Fox News' Estrich misrepresented California Democratic electoral vote initiatives
In her September 10 FoxNews.com column, Fox News contributor Susan Estrich -- discussing two virtually identical California ballot initiatives backed by Democrats (here and here) that would award the state's electoral votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote if "states cumulatively possessing a majority of electoral votes have enacted this agreement in substantially the same form" -- asked: "[I]f [Republican presidential candidate] Rudy Giuliani were to win the popular vote, and California could put [Sen.] Hillary [Rodham Clinton (D-NY)] over the top in electoral votes by following the majority in the state and casting all their votes for her, do you really think the Democratic electors of this state would feel bound to vote for Rudy? I wouldn't bet on it." Estrich asserted that the initiatives would lead to "national Republicans going to court to force the California Democratic electors to vote for the Republican candidate," adding that it would cause "precisely the sort of chaos cum-federalism wars which an orderly system of elections is supposed to avoid." In fact, these initiatives would not require California Democratic electors to vote for a Republican candidate or vice-versa, but rather would appoint the slate of electors of the party whose nominee won the national popular vote. Thus, if "Rudy Giuliani were to win the popular vote," the Republican slate of presidential electors would be appointed, not the "Democratic electors of this state."
Both Version 1 and Version 2 of the initiatives, known as the National Popular Vote for President Act, would require the "presidential elector certifying official of each member state [to] certify the appointment in that official's own state of the elector slate nominated in that state in association with the national popular vote winner." From the initiatives:
Article 3. Manner of Appointing Presidential Electors in Member States
Prior to the time set by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, the chief election official of each member state shall determine the number of votes for each presidential slate in each State of the United States and in the District of Columbia in which votes have been cast in a statewide popular election and shall add such votes together to produce a "national popular vote total" for each presidential slate.
The chief election official of each member state shall designate the presidential slate with the largest national popular vote total as the "national popular vote winner."
The presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify the appointment in that official's own state of the elector slate nominated in that state in association with the national popular vote winner.
At least six days before the day fixed by law for the meeting and voting by the presidential electors, each member state shall make a final determination of the number of popular votes cast in the state for each presidential slate and shall communicate an official statement of such determination within 24 hours to the chief election official of each other member state.
The chief election official of each member state shall treat as conclusive an official statement containing the number of popular votes in a state for each presidential slate made by the day established by federal law for making a state's final determination conclusive as to the counting of electoral votes by Congress.
In event of a tie for the national popular vote winner, the presidential elector certifying official of each member state shall certify the appointment of the elector slate nominated in association with the presidential slate receiving the largest number of popular votes within that official's own state.
If, for any reason, the number of presidential electors nominated in a member state in association with the national popular vote winner is less than or greater than that state's number of electoral votes, the presidential candidate on the presidential slate that has been designated as the national popular vote winner shall have the power to nominate the presidential electors for that state and that state's presidential elector certifying official shall certify the appointment of such nominees.
The chief election official of each member state shall immediately release to the public all vote counts or statements of votes as they are determined or obtained.
This article shall govern the appointment of presidential electors in each member state in any year in which this agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes.
From Estrich's September 10 column:
That particular anomaly has some California Democrats trying to frame an initiative that would have the state cast its electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote, regardless of who actually carries the state, at least if enough other states go along. The idea is that if enough states bought in to amount collectively to the 270 votes needed to win, you'd effectively eliminate the electoral college, which many people, particularly those who live in big states, think would be a good idea.
Whether that would be a constitutional way to accomplish it or not is an open question that probably won't be litigated anytime soon, since getting any small states or Republican legislatures to sign on would be about as easy as getting them to agree to a more straightforward constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college.
Would anyone ever go to Wyoming or Idaho if all that counted were the popular vote? For that matter, if Rudy Giuliani were to win the popular vote, and California could put Hillary over the top in electoral votes by following the majority in the state and casting all their votes for her, do you really think the Democratic electors of this state would feel bound to vote for Rudy? I wouldn't bet on it.
Of course, as a lawyer, and one who teaches election law to boot, the idea of the national Republicans going to court to force the California Democratic electors to vote for the Republican candidate does suggest unlimited future employment opportunities for types like me, but it also suggests precisely the sort of chaos cum-federalism wars which an orderly system of elections is supposed to avoid.
The truth is that most Democrats are less interested, or less optimistic, and certainly less worried, about the prospects of eliminating the electoral college than they are about the more doable and more dangerous idea being propounded as an initiative by the Republican party.
i always love this often repeated argument: "would anyone ever go to wyoming or idaho if all that counted were the popular vote?" like they go there now?
As if that was a compelling argument anyway. We should avoid having the simplest and fairest system available because if we did candidates wouldn't travel as much? What kind of priorities are those?
i know what you're saying, but it's always presented as the small states would be ignored. actually, they are ignored now. small "safe" states on either side get little attention from the candidates. they might actually get more with a popular vote system. suppose you thought you could increase the democratic vote in utah 5% with a little campaigning. you might think it worth it.
"...an initiative that would have the state cast its electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote, regardless of who actually carries the state..."
I think this line (from Estrich) sums up how the Electoral College has skewed our thinking."Carrying the state" doesn't even mean getting the most votes anymore, and a real popular vote result is seen as a strange twist.
Oops. Is that the popular national vote? I swear, that colorful legalese numbs my skull, more than usual.
I award myself the Emily Litella award for the day.
This proposal has the same effect of just awarding the Presidency to the winner of the popular vote so why not just go that route instead of this proposal? Although I like it the way it is.
Because there is no legal mechanism to award the presidency to the candidate who wins the popular vote short of a constitutional amendment, which would be very difficult to pass.
This measure would be much easier to implement. In fact, Maryland and one other state (I think?) have adopted it.
That makes sense. I think the electoral system is fine as is. We need to get the vote counting more accurate if we need to do anything.
The electoral college awarded the presidency to Bush in 2000, though Gore won the popular vote. That system is undemocratic.
And besides that, think about how many people here want to see a viable third party. But the electoral college makes such a thing virtually impossible. Look at Perot, getting almost 20% of the vote in 1992, and zero electoral votes. That's less than encouraging, and a scenario where momentum is highly unlikely.
Somehow I get the feeling that had the situation been reversed and Gore had been elected despite losing the popular vote that there wouldn't be the outrage from your side about the injustice of it. Perhaps the right would be outraged instead.
Either way, there are reasons why the system is set up the way it is. Don't just discount those reasons over one result that you didn't like. Maybe we should change the rules and go strictly to a popular vote. I don't know. But I would like to see a proper analysis of the pros and cons of using the electoral college before tossing it aside, and the reasons behind originally going to this system.
I despise the electoral college system, no matter who it happens to benefit. I've felt that way since I first learned about it, which was long before 2000.
As for the reasons for having that system, they're the same as we have for the second and third amendments. Simply put, outdated ones.
I'm truly curious what "pros" there can be to the electoral college system. Think about it. If you're looking at a difference between that and a straight popular vote, then any such difference pretty much has to be a "con". I'm willing to listen, but please tell me what are the benefits of the electoral college as opposed to a simple popular vote?
I believe the reasons that the electoral college was put in place, so the smaller and rural states would be raised in importance to the more populated and larger more metropolitan areas, is now basically obsolete. With the mass media today and much of the campaigning done via TV and the internet, the orignal reasons have outlived their usefulness.
Not to mention the sophisticated polling nowadays done so extensively by independent sources, and the campaigns themselves; outcomes are nearly predetermined anymore, and the candidates know down to the street addresses where they need to spend their time.
I am for it's abolishment and back to the popular vote - no matter who it may, or may not, benefit.
"I believe the reasons that the electoral college was put in place, so the smaller and rural states would be raised in importance to the more populated and larger more metropolitan areas, is now basically obsolete."
That was my understanding of the reasons, and I think they are indeed obsolete.
Why is this obsolete? Smaller rural states still have differing issues than larger metropolitan states. The original intent was not just intended to force politicians to go to states to campaign. It forced politicians to listen to the issues facing less populated states. These problems are as true today as they were 200 years ago.
That's nonsense. How does the electoral college make politicians more or less likely to address rural issues? As it stands now, the politicians want to win the big states, so have every reason to ignore the small, rural states when campaigning. Do you think some candidate is going to say "Gee, some ranchers in Wyoming think my proposal on green energy will hurt them, I had better change my policy so I can gain 3 electoral votes and lose 55 in California."
You are over simplying the issue. No if there was a policy that would lose the politician california while only picking up wyoming they would probably not listen to it.
But if there was a policy that could make the difference could give them an advantage in several small states like Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas that could make up for a poor showing in New Jersey even though their populations are not close.
the electoral college was to protect the small states from the large states as far as electing a president. but there is no political domination of the presidency now by one state.
One could make the argument that smaller states and solidly "one-color" states (like a state that is traditionally always blue or red) are hurt by the electoral college. If a candidate can look at the board and see that a state is polling way to one side, what motivation is there to go to that state? None.
However, if he or she looked at my home state of Indiana, which is traditionally red, and saw it instead as the home of a lot of agricultural and union people, both parties might have lots of reason to go there to pick up those votes regardless of how the state as a whole goes.
Yes you are right. In our system states that primarily go one way can be ignored by each party. However, I think this could be worse in a popular vote scenario. The parties would look to fight it out in larger states where more people could be reached in smaller amounts of time. It would be similar to Illinois (my state and your neighbor) the politics of Chicago dominate the state. Unless the whole of the rest of the state decides to do something different the Governer and Senators will be mostly decided there.
Bruce,
Part of the problem is actually the reason that the electoral college was set up in the first place.
If my memory is correct, it was setup so that the leaders could essentially install anyone they wanted. The founding fathers actually felt that the citizenry at the time wasn't informed enough to pick the President so they left themselves an out by setting up this system
Again, if my memory serves me, I believe that the person representing the electoral vote isn't even bound to cast their vote for the person elected by the voters. They could in effect cast their vote for anybody. It is only tradition that binds them at this point.
I tend to go the opposite way. I think each state should get 1 electoral vote, to be cast according to their popular vote.
Isn't he supposed to be the president of the "United States" and a representative of the Union, not the popular opinion? Maybe it's just my yearning for a true representative government instead of a "ruler"...
By the way: where are the electoral college abolitionists getting this idea that the populace is entitled to pick the administration? Is it the founders' intent, or is it in the constitution somewhere? That's not a rhetorical question - I don't honestly know the answer.
>>I tend to go the opposite way. I think each state should get 1 electoral vote, to be cast according to their popular vote.
That would mean that the vote of a citizen in Wyoming would count 55 times more than a citizen from California. Goodbye democracy.
>>By the way: where are the electoral college abolitionists getting this idea that the populace is entitled to pick the administration? Is it the founders' intent, or is it in the constitution somewhere?
It's not in the constitution because our great founding fathers--slave owners many of them--felt the command man shouldn't have a say in government, precisely because the founding fathers wanted to preserve their own privledged positions. Only rich white people could vote back then. Hence the ridiculous electoral college.
That would mean that the vote of a citizen in Wyoming would count 55 times more than a citizen from California. Goodbye democracy.
No, it would mean that the state government put in place in wyoming - or rhode island, or north dakota - by the populace there could not be infringed upon by the popular culture in california. The citizens of smaller states would be better insulated against a federal government intent on pushing the agenda of a few large states. (It's a federal government, because it's made up of a federation of representatives from several smaller governments). It's basically the same idea as the senate, but carried to the chief executives position.
And campaigning in Texas wouldn't be any more important than campaigning in Montana.
Why isn't the representation in the Senate enough for those concerns?
Only if you believe your senators are really doing what's best for your state, and not just what's best for thier campaign donors.
And this is really an argument for putting the President under the same concept? Who has more donors to deal with than the President?
under your system of one vote per state, a democrat would never get elected. bush lost the popular vote to gore but carried thirty states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000
Neodeser:>>No, it would mean that the state government put in place in wyoming - or rhode island, or north dakota - by the populace there could not be infringed upon by the popular culture in california.
Talk about a bizarre argument. What laws are being passed that infringe on the people in Wyoming?
More importantly, the f**ing opposite is true. Since rural states would be hugely over represented in your scenario, the Wyomings would be able to "infringe" upon the culture of California. For example, people from Wyoming are very conservative, and they could undully influence the policy on Iraq.
You think it is fair for a small percentage of the population to influence national decisions on war, federal taxes, the environment, etc?
I think going as far as one vote per state would go too far. The electoral is the middleland. Smaller states and larger states are accounted for. Yes smaller states need insulation but not that much for one branch of the federal government.
bruce1ace: >>Somehow I get the feeling that had the situation been reversed and Gore had been elected despite losing the popular vote that there wouldn't be the outrage from your side about the injustice of it. Perhaps the right would be outraged instead.
No. I think that would have been very unfair.
There is no good reason to keep the electoral college. It was set up to protect the interests of the rich while land holders.
Do you realize that if the California initiative gets passed, there essentially won't be any elections in 2008, since it will be impossible for a Dem to win? Isn't that enough reason to be against the electoral college?
No, that is not enough to be against the electoral college. If CA splits its votes that would probably give the election to the republicans. But that is not the fault of the electoral college. As the electoral college is currently setup I think it works.
If it's not the fault of the electoral college, then what is it the fault of? The electoral college already awarded the presidency to Bush in 2000, though Gore won the popular vote, so the electoral college doesn't work.
I've read through the thread since this morning and just a couple of points. You have said that if California passes this new electoral system that it would guarantee victory for the Republicans. That seems like a stretch to me. The Republican party is at a very low point right now, I highly doubt they can win anything.
Also, the "democracy" argument, we are not a true "democracy". Perhaps we should be by abolishing the electoral college.
Also, I don't agree with the poster who wanted one vote per state. I agree that the Senate is the appropriate government body to give States equal representation.
I hesitate to change something as important as our system of voting without overwhelming evidence that we should do so. I don't see it as one-sided enough of an argument that we should make a change. However, I'm also not an expert in this field. I enjoyed reading everyones take on this.
>>You have said that if California passes this new electoral system that it would guarantee victory for the Republicans. That seems like a stretch to me.
I don't think it is a stretch. Almost everyone is saying what I have said. California has 55 electoral votes. If the GOP referendum works, Repubs get 22 of those votes. It would be virtually impossible for a Dem to make those up. And polls right now show that individual candidates running close to each other. The Dems would have to demolish the Repubs to win.
I am a little annoyed with the argument that the electoral college is sacred and we shouldn't change it. It was instituted to insure that only rich white men could vote. You want proof that it doesn't work? Did you forget what happened in 200, when Gore won the popular vote but was not the president? That is extremely undemocratic.
Two final points: Why would it be virtually impossible for a Democrat to make up losing 22 electoral votes? Reagan won 49 States in 1984, certainly the right candidate can achieve nationwide support. If the Democrats had better strategies and quit giving up on states that would help. I think Dean is trying to do that by implementing the 50 state idea.
Also, I'm not implying that the current system is sacred. Perhaps one day it will change. Make a strong enough case to the right people and it probably will.
I think you're oversimplifying the issue when talking about "the right candidate". You're assuming one of two things;either both parties are by nature the same, or that the atmosphere now is how it was then.
Why is it Reagan won so many states? Was it because he was so clear-headed and persuasive on his policies? Good God, no. Reagan was a mess during one of his debates, looking like a befuddled old man. It was because of charisma. And let's face it, Mondale had none of that whatsoever.
Let's zoom forward to 1996. Clinton didn't screw up on such a level, and Dole still got nineteen states. And Dole didn't have any charisma either. But Clinton did.
And remember, we heard about "Reagan Democrats" back in the 80's. Where were all the "Clinton Republicans" back in the 90's? He was a charismatic centrist who clearly had no problems working with big business.
For some reason, whether it's the nature of the parties or the changing times, Dole carried a big chunk of the west/midwest and six southern states. If Clinton wasn't the right guy then, who could ever be in this excessively polarized climate?
Reagan won 49 states because most people felt the country was in better shape in 1984 than it was in 1980. And he also had charisma, as you say.
Clinton was in a three person race so I'm not sure the analogy is the same. But clearly, Clinton was unbeatable in 1996 for the same reason, the country was doing well in the minds of the people. The country isn't going to make a change given those circumstances.
Perhaps nobody will win 49 states in the future. I still think it's a bit negative to claim you can't make up losing 22 electoral votes. Heaven forbid you ever lose California in that case.
Perot can't make much of a difference, unless there's something to suggest that he threw a bunch of states to Dole that otherwise would have gone to Clinton. Considering that Perot took voters from both parties fairly equally in 1992 (I believe), it seems unlikely.
Perhaps Dole was a stronger candidate, but still, shouldn't there be some base states that would vote for Mondale no matter what? Was Dole really that much stronger? Or was it that things were much, much more polarized already by that time?
Also bear in mind that this is a zero-sum game. Giving away 22 votes is actually a shift of 44 votes (consider the state by itself, if 55 votes by itself then consider 33-22...that difference is 11, making it a 44 vote difference from the potential lead of 55). It's not impossible, but it's obviously a major advantage as there aren't that many states that by themselves can make up that difference.
I agree that Perot didn't make a difference in 1996. He was more of a factor in 1992. And I don't believe he decided the election for Clinton. Clinton would have won regardless.
Given that Dole won 19 states in 1996 he still only got 159 electoral votes. He was no where near winning the presidency even if he also had won California, that would only have given him 214.
To respond to your post question, Mondale was a reminder of the high inflation of the 70s and he ran on tax increases. He also had a VP candidate who happened to be female which probably was less accepted than it is today although it shouldn't have been an issue. It probably was. You do that in 1984 and you will win one state, namely mine (Minnesota).
That's a good point about Ferraro, I was considering that as well. But given the polarization we've seen since Clinton took office, I wonder if republicans could ever see a result that dismal no matter who they ran. Do you think a Cheney/Rice ticket would win only Wyoming? It would be lopsided, certainly, but how much is uncertain. I think the circumstances make a significant difference. And given the Republican's history of forwarding winning candidates (or at least somewhat understandable ones...I mean, Dukakis? What the...?), it's hard to imagine them handicapping themselves that badly anyway.
I agree the Rupublicans seem to have certain "safe" states. And that's about all they will win in 2008 IMO. It's going to be a very rough year for conservative candidates unless my political radar is way out of whack.
Also, one could make the argument that Dole was a stronger candidate than Mondale. Dole was still beaten handily, however, despite winning 19 states as you say.
The system is not totally undemocratic. The system of the electoral college was put into place because of states rights. The founding fathers knew there had to be a balance between the rights of the states and the rights of individual people. I think it is a good system that does not need to be changed. Small states already receive very little attention. Going to a purely popular vote would undermine their ability to influence elections further.
So why do people in smaller states need to have their influence inflated?
The reason is states also have rights. We are a union of many states with differing needs. Since small states are small there are many national policies that could effect them that they would have little hope of changing without measures like this. In fact that is why congress is made up of the House and the Senate. It allows a forum where all states are equal regardless of size. The electoral college essentially does a little of both. Yes larger states have more votes but the very small states have a some advantages too.
The Senate does give more weight to the small states. But the electoral college does not. A candidate has no reason to appeal to small states since they have so few electors.
Like I said above, because of the electoral college, the Repubs could steal the next election. So much for the Repubs as trying to win on ideas.The senate is contained within a different branch of government. Why shouldn't the executive branch follow similar rules to the legislative branch?
Because they are different branches.
Why do you think it is fair that a candidate can win the popular vote and not get the presidency? Why do you support the electoral college when it allows one party (the Repubs in this case) to game and steal an election?
H-Man,
I am a big proponent of state's rights, but I just don't see where electing the POTUS is subverting any smaller state's rights? One vote is one vote........I see what you are saying about stressing larger issues in more populated states to get a bigger chunk of votes there, but most issues in a presidential campaign affect all of us, they are not sop regional in nature, as a rule.
So I believe your fears are not so warranted.
"sop" is a word, I promise - I just meant to say "so" in this case. ;)
Your right that most issues affect us all. However, they affect us differently. If a vote should be a vote we should just get rid of the Senate.
Why should a small state like Wyoming get three votes for 500K people while large states like New York and Texas get one vote per 700k people? Why should the 500K have more power than the 700K?
How is that? One person's vote in North Dakota is equal to one person's vote in Florida. Neither is given more weight, it is a national election for a national office representing all the people......the state's rights argument is basically nonexistent anymore in the age of instant communication and mass media.
good point tommy. I agree.
The founding fathers set up the system to protect their priveledged status. Only rich white people could vote then. So their intention was clearly wrong by modern standards.
No one is going to take away any state rights if we determine the vote by popularity. That is a red herring, the same way that giving blacks rights in the 60s was supposed to be taking away state rights.
Individual rights come before state rights.
You do realize that if the California GOP initiative passes, we essentially won't have an election in November of 2008, because it will be impossible for a Dem to win.
Wyoming has two Senators just like California. THAT is all they balance small states need. The president should be elected BY the people. A vote in Wyoming should not count three or for times as heavily as a Vote from New York.
Conservative Garbage...
The Repubs know their in trouble for '08. They're not sure if they can steal enough votes to win the election...
So they are going to try to steal it this way.
Large Republican states like Texas don't split up their electoral votes, so why should California be the only one?
Republicans are just natural cheaters. However, never underestimate the power of apathy. The voters out here are just as apathetic as anywhere else.
Thanks for bringing the discussion back on topic. This is not about the Electoral College...this is about the Republicans figuring out how to steal another election. California has been traditionally Democratic for some time, therefore offsetting the Republican lock on the more conservative states in the South and "heartland".
If the Republicans can steal a chunk of California's electoral votes, they'll have a virtual lock on the White House for a generation.
That's all that's going on here...nothing so noble as "reforming" an outdated system.
Absolutely. The Repubs who endorsed this should get tons and tons of criticism. If the GOP initiative passes, and a Repub gets elected despite losing the popular vote, I can see true electoral reform and trendous backlash. It is one thing for a president to win like Bush in 2000 because of a flaw in they system; it is another for the Repubs to rig the system beforehand.
There are plenty of nonpartisan reasons to abolish the electoral college, many of them constructed in good faith and their proponents are well meaning, as evidenced by many opining on this topic.
However, to turn it into a partisan accusation-fest against the evil Republicans, or any party for that matter, only deepens any resistence to change or improvement in our electoral process......and nothing will probably change, as a result.
Normal garbage, Tommy.
The GOP is trying to pass an initiative in California that would make the 2008 presidential race a meaningless exercise. The GOP in Caifornia endorsed this plan.
The GOP is trying to steal an election, plain an simple.
I don't think you read Nerzog's post correctly. He's talking about the California proposal, which was made by Republicans, and which would give Republicans a ridiculously unfair advantage.
That doesn't have anything to do with arguments about eliminating the electoral college or any other possible improvements.
I hear what you're saying, I understand. But some here cannot refrain from taking their usual swipes at the Republicans and make this into a referendum on their cheating and stealing.......and the rhetoric only enflames, instead of hoping to bring change to an antiquated electoral college.
The CA situation is the topic thread, but many of us have been speaking to the larger issue itself, and that was where my emphasis was........Nerzog knows I respect his opinion very much, my post's ire was not at him personally.
I don't get it. It is cheating and stealing, and blatant at that. People aren't supposed to talk about that...even while that is the topic...because it's "partisan" and enflames and gives up hope for something that's off-topic?
Really, if there's something wrong with Nerzog's criticism, then it's just not fair to criticize any republican for any reason at any time here. Is that the case?
If you don't feel that Debunked's statement about the Republicans out to steal the 08 election and how Republicans are "natural cheaters" is inflammatory rhetoric, then we disagree. I happen to think stuff like that doesn't positively move any discussion, but obviously you think it does.
Do you or don't you think the Repubs are trying to steal the election in 2008?
Do you think the Repubs are "natural cheaters"?
No.
Now answer my question. That is what this thread is about. You love to parse words and evade. As has been pointed out, you addressed your comment to the wrong person, who never said "natural cheaters."
I've answered your question, Tommy, now why don't you answer mine?
Nerzog didn't say anything about "natural cheaters". Your defending your comment as if it was addressed to someone else.
The criticism was on-topic and valid. It certainly is an attempt to steal an election. A positive dialog on improving the system and a condemnation of republican wrongdoing can both be made here.
My post should have been addressed to Debunked, my apologies. And my criticism was not at "republican wrongdoings", it was at the inflammatory language some feel necessary to make a point. As I said, you are free to defend it if you wish.
No, I was never defending the "natural cheaters" comment. I will defend the "steal" and "cheat" descriptions of the california proposal, because I don't see how an attempt at such an unfair advantage doesn't qualify as those.
Sometimes inflammatory terms are accurate, and that's exactly when the criticism is the most warranted and valid.
As I said, you should condemn such blanket unfair drive by swipes such as "natural cheaters", or how they are out to steal another election.......but instead you slam me for calling it what it is?
Your arguments here have been well stated and persuasive, as well as far above such crass language......you didn't feel the need to stoop down to Debunked's level, I am wondering why you are defending it now?
Why are you talking to me about Debunked, six minutes after acknowledging you meant to reply to him instead of Nerzog? I never said a thing about him at all.
Did you mean to reply to someone else?
Because I made a general post about the uselessness of such divisive language, and you immediately took issue with me. I clarified to whom it was directed at and you still won't let it go.
This is just derailing a good discussion, I apologize for my part in that.
You're getting defensive. I'd like you to specify what I said after you clarified that demonstrates how I'm not "letting it go".
You always try to evade the issue. Is the Republican party trying to steal the 08 election or not?
That is correct. This thread veered off onto the subject of reforming the Electoral College, which is not what the Republicans in California are proposing. If they were proposing an Amendment to abolish the Electoral College nationwide, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Right Nerzog...
This discussion veered off course. It's going to be confusing for the voters in California, just as it's somewhat confusing even for us who are politically engaged to easily understand these competing propositions.
Perhaps the GOP is counting on this confusion to "sneak one over." THIS IS BECAUSE REPUBLICANS ARE NATURAL LIARS AND CHEATERS. THE CAST OF CHARACTERS MEDIA MATTERS PARADES BEFORE US EVERY DAY PROVES THAT POINT BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT.
It's not my fault that these people have soiled conservatism.
Right On Zog......
Conservatives here are throwing up an Electorial College smoke screen. They don't want to hear the truth about stealing elections or changing the topic.
RepubliCan'ts also try to suppress the vote during elections. They also have the Supreme Court on their nominating team.
RepubliCan'ts do have a history in that regard. So it follows that the word "Cheater" could be invoked.
Inflammatory rhetoric? No! ... More like truthful commentary. Just telling like it is.
Footnote From CalyFornia:
Here in Arnie's state even the Republican Governator has objected to this as "Trying to change the rules in the middle of the game."
I don't normally vote for RepubliCan'ts but Arnold is working for the interests of we the people here in California. He's driving the average Neo-RepubliCan't to the nut house.
Yeah Sammy...
I live in California too. I have to give Swartzenegger some credit for coming out against this dishonest sham.
If he passes health care for all and strongly opposes this, I would have some respect for him
The Govinator will come out in the end supporting this measure. He will wait until the GOP and Fox finish lying and misrepresenting the measure.
Hi Debunked ...
And if Arnold makes a wrong move to the right he will lose my vote and his wife.
Nerzog,
You are right. Sorry if I went off topic with my points about the electoral college. But I agree. The republicans are trying to steal the 2008 election. The votes should go be state or purely based on one person one vote.
A WARNING TO ELECTORATE:
If this dishonest initiative passes in California, NeoCon Republicans will keep their Dictatorial hold on OUR White House.
To take back OUR Country this initiative must be soundly defeated. Take some action! Get everyone out to vote in California.
Now Naitionwide:
Everything being fair in Love and Politics, we must employ the same cheating tactics of Republicans. They suppress the votes, we must get the voters out to vote.
We should be dishonest too. Dems should run a Conservative Candidate "A La Nader" to steal votes from the favored Republican nominee.
Lastly we must get some Dems in office who have the backbone to do what WE have voted for.
Footnote:
When I said WE I am referring to....
The voters of the November election who took back OUR House and Senate.
WE means well of, middle class and poor citizens. The everyday working grunt and his or her family. WE who would like to have healthcare that Senators have. WE who would like to have a president with our interest at heart instead of his big powerful business interests. ETC. ETC.
The electoral college was originally put in place to protect the slave states from being overwhelmed by the rapidly-populating industrial states. They gained protection of "local control" that way -- until that wasn't enough, and they passed the fugitive slave laws, which allowed their slave catchers to roam throughout the country and brought slaves back by force, or by the compliance of the Supreme Court. Sound familiar?
There's simply no excuse for a system that elects the president on anything but one man, one vote. It would be the only official that we elect as a country. What about respect for the states? Well, they already have the massive distortion of the Senate, with two senators for California and two for North Dakota. Congressional seats in rural states represent far fewer people than in populous states. So why not the president?
There's an argument about vote fraud -- but the only way to fight that out is to fight it out. Once there's a single official elected by us all, that brings the whole thing under scrutiny.
For those who say, "Ah, but you'd feel differently if Gore had lost the popular vote and won the electoral college," well, aside from that not really being the situation in 2000, I suppose I would have felt differently. But I wouldn't have felt the same anger at having the Supremes rule that we had to stop counting the votes.
Very interesting posts. I agree that the issue at hand in California is an attempt by Republicans to change the nature of the game and rig it in their favor, since they cannot win Calfornia under the current rules. They are not presenting a national referendum on the question of the relevance or propriety of the Electoral College.
About the issue of the Electoral College. I seem to remember that the creation of the Electoral College was part of the reason the US is not considered a "democracy" in its direct sense but a "republic" since we do not have purely popular elections. As a person who has lived in large states: Illinois, Ohio, California and small states: Massachusetts, Vermont, and Colorado... the issue of fair representation is one where our founding fathers clearly attempted to split the difference and thoughtfully created not a unicameral form of government but a bicameral one with two very different systems of democratic representation. The dynamic nature of that difference is what give us the energy of the House and the deliberative nature of the Senate - both can be frustrating or a blessing at times but I think the wisdom of the founding fathers was in striking a balance between recognizing the power of the majority and protecting the rights of the minority.
While my instinct would be to abolish the Electoral College (though I do not fault that institution with the election of George Bush, there was plenty of localized Florida vote fraud protected by Kathleen Harris and sanctioned by the Republican Supreme Court to hold more directly responsible), I am cautious about abolishing a system that only once or twice (Wasn't Burr also popularly elected?) caused the installation of a man not elected by popular vote in 200+ years of existence. It would be good to have a national discussion on this issue, but clearly the California manuver is just more Republican dirty tricks.
Most posts have been interesting and well considered. Though I still think Tommy should stop dodging and answer Funnymanpants.
Imagine the People of the City of San Francisco to vote on a binding referendum, or “ballot initiative”, on whether or not to recognize “same sex unions” as marriages, or as “civil unions”, or perhaps not to recognize them legally at all.
Maybe that doesn’t require the imagination; maybe it happened already, I don’t know. Anyway…
And imagine that after all those Votes in that referendum had been tallied, but before those results were announced publicly, imagine someone stands up, and makes a motion regarding the outcome of the referendum:
“Fellow San Franciscans: I motion that, regardless of however our Votes in this referendum add up to this day, that we dismiss the result of our election, and resolve to adopt and bind ourselves to whatever is the outcome of a number of similar referendums, on this same matter, being decided this same day, by a majority of all those People who are not San Franciscans;
namely, the People of Tallahassee and Orlando in Florida,
and the People of Macon and Savannah in Georgia,
and the People of Raleigh and Columbia in the Carolinas,
and the People of Houston and Dallas and Austin, in Texas…
I motion that we dismiss whatever is the outcome of our own Vote in this matter, in favor of whatever it is a majority of everyone else in America thinks; and that regardless of whatever our Votes have totaled this day, we consider it to have resulted in whatever that majority of the rest of America thinks…
All agree?”
At least one disbelieving and amazed person would propbably ask:
“Let me get this straight: You want to take our, San Franciscan’s Electoral Vote in this matter, and dismiss whatever majority decision we have made this day, in favor of binding ourselves to whatever majority decision has been arrived at by some number of People who are not San Franciscans…
Is that your Motion?”
“Yes.
And I further motionove that We the People of California, do the same in the matter of the upcoming Presidential election; that we dismiss whatever majority decision will be made by Californians in that election, and instead cast our Electoral Vote for whatever candidate has been decided on by a majority of the People in Texas and Florida and Georgia and the Carolinas and Kansas and Iowa and Nebraska, and Maryland…
What say you all, Fellow Californians, to this motion?”