Sore losers again, repubs just won't give up

[Harlan Huckleby]

Well, he did actually get laid...and by a girl no less! No wonder they were so pissed.

right on. What's classier, sex in the oval office or sex in the bathroom?

[Joemailman]

If you take the States out of the equation then you have essentially knocked one of the pillars of our Constitution out and you are one step closer to Socialism.

Socialism has nothing to do with it. I'm trying to guess what this is code for, I guess more power in the central goverment. But it doesn't even do that, the president has no more or less power if he is elected by a popular vote.

And the States don't actually get any power out of the electoral college. SOME states are advantaged at the expense of other states.

States elect to give their electoral votes based upon the national vote and not the state vote, you have effectively taken the State out of the equation and made the Electoral College mean next to nothing.

I don't know who suggested this or why. Perhaps you misunderstand. The only suggestions I have heard is that States apportion their electoral votes according to the popular vote within the same state.

Federalism has nothing to do with the electoral college.

The only good argument for the electoral college, and I think you might have mentioned it, is that it strengthens the voice of smaller states who might otherwise be ignored.
This was a strong argument in the 18th century. But now elections are conducted largely through the media, where it doesn't matter whether you live in California or Wyoming.

Actually, there was a proposal being put forth in California last year to award California's electoral votes to whoever won the national popular vote. Don't know if it's stiill being considered. Haven't heard anything about it this year.

[Merlin]

It's not only California, several states are considering it.

Harlan:

The states have more power then Federal Government does. They choose to not be represented by allowing Senators to be elected by the people. Ever since then you have the Governors of states lobbying the Federal Government. That's what the Senators are there for according to the Constitution. The "President" does have some power but not the power most people think, like spending money. The President can't spend a dime and he can be over-ruled by the Congress. The biggest authority that the President has that has long lasting effects on our country is the appointment of Supreme Court judges. Cases like Roe v Wade had nothing to do with the Federal Government, it was a State issue. The Supreme Court usurped the Constitution and there are many other cases like that. Take the separation of Church and State for example. Under the Constitution, it is very limited in scope and only applies to the government mandating a religion. The States could mandate a religion but the Federal Government could not. That has since changed. The Supreme Court has extended it to encompass anything and everything, mostly pertaining to Christianity. There are several public schools in this country teaching Islam. So that our children will have a better understanding of the religion. BUT, if you utter the word God or bring a bible to school, you are suspended and that is happening.

Socialism has everything to do with it. There is a very small minority in this country that thinks everyone is entitled to what you have. Even though they made poor choices in life, they have a right to what is yours. The general push with the electoral college is going the route similar to what California is trying to do. Federalism is waining and so is our Republic. All for the sake of a small percentage of American's who think they are entitled.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Actually, there was a proposal being put forth in California last year to award California's electoral votes to whoever won the national popular vote. Don't know if it's stiill being considered. Haven't heard anything about it this year.

Ya, I guess I do vaguely remember that suggestion. I think it is a dead idea.

The electoral college favors republicans because of the way our population happens to be distributed. If you think of democrats as socialists, then I guess abolishing the EC could favor socialism.

Merlin, I understand what you are saying about federalism. I was just making point that Federalism has to do with power sharing between Fed goverment and states. The electoral college is about checking populism, giving some of the voters' power to the political elites ("electors" at state level). And also EC is about power sharing among the states, giving smaller states a little more power.

[Zool]

Well, he did actually get laid...and by a girl no less! No wonder they were so pissed.

right on. What's classier, sex in the oval office or sex in the bathroom?

Which one's illegal?

[SkinBasket]

why would you give a district with less people as much clout as a district with more people.

Maybe because 46% of California's 12,000,000 or so presidential votes were essentially tossed out the window when the state gave 100% of it's electoral to the dems?

Every vote counts, right? Or is that only when interpreting hanging chads?

[Harlan Huckleby]

why would you give a district with less people as much clout as a district with more people.

Maybe because 46% of California's 12,000,000 or so presidential votes were essentially tossed out the window when the state gave 100% of it's electoral to the dems?

Every vote counts, right? Or is that only when interpreting hanging chads?

you both are arguing for the same thing: elect the president by popular vote.

