopid. It already works that way due to gerry mandering and if this passes they will have a lock on Dem’s forever.
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.