In 2008, Bush v. Gore Redux?

[sellitman]

Source: NYT

September 22, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
In 2008, Bush v. Gore Redux?

By BOB HERBERT
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.

Read more: http://tinyurl.com/2romh2

---

This is just friggin amazing! If this works we are toast. They re-write the rules as they go to. -Kev

[acmavm]

1. Of frigging course they are. They have been since 2000. And our spineless q

wimp reps are just sitting on their collective asses drawing paychecks from the people that they're letting be disenfranchied.

[LibDemAlways]

2. What I fear is that so many Californians are so politically

unaware that the GOP may well succeed in pulling the wool over their eyes with deceptive advertising that paints this fraud as a fairness issue. I can see the ad now. Actors posing as ordinary people - moms carrying babies, blue collar guys, college student types - supposedly being interviewed outside of a big box store and telling the bogus interviewer that they want to be sure their vote will count and that can only happen if the electoral votes are divvied up among the candidates. The slogan will be "It's only fair" or some such crap.

Californians are, in general, not deep thinkers. Particularly those living in the heavily populated southern half of the state. I live in a suburb where the average resident is clueless. The repukes will spend whatever money they have to to get this thing passed. It's a dangerous combination.

[AlGore-08.com]

6. I also live in SoCal, but I don't see our main problem as a lack of "deep thinking"

The initial polling that was done on this measure had several questions. Just describing the measure got 41% of the Dems supporting it. The pollsters then told the respondents that this measure would help the GOP win the the 2008 election, 41% of the Dems still supported it.

I think this is because our main "problem" in Cali is that the vast majority of Dem votes are located in LA and SF. And those are urban voters - - minorities and progressive whites. As a group, they (we) tend to be much farther to the left than Dems in the rest of the state. But all the progressive Dems in LA and SF aren't enough to carry the state yet.

The Republicans have a sizable minority of far right wing nuts, but there are enough moderate Republicans in the state that they, and the moderate Democrats are the swing voters in every statewide general election. So while its possible for progressive Democrats like Tom Hayden to win state and local offices representing LA or SF, statewide races are usually won by more moderate Dems like Diane Feinstein. Progressive ballot initiatives, like Prop 87 in the last cycle, usually are defeated by around 5%.

The Dem party is fully aware of this, and focus on winning moderate Democratic and Republican voters, not progressive Democrats. (And the party has not yet found a way to get progressive Dems supporting this for reasons other than strategy.) Democratic Presidential candidates cannot win without Cali's electoral votes, but the nominee is picked well before Cali's progressive Dems get a chance to vote. This leaves the very large "pockets" of progressive Democrats in LA and SF vulnerable to frustration with the state and national party. If this measure passes, it will be because enough Dems in the state are frustrated with the system and are looking for a way to increase their voice in Presidential elections - - much like the Dems in Florida and Michigan who support breaking DNC rules to move their primaries up to January.

[budibudinski]

3. Why Rove & Gonzo left their positions in the public eye..They have

an election to manipulate.

[sellitman]

7. You are right.

This has the smell of a Rove at work.

[ohio2007]

4. That “winner-take-all” system is the norm in the U.S.

[iamjoy]

5. I Would Have No Problem With This

If it was not a ballot measure in California, but a nationwide measure that every state followed. But, let's not do it by Congressional district, those are so gerrymandered that they are hardly fair.

OTOH, I can see the simple appeal of this. California is the lmost populous state, with 55 electoral votes, it has 60% more than the next largest state (Texas). Why should the winner take all in California?

Of course, the whole electoral college system disenfranchises people.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Absolutely

If we did this nationwide (IMHO) it would bring the Electoral College closer to operating the way it was designed to operate.

As it stands there are two states that choose their electors this way (Maine and Nebraska.)

If it were up to me, I'd like to see the Electoral College either work the way it was designed to work or be abolished. Of course, it's not up to me.

• U.S. Constitution - Article. II. - Section 1
• Federalist Paper #68 - The Mode of Electing the President