VIDEO: STOP THE REPUBLICANS FROM STEALING THE WHITE HOUSE JUNE 3RD IN CALIFORNIA

[DeepModem Mom]

Courage Campaign: Tell Arnold: It's time to read and lead. The New York Times and Courage Campaign say "No More Dirty Tricks"!

You can convince Arnold to kill this "elaborate dirty trick" dead today. Please add your signature to the Courage Campaign letter to the Governor right now:

Dear Gov. Schwarzenegger:

Last Friday, Julia Rosen from Courage Campaign delivered to your office 2,148 copies of the so-called "Presidential Election Reform Act," which will appear on the June 3rd ballot. You said you had not read this short three-page initiative yet, even though it only takes five minutes to review.

Now that thousands of Courage Campaign members have sent you a copy of the initiative, it's time for you to read and lead.

Governor, you claim to be "post-partisan." If that is so, I'm sure you know that a scathing editorial in the New York Times called this dangerous document an "elaborate dirty trick" designed by a "shadowy group" to "do serious damage to our democracy." This unbelievable initiative dictates that California divide up its electoral college votes by congressional district, allowing Republicans to rob 20 electoral college votes — the equivalent of Ohio — and, once again, steal the executive branch.

If you read and lead now, you can join over 10,000 Courage Campaign members who have pledged their strong opposition to yet another radical right-wing power grab. You may know many of the most prominent pledge-signers, including Sherry Lansing (former CEO, Paramount Pictures), Sal Rosselli (President, SEIU-UHW), Bradley Whitford ("The West Wing"), Arianna Huffington ("The Huffington Post"), Assembly Majority Leader Karen Bass, and L.A. City Council President Eric Garcetti.

Governor, if you really want to demonstrate that you are "post-partisan," now is the time to read and lead. By coming out against this initiative now — and asking reasonable Republicans to do the same — you can kill this radical right-wing coup in its cradle before June 3rd.

Let’s not waste time and money on this tragic