What the Republicans are attempting to do in Calfornia is a good idea. But it's undemocratic (in the big picture) to do it in only one large state. They'll never get away with it.

[SkinBasket]

you both are arguing for the same thing: elect the president by popular vote.

What the Republicans are attempting to do in Calfornia is a good idea. But it's undemocratic (in the big picture) to do it in only one large state. They'll never get away with it.

California obviously makes an easy target due to its size. With so many electoral votes at stake, it makes no sense to have them all go to the winner, especially when the winner only carries 55% of the vote, and less than half the districts - each with their own interests, needs, and politics. I'm not sure that it's "undemocratic" to do it in Cali and not other places, as the result is still a more accurate representation of the popular vote, which, supposedly, can only be a good thing - not necessarily for Democrats, but for voters anyway, which is what voting is allegedly about. Allegedly.

[Harlan Huckleby]

If California alone were to go with proportional allotment of electoral votes, the Democrats would have little chance to win the Presidential election.

If Texas alone were to make this reform, the Republicans would be even more screwed, the Democrats would be shoe-ins for the presidency.

This sort of gaming-the-system would cause a furor, the election would be even more controversial than 2000.

It ain't gonna happen, I'm not losing sleep over it.

The only fair reform is for EVERY state to scrap the "winner take all" system. And that could happen, at least it's certainly a lot easier to do than a consitutional amendment.

[LEWCWA]

I am glad you mentioned Texas, as it is a large red state. It has to be a univesal thing. Either or but not pick and choose. Either the EC is done away with and Presidents are elected by popular vote or we keep it the way it is. Splitting up California and say not Texas would not work. You can have either side gaining that kind of advantage!

How many Dem. votes are tossed out in Texas? Hell by popular vote Bush wouldn't even be president!

[mraynrand]

There's really only one fair way to do it:



The always fair, always balanced, NBA draft lottery format:


Or better yet, we could just have Patrick Ewing be president for life




Those guys in suits really look honest and forthright, don't they? No fix here, gentlemen. Move along, nothing to see here.

[SkinBasket]

Hell by popular vote Bush wouldn't even be president!

Funny statement considering the title of this thread.


And to answer your question about Texas, 2.8 million Dem votes were tossed aside, a hanging chad under 40% of the vote, which is actually less than the number of Republican votes lost in the big ol' blue state of NY (2.9 mil). So yes, Texas is a big red state, but still only half the problem California poses - which as stated before, makes Cali an easy target for this kind of talk.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that only Cali should be doing this. Just saying that given the number of votes, real and electoral, and the predictable rural vs urban division in the state, I can see why they're being discussed independent of a nation wide change.

[Harlan Huckleby]

To be clear, I'm not arguing that only Cali should be doing this.

Glad you've finally come around. It's not too late to edit your earlier posts. :P

The issue on the table is whether California should make this change. Hello?

Just saying that given the number of votes, real and electoral, and the predictable rural vs urban division in the state, I can see why they're being discussed independent of a nation wide change.

You may see this justification, but it is not the purpose of the maneuver. If the Republicans were motivated by fairness, establishing one-man-one-vote, they'd be championing the end of the electoral college.

[SkinBasket]

Just saying that given the number of votes, real and electoral, and the predictable rural vs urban division in the state, I can see why they're being discussed independent of a nation wide change.

You may see this justification, but it is not the purpose of the maneuver. If the Republicans were motivated by fairness, establishing one-man-one-vote, they'd be championing the end of the electoral college.

No shit it's not the purpose of this maneuver. I'm telling you why Cali makes an easy target. It has the electoral size of at least two states, and given the electoral composition by county, it has the political make-up of two states. The later is not by any means unique, but the former is, which is what makes it a stronger case than say... Colorado.

Would doing this in only California be fair? To the dems, no. To the voters? yes. I love how the Dems are all about fairness and every vote counting... until it's the difference between winning and losing.

As far as I can tell, you're still arguing that an unfair, less representative system is better than an unfair, more representative system.

[SkinBasket]

The issue on the table is whether California should make this change. Hello?

Yes, because the threads here tend to stay so on-point. I'm sorry I strayed outside your imaginary topic guidelines and boundaries.