California GOP has hatched a scheme to spot the Republican presidential candidate 20 electoral votes

[marmar]

Submitted by Rick Perlstein on July 31, 2007 - 2:18pm.
from OurFuture.org:


Republicans: they sure have initiative!
Since no one reads magazines anymore (I used to subscribe to about 15; now I get two or three) I really, really want to call attention to this:

At first glance, next year's Presidential election looks like a blowout. But it might not be. Luckily for the incumbent party, neither George W. Bush nor Dick Cheney will be running; indeed, the election of 2008 will be the first since 1952 without a sitting President or Vice-President on the ballot. At the moment, survey research reflects a generic public preference for a Democratic victory next year. Still, despite everything, there are nearly as many polls showing particular Republicans beating particular Democrats as vice versa. So this election could be another close one. If it is, the winner may turn out to have been chosen not on November 4, 2008, but five months earlier, on June 3rd.

Two weeks ago, one of the most important Republican lawyers in Sacramento quietly filed a ballot initiative that would end the practice of granting all fifty-five of California's electoral votes to the statewide winner. Instead, it would award two of them to the statewide winner and the rest, one by one, to the winner in each congressional district. Nineteen of the fifty-three districts are represented by Republicans, but Bush carried twenty-two districts in 2004. The bottom line is that the initiative, if passed, would spot the Republican ticket something in the neighborhood of twenty electoral votes—votes that it wouldn't get under the rules prevailing in every other sizable state in the Union...

Read on. The filers of this initiative are a front group for the law firm of the Republican Party of California.

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/republicans_they_sure_have_initiative?tx=3

[sazemisery]

1. k&R n/t

[Mind_your_head]

2. K & R n/t

[unpossibles]

3. I would not mind this idea so much if every state did it

frankly, I think we need to get rid of the electoral college all together.

[marmar]

4. I agree on abolishing the electoral college altogether....

but this plan is just B.S.

[NYVet]

5. Why??

If put into practive across the country, this allows the people who live in strong Repub states like Texas to push for changes to their laws and have their votes for the dem presidential candidate count.

[marmar]

6. Because it's an open invitation for the Repugs to focus their dirty election practices......

such as caging and those oh-so-trustworthy electronic voting machines, on certain districts - ones that they lost but were close.

[cui bono]

8. And the infamous redistricting. n/t

[kaygore]

7. I don't think they realize how disgusted people are with the

Republicans

[OnionPatch]

9. If this is to be done, it must be done EVERYWHERE

Not just a state or two here or there. It would need to be done everywhere at the same time or it would be horribly unfair.

[cui bono]

10. You should cross post this in the California forums...

We can call our state reps and try to squash this one.

[marmar]

11. I will.

n/t

[Maraya1969]

12. Which 2 go straight to the state wide winner? How does this guy

want them to decide what 2 congressional districts go to the state wide winner?

[New Era]

13. Each state gets

2 votes for their senate seats and the 1 for every congressional district. So basically the 2 "senate" electoral votes would go to the winner and the others to whoever won the district.

[NobleCynic]

14. It'll get on the ballot

With enough funding you can get anything on the ballot, the question is whether it will pass. The California Dems will have to beware the deceptive advertising campaign that will surely be run in attempt to dupe people into voting for it. Cloak it in neutral and idealistic enough language and it might pass.

[Prophet 451]

15. If this was done everywhere

...it wouldn't be such a bad thing. If it was done after the next election, it wouldn't be so bad either but at this time, being done in this one state, it's a blatant attempt for the Rethugs to hold onto power by the skin of their teeth.

That said, I think the public revulsion with Bush and therefore the Rethugs is such that it won't make that much difference.

[wildeyed]

16. Similar bill has been introduced in NC.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=170x9232

[CRH]

17. California is very susceptible to ballot measures, ...

in the early 90s they had five simultaneous ballot measures to determine the operating regulations for insurance companies. After reading the voter pamphlet with the pro's and con's and the supposed neutral assessment by the secretary of state, it was impossible to understand which measure would do what. The reason? The pro's and con's as written were contradictory of supposed facts and studies, and the secretary of state's appraisal simply stated, ' the pro's say this is the impact, the con's say this is the impact; so there was no way to determine which side or if both, were lying.

The 30 second TV adds added to the confusion, and after the election most of the people who voted had no idea of the real future impact, of the measure they voted for, or any of the others.

This measure could pass for all the wrong reasons with the right advertising slant. It is something to keep an eye on.

[Exultant Democracy]

18. They need to set up this law with a dead-mans switch so that

it kicks in once 2/3 of the other states have passed this law.