On Fox News, "pro-reform" means favoring CA Republicans' electoral initiative, not Democrats'
SUMMARY: On Fox News Live, correspondent Anita Vogel reported on a ballot initiative proposed by a Republican organization that would "divvy up" California's "55 coveted electoral votes to the winner of each congressional district, rather than the winner-take-all system currently in place." On-screen text during Vogel's report identified a spokesman for the GOP group as "pro-reform" and an opponent of the initiative as "anti-reform." However, the spokesman has criticized two other initiatives on California's electoral vote that have been proposed by Democrats.
On the August 23 edition of Fox News Live, Fox News correspondent Anita Vogel reported on a ballot initiative proposed by the Republican organization Californians for Equal Representation that would "divvy up the state's 55 coveted electoral votes to the winner of each congressional district, rather than the winner-take-all system currently in place." Host Greg Jarrett introduced the report by stating that the initiative "could change the way we elect a president in America." During the segment, Vogel played clips of Californians for Equal Representation spokesman Kevin Eckery supporting the initiative, and former Democratic National Committee trustee director Ari Swiller opposing it. As blogger Eric Kleefeld noted on Talking Points Memo's Election Central, on-screen text during the report identified Eckery as "pro-reform" and Swiller as "anti-reform." But contrary to Fox's characterization of the two sides as "pro" and "anti" reform, Eckery has criticized two ballot measures proposed by Democrats that would also "change the way we elect a president in America."
In an August 22 article, the Los Angeles Times reported that "Democrats on Tuesday proposed putting on a 2008 ballot an initiative aimed at having California join the movement to elect presidents by popular vote" and asserted that the initiative was intended to "head off a Republican effort to get some of California's electoral votes." The article continued:
A team of Democrats filed two virtually identical initiatives with the California attorney general's office Tuesday, a first step to begin gathering the hundreds of thousands of signatures needed to place either measure on the June or November ballot.
[...]
If backers gather sufficient signatures to place one of the Democratic measures on the ballot, and voters were to approve it, California would become one of roughly a dozen states to have embraced the concept of electing presidents by popular vote.
The national drive toward a popular vote would not scrap the electoral college system, but would require states to award their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the most actual votes nationally. It would take effect only if states representing a majority of the electoral votes agree to the change.
The Times also reported that Eckery "said the Democratic-backed initiative would leave Californians with little or no voice in U.S. politics." The article continued: "'If you ignore the congressional districts, there would be one big overwhelming national vote,' he said. 'What matters in L.A. . . . won't matter. It will be just one vote thrown into the mix.' "
From the noon hour of the August 23 edition of Fox News Live:
GREG JARRETT: Well, it's a move, as we mentioned a moment ago, that could change the way we elect a president in America, the all-important electoral votes in California, that's the big state. All of it could be up for grabs and not just handed to the person that wins the state, winner-take-all. Anita Vogel, live in Los Angeles now with more of the details. Hi, Anita.
VOGEL: Well, hi, Greg. That's right. This is really interesting. This is a proposal that could drastically change the way electoral votes are awarded here in California, and it certainly could have ramifications for the next presidential election.
[begin video clip]
VOGEL: California Republicans are pushing a ballot measure that would divvy up the state's 55 coveted electoral votes to the winner of each congressional district, rather than the winner-take-all system currently in place. Democrats are not happy about this because even a losing candidate could walk away with a hefty number of electoral votes.
ECKERY: I think that the main ramification is that the next presidential election is going to have a fairer outcome. I think that when you look at, "How can you get more people to the polls, how can you make people's vote count?" that this is just one terrific way to do that.
SWILLER: They're going to come up with a lot of other schemes, they're going to put a lot of conservative ballot initiatives around the country, and in particular in California, to try to move people out and get their base motivated, because otherwise Republicans are not coming to vote.
VOGEL: Opponents say this is nothing but a Republican power grab. Supporters counter it would force candidates to focus on issues important to people all over the state. Either way, political observers say, if passed, this could be a massive shakeup.
DASH: This would politically kind of be the Mount St. Helens of politics, I mean, a huge eruption, a huge sea change. You know, like the earthquakes, when they changed the world millions of years ago. The tectonic plates are changing the landscape.
[end video clip]
VOGEL: Only two states, Maine and Nebraska, currently award electoral votes district by district. Now, the proposal still has to qualify for the ballot here in California. Supporters need 434,000 signatures, and an early field poll shows there is some support for this. Greg, back to you.
JARRETT: It's amazing. Nobody complained of Maine and Nebraska because they're not electoral-rich, but California? Well, that changes the equation. Anita Vogel, thanks very much.
Obviously anything on FOX News means favoring Republicans.
Hey, Californians for Equal Representation , bend over, I got your Republican re-organization right here!
Isn't it funny how they frame this redistricting scheme as fair? If they want to be fair, take it all the way baby. Dismantle the electoral college, it's a vestige of a bygone era, shift elections to facilitate the popular vote winner as THE winner.
What could be more fair than one man, one vote?
Exactly. I can't believe anyone can look at the California intiative with a straight face. Completely transparent. I think the Dems should be embarrassed they even considered it in NC as well. It should be all or nothing like you said - get rid of the EC all together if it seems unfair, but to frame this as an issue of fairness only in the Democratic stronghold of California is a joke.
if you are going down this road, then you might as well have it done by popular vote nationwide. which is really the way to go. this is just a republican scheme to get electoral votes in california. unless you support this in every state, you are a hypocrite.
I agree with you. I am for the abolishment of the electoral college and favor electing our President by popular vote. The electoral college is no longer necessary in this media driven campaigning done today......and states that are so solidly blue or red just get ignored by the candidates, not to mention to vote in a state that's decidedly one color is nearly meaningless, especially if you are in the opposing party.
I agree. True is true.
Dang! I'm supposed to be mean to you today!
Well Round, today is nearly over, for me anyway, so you will have to wait until tomorrow.
Cool?
I also think they should have all the state primaries on the same day just like they do with the general elections.
I agree. Why should Iowans and New Hamsterites get to meet candidates a dozen times when the rest of us in solidly Red or Blue States never get a whiff of them?
One day...Winner takes all! That is the way it should be.
when you're right, you're right! This is the most transparently obvious power grab ever. Republicans should be ashamed that they stooped to such measures.
The Republicans will never win California in a Pres election as long as they have these anti env, pro business policies. It is that simple.
Never? Reagan won California, Bush Sr. won California. From here on out it probably will never happen again, thanks to the invading hordes crossing our border and taking over the state. That, along with the the Democrat's sympathy for the law breaking invaders and the mentally disordered citizens who support both of them. I guess when you have a state filled with these kinds of anti-Americans who won't stand up to protect their state and country, Republicans will never win.
California is so sick and twisted, I'd bet a candidate running on the slogan "Long Live America" would be defeated by some hack running on the slogan "Long Live Mexico/Long Live Aztlan!"
Wow! Do you ever wonder why Republicans are losing touch with the country? If you do, look in the mirror and you'll find your answer.
Did I offend you or something by pointing out that America is being invaded by millions of law breakers who don't all come here to work? Look at the prison system if you need proof of that. Or, the execution of American teens in New Jersey by illegals recently. Did you know those BARBARIAN ILLEGALS cut off the one girl's face? We are experiencing the same kind of invasion the Roman Empire experienced, except the main weapons of the invaders today are political correctness, sob-stories about families being broken up, and labeling of patriotic Americans as racists.
When I look in the mirror, I see the 86% of America that opposed the amnesty bill in July. I see the States, cities and counties across our nation that have given up on the federal government and are enforcing our immigration laws on their own. I see demogrphic trends of significant numbers of Americans moving into the heartland becuase they are fed up with big liberal sanctuary cities and the crime that comes with them.
Aside from my ranting, do you have some kind of problem with the actual enforcement of current immigration laws? (That would protect us, when properly enforced)?
What are raving about Johnny?
Border crossers can't vote, so you have no point.
It's understandable that you don't want to discuss the fact that this re-form intiative is going to rally the Progressive base infinitely more than the Republican base.
On the fundamental question of fair elections one man, one vote is the clear and fair path. Republicans want to redistrict their way to an 08 victory. Democrats want to let the people decide. That's what this thread is about. Sorry you can't keep up.
If you want to bleat endlessly about how stupid you fellow Americans are in California or spread distrust of foreigners I suggest you go to the FreeperSissies.com or some such site where people actually think you make sense.
By law, no they can't vote, but to deny that it happens is complete ignorance. Dead people have been voting since our system has existed, if fraudulent votes for the exist, illegals can certainly manipulate the system. Add to that a good fake ID and a stolen SS number and you have easy access to the polls.
I do agree with the idea of one man one vote idea. It would get the millions of people who stay home on election day put there and would definitively show what ideology the majority of America supports. In addition to modernizing our voting process in this fashion, I think it should also be required to show a picture ID when voting to reduce voter fraud. We no longer live in a world where people at the voting booth know everyone in the precinct, we need to get with the times...
Popular vote is the way to go. So is public financing of elections.
But voter fraud by border crossers? That sounds like the kind of paranoid, stolen election meanderings that rightwingers chided the left for in 2004. Stop now with the conspiracy theories before you become what you hate.
I dont believe in a vast conspiracy theory...actually, the number of illegals who fraudulently vote is probably extremely low, but certainly not zero. Racist groups such as La Raza have more influence than a vote anyway. What really eats me is that, ok, we have 12-20 millions illegals here, they broke the law getting here. Who do they think they are demanding "rights" and screaming "injustice" in a country they do not belong to? I mean, if I illegally moved to another country, I certainly would not expect compassion, kindness, sympathy from the legitimate citizens.
Thanks for the back and forth, John. But this discussion is all but finished. This thread is not about immigration, it's about the Republican initiative to divvy up electoral votes in California vs. the Democratic counter-initiative to dismantle the electoral college.
Immigration is just too divisive to drag into this conversation and since you admit that voter fraud by border crossers is negligable there's not much sense in pursuing the topic.
Thanks again and via con huevos.
You are a sick deluded hatemonger without the vestige of a sense of decency. Yes, Republicans that are NOT neandrathals on social issues CAN win California a Bush Republican has a better chance of winning IRAQ. Your stupidity is disheartening. You have no idea what you are talking about and have lost all touch with reality. Rent a couple of braincells its obvious NONE of yours is working.
Well, throughout your child-like attempt to put me down (I guess because I respect the value of American citizenship, and see massive injustice when those who are not citizens steal the benefits of it?), you echoed my exact point about the Republicans who can win California. The fact that you went on to rant about how I had no point, ect. displays your mental disorder on center stage because you just REPEATED MY POINT!
You know, by listening to these right wing chickenhawks you would think that there has never been a liberal who fought and died for this country.
I meant to post this in the Scarborough thing.Sorry.
I think that the proposed initiative has some merit if it were implemented nationwide. Let the electoral votes be divided by congressional district with the senatorial electoral (confusing, eh?) be given to the winner of the popular vote in each state. To eliminate the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment and I don't believe, at the present, that enough of the states would ratify such an amendment (too afraid of losing what little power they have). Sure, on a national level, perhaps a little too much power would reside in the smallest states. Would be interesting to see a historical comparison of how such a plan would have affected past presidential races.
Okay, where are the usual GOP sycophants who like to tell us that Republicans always win on the issues....?
Either do it nationwide as others have suggested, or have the integrity to leave it alone. These people have no shame.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
The State of California started most of the true policy paths for the rest of America, for better or worse! Pooh-Poohing the story at your own peril, Republicans have been thoroughly ruthless and effective when implementing irrational government choking measures that have had corrosive to disasterous results thoughout society???
Ronald Reagan, and Reaganomics, along with this dispicable idea that a politician that does not believe in sincere governance should lead an Democratic-Representative government!
The Republicans know they will be a good 10-15 points in the hole in the '08 election for the White House, this is just about half way there or better! The corporate media pounds this into the electorate's head between now and the election, and wala the next Neo-Con Unitary Executive with unchecked dictorial powers and a nuetered Congress, and complicate Judiciary! American Fascism is complete!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
For once, I agree with virtually eveyone on a MM thread: let the vote for president reflect, if not actually be per, the popular vote.
Even more important, I believe is to have a tamper-proof ID card both as proof of citizenship and elegibility to vote. But, this is one that the Democrat party strongly opposes. I wonder why.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMCRAT!!
Old Marine; the oath goes like 'to protect, defend, and preserve the Constitution of the United States....
We have had so many of our civil liberties illegally quashed. The Supreme Court as well as the Federal Courts packed with Alito/Scalia/Roberts disciples bent on restricting individuals ability to address corporates ailments, and wrongs, as well as deminishing the governments ability to tax wealth while strengthening the IRS effort to collect from the rest of us!!
Perverting, deminishing, weakening Democracy in America until it is no more!! Would you facilitate this effort, this Neo-Conservative effort to change our sacred democracy into the new American Fascism??
Lead over the cliff by a couple of DRAFT DODGER!!!!! This old Squid would not sign on for that crap?
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"We have had so many of our civil liberties illegally quashed. The Supreme Court as well as the Federal Courts packed with Alito/Scalia/Roberts disciples "
I'm sorry but you don't have the civil liberty to murder (a.k.a. partial birth abortion), therefore the Supreme court shot it down. Also, civil liberties are based in equality for all. When some people gain entry to school based on the color of their skin, not only is that racist, it most certainly is not treating everyone as an equal.
I'm sorry that you do not agree with a conservative leaning court, but that court does have a higher approval than the white house and the "most ethical/honest" congress in American history, run by the democrats. http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27946
Murtha must have a different definition of ethical and honest...seeing that he claimed the throne for king of pork spending this year. Also, he voted against requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. Democrat/Republican...it doesnt matter, none of them are honest or ethical. I hate it when one group tries to paint itself being higher on the moral totem pole than the other.
And yet somehow you have no problem saying that Californians are sick and basically hate America your pious brand of stupidity has a false ring
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I'm sorry but you don't have the civil liberty to murder (a.k.a. partial birth abortion), therefore the Supreme court shot it down. Also, civil liberties are based in equality for all.//JOHN THE MORON
That would be the mothers whom have the misfortune to be faced with the conditions which would save their lives but now have no choice but to die giving birth!!
A woman is little more than chattle for your theocratic dogma!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Thanks for providing the most common left wing talking point in the abortion debate, which is never backed up with fact. I'm guessing you can't or won't provide the number of mothers who would have literally died if they did not get their abortion after 20 weeks of the pregnancy because the number is so pathetically low.