With the Presidential election a little more than 1 year away, do you think it's time for a better method of electing the President?
As we all know, we (as citizens) do not elect the President. We vote for him, sure. But it is the Electoral College that actually matters. In all but 2 states, if a candidate gets a majority of the popular vote, they get all of that state's electoral votes. 1 vote for each Senator, and 1 vote for each of the state's Congressional districts.
What this means is that if 50% + 1 votes for candidate "A", he gets 100% of the Electoral votes. Candidate "B" gets squat.
Would dividing the Electoral votes by district be a fairer way to elect our highest Office? The majority winner would get the 2 Senatorial Electoral votes, and the Congressional Electoral votes would go to the candidate that won that particular district.
I'll use California as an example. There is currently an initiative there to do just that.
In 2000, Al Gore won the majority in California, and all 54 of California's Electoral votes. Under the proposed method, Gore would have 35 and Bush would have received 19. In 2004 (55 votes then) Kerry would get 33 and Bush 22.
Over all, if the whole country had used this method, Bush would have won 291-244 in 2000 (vs. 271-266) and 323-213 (vs. 286-252) in 2004.
While the Democrats are obviously steadfast against such a proposal, it would make a vote cast in Alpine Village, Fresno or Blythe carry the same weight as a vote cast in San Francisco, Sacramento or Los Angeles.
The Democrats cry disenfranchisement in every election, but the current Electoral system disenfranchises millions of voters across the Country. 4.4 million in California, alone.
If it in any way favors the GOP, the Dems will never allow it to happen.
Now if we did away with the electoral college entirely and resorted to a popular vote they'd be all for it 'cause they could then use all their dead body votes and such....:devil:
If it in any way favors the GOP, the Dems will never allow it to happen.
Now if we did away with the electoral college entirely and resorted to a popular vote they'd be all for it 'cause they could then use all their dead body votes and such....:devil:
Exactly. Plus they could use the urban voters they have spent the last 30+ years bribing with the promise of public largess (Fancy word for rich and middle class peoples money).
I think it would be a very good idea, and, as such, will NEVER be allowed to se the light of day at a major level. At least not within MY lifetime.
Since it is a state by state deal, it should be pressed for at that level. IMO it COULD be changed there within reasonable speed, a couple decades or so.
With the Presidential election a little more than 1 year away, do you think it's time for a better method of electing the President?
As we all know, we (as citizens) do not elect the President. We vote for him, sure. But it is the Electoral College that actually matters. In all but 2 states, if a candidate gets a majority of the popular vote, they get all of that state's electoral votes. 1 vote for each Senator, and 1 vote for each of the state's Congressional districts.
What this means is that if 50% + 1 votes for candidate "A", he gets 100% of the Electoral votes. Candidate "B" gets squat.
Would dividing the Electoral votes by district be a fairer way to elect our highest Office? The majority winner would get the 2 Senatorial Electoral votes, and the Congressional Electoral votes would go to the candidate that won that particular district.
I'll use California as an example. There is currently an initiative there to do just that.
In 2000, Al Gore won the majority in California, and all 54 of California's Electoral votes. Under the proposed method, Gore would have 35 and Bush would have received 19. In 2004 (55 votes then) Kerry would get 33 and Bush 22.
Over all, if the whole country had used this method, Bush would have won 291-244 in 2000 (vs. 271-266) and 323-213 (vs. 286-252) in 2004.
While the Democrats are obviously steadfast against such a proposal, it would make a vote cast in Alpine Village, Fresno or Blythe carry the same weight as a vote cast in San Francisco, Sacramento or Los Angeles.
The Democrats cry disenfranchisement in every election, but the current Electoral system disenfranchises millions of voters across the Country. 4.4 million in California, alone.
I may be wrong Alan but I believe the Demos have killed this initiative.There is no way in hell they will share power with Republicans.
I may be wrong Alan but I believe the Demos have killed this initiative.
This Just In.....
GOP team revives electoral vote initiative
The intent is to change California's winner-take-all system, which would give Republicans an edge in the presidential race.
By Dan Morain and Joe Mathews, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
October 23, 2007
SACRAMENTO -- Veteran GOP consultants said Monday that they were relaunching a drive to change the way California allocates its electoral college votes, aimed at helping the 2008 Republican presidential nominee capture the White House.
Political strategist David Gilliard said he was taking over the ballot initiative campaign, along with strategist Ed Rollins and fundraiser Anne Dunsmore. Consultant Mike Arno will oversee the signature-gathering effort.
"Our budget is going to be whatever it takes to make the June ballot," said Gilliard, who played a key role in getting the recall of Democratic Gov. Gray Davis onto the 2003 ballot.
The proposed initiative would change California's method of allocating its 55 electoral votes from a winner-take-all basis, which favors Democrats, to a congressional district-based approach. Republicans hold 19 congressional seats, so presumably the GOP nominee could win a similar number of electoral votes.
The effort stalled last month when its original organizers failed to raise the $2 million needed to place the initiative on the June ballot.
Until recently, Dunsmore oversaw fundraising for Rudolph W. Giuliani's presidential campaign -- prompting Democrats to charge that the former New York mayor was behind the initiative drive. A major Giuliani benefactor, Wall Street mogul Paul E. Singer, donated $175,000 to fund the original effort.
Giuliani's campaign has denied any involvement. Gilliard said he was not associated with any of the presidential campaigns and predicted that donors to all of the major Republicans would chip in for the initiative drive.
On Monday, Democrats were gearing up to battle the measure.
"Republicans seem to be pursuing a strategy where they will lose at the polls and, along the way, define the GOP as the party of electoral fraudster," said Chris Lehane, a former Clinton White House aide who was organizing the opposition.
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen has set Nov. 13 as the deadline for submitting signatures to place the measure on the June ballot. Backers must gather 434,000 valid signatures of registered voters. Because many signatures are typically deemed invalid, circulators will probably seek at least 650,000. The initial campaign had gathered about 100,000 signatures.
dan.morain@latimes.com
It will be interesting to see how the Dems will get the teachers unions etc.. To claim that an effort to make Ca's electoral deligation more representitive will undermine democracy and harm the children and the environment etc...:idea: .
Make every vote count equally????? Seems like there is easy fix for this one.
Make every vote count equally????? Seems like there is easy fix for this one.
MAYBE THE "EASY BUTTON" :idea: too intelligent,logical and what the people wish
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote