The latest Repo attempt to steal an election is being portrayed as a means to make elections more representative of the voters, by assigning electoral college votes to the winner in each congressional district. If that had been done in '04, Kerry would have gotten 33, Bush 22. A fine idea, if enacted nation-wide in one fell swoop, but doing it in state with the largest voting bloc that usually goes to demos is pretty obvious. I don't see Repos attempting similar measures in Texas, Ohio, or Florida.

More . . .


In 2008, Bush v. Gore Redux?
By BOB HERBERT, NY Times

Right now it’s just a petition drive on its way to becoming a ballot initiative in California. But you should think of it as a tropical depression that could develop into a major storm that blows away the Democrats’ chances of winning the White House next year.

And it could become a constitutional crisis.

It’s panic time in Republican circles. The G.O.P. could go into next year’s election burdened by the twin demons of an unpopular war and an economic downturn. The party that took the White House in 2000 while losing the popular vote figures it may have to do it again.

The Presidential Election Reform Act is the name of a devious proposal that Republican operatives have dreamed up to siphon off 20 or more of the 55 electoral votes that the Democrats would get if, as expected, they win California in 2008.

That’s a lot of electoral votes, the equivalent of winning the state of Ohio. If this proposed change makes it onto the ballot and becomes law, those 20 or so electoral votes could well be enough to hand the White House to a Republican candidate who loses the popular vote nationwide.

Even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has suggested that the initiative is a form of dirty pool. While not explicitly opposing it, Mr. Schwarzenegger said it smacks of changing the rules “in the middle of the game.”

Democrats are saying it’s unconstitutional.

The proposal would rewrite the rules for the distribution of electoral votes in California. Under current law, all of California’s 55 electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote statewide. That “winner-take-all” system is the norm in the U.S.

Under the proposed change, electoral votes would be apportioned according to the winner of the popular vote in each of California’s Congressional districts. That would likely throw 20 or more electoral votes to the Republican candidate, even if the Democrat carries the state.

A sign of the bad faith in this proposal is the fact that there is no similar effort by the G.O.P. to apportion electoral votes by Congressional districts in, for example, Texas, a state with 34 electoral votes that is likely to go Republican next year.

Longtime observers in California believe the proponents of this change — lawyers with close ties to the Republican Party statewide and nationally — will have no trouble collecting enough signatures to get it on the ballot in June. The first poll taken on the measure, which is not yet widely understood by voters, showed that it would pass.

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and one of the nation’s pre-eminent constitutional scholars, believes the initiative is blatantly unconstitutional. “Entirely apart from the politics,” he said, “this clearly violates Article II of the Constitution, which very explicitly requires that the electors for president be selected ‘in such manner as the Legislature’ of the state directs.”

In Mr. Tribe’s view, the “one and only way” for California to change the manner in which its electoral votes are apportioned is through an act of the State Legislature.

Professor Tribe is not a disinterested party. He represented Al Gore in the disputed 2000 presidential election. And not all constitutional experts agree that this would be such an easy call. “This is not an open-and-shut case,” said Richard Pildes, a professor at the New York University School of Law.

What is undisputed is that the Democrats will mount a ferocious legal challenge if the ballot initiative passes — “maybe even before it has a chance to pass,” a Democratic source said yesterday — thus opening the door to an ugly constitutional fight reminiscent of Bush v. Gore in 2000.

The potential for trouble in the event of a close election is huge. Said Professor Tribe: “This is really a prescription for a possible constitutional crisis in which we have one president if California electors act in accord with the method set out by the State Legislature, and another president if the electors are divided according to this ballot initiative.”

The operatives behind the initiative are experts at causing trouble. The effort is being led by Thomas Hiltachk, a lawyer who was one of the leaders of the successful effort to recall California Gov. Gray Davis in 2003. Politics is not just hardball to this crowd; it’s almost literally a fight to the death.

The proponents of the initiative understand completely that a constitutional crisis could damage the nation’s democratic process and undermine the legitimacy of a presidential election. In their view that’s preferable to a Republican defeat.

California voters would be doing themselves and the nation a favor by soundly defeating this poisonous initiative if it makes it onto the ballot in June.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

^^^ I wish all of the states would do that. It would increase the viability of 3rd parties.

I agree. Let's do it as a national movement.

But to try to pluck one of the few demo prize plums and dillute its power is just another attempt to contrive to steal an election. With one of the major swift boat players backing it. Who would'a guessed?

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

whats wrong with just dumping the electoral votes and leave it up to the common people.the candidate with the most votes wins!!

I do agree that the Electoral college is a relic from the past and should be abolished.

However, if it remains, it provides each individual state with the power to support a single candidate with all of it's electoral votes. The power is with the state. Dividing this power among individual districts is, essentially, a breakdown of the Electoral college and moves toward a popular vote.

I do not believe that there is anything in the constitution that will allow a popular vote or a vote by individual electoral districts within a given state.

Both require a constitutional amendment...........something that's not forthcoming anytime soon.

Yep.

But it won't make much of a dent if it's only implemented in one state, although that's better than nothing....

However, is anyone really surprised that one of the two major parties is trying to tweak the system to serve their interests?... I thought everyone realized that such events are commonplace for both the big parties!

I do agree that this is an obvious attempt by the Republican party to tip the odds in their favor in the state. Democrats would be feverishly supporting it too, if they thought it would better THEIR chances of election/re-election...

But if it were a nationwide thing, then I'll be all for it! ANYTHING that makes it easier for third parties to get a foot further in the door is a good thing.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

Agreed. We desperately need something to replace these self-serving POS that we have now.

Unfortunately, the constitution gives the states most of the power in deciding the place and manner in which the vote occurs.

For the same reason that we have 2 senators from every state. Why 2? Why have senators at all?

B

Senators are there to allow equal representation in states which don't have large populations.

Likewise, in California, the majority of the state is conservative with the exception of SF, LA and areas around Tahoe. These three areas tend to place the state as a "Democratic plum" while leaving the rest of the state unrepresented. An interesting aside, LA steals the majority of their water from those unrepresented areas.

Fortunatly, the US Constitution leaves much of this up to the states. If a bill passes, such as described, then it is legal and done through legal means according to the California Constitution. Especially in light of it being a ballot measure which allows direct vote on the subject by Californians (no illegal alien votes, yet. Despite continual Democratic tries at that). How more direct to the people can you get? I don't see any theft involved. Chances of it occuring in CA though are slim to none in light of the hugely Democratic State Legislature and the willingness of several Democratic Judges to legislate from the bench and do away with anything they, or their party, disagree with (with regard to ballot measures that have won).

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

I believe the real reason the electoral college (EC) was set up was to give the little states some footing against the larger, more populated states...

Otherwise, you'd have New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois and California being the only states deciding who's the next President/Vice-President - all the time.

Now, if California goes the route of splitting the ECs among the represented parties, evenutally, if the rest of the nation follows suit, the electoral college WILL be disolved.

The electoral college was formed to counteract the effect that the large states had by the majority vote-getter getting ALL the EVs (electoral votes) of that state.

By splitting the EVs up at the state level, the EC will soon become a moot point, just like Hillary Clinton demanded following the '04 election. (Or, didn't anyone remember that?)

Oh well...another election season coming...batten down the hatches mateys! We're in for a real rough blow!!!

__________________

M. G. Burg
'10 - Dakota SXT - Daily Ride / ≈ 172.5K
.'76 - 450SLC - 107.024.12 / < .89.20 K
..'77 - 280E - 123.033.12 / > 128.20 K
...'67 - El Camino - 283ci / > 207.00 K
....'75 - Yamaha - 650XS / < 21.00 K
.....'87 - G20 Sportvan / > 206.00 K
......'85 - 4WINNS 160 I.O. / 140hp
.......'74 - Honda CT70 / Real 125
.
“I didn’t really say everything I said.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Yogi Berra ~

Yep, you're right. Ultimately, I guess the rest of the country would get to experience whomever the large population centers decide to elect whether or not they agree; as we in Ca. do now.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

It was established that way because the smaller states would not approve the constitution any other way, IIRC.

It all works rather well, I think.

Tom W

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

I think it does too. Sour grapes is no reason to go changing a system that worked well for over 2 centuries.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

I feel your pain... same goes for the great state of Chicag... er, Illinois.

__________________
1992 300D 2.5T
1980 Euro 300D (sadly, sold)
1998 Jetta TDI, 132K "Rudy"
1974 Triumph TR6
1999 Saab 9-5 wagon (wife's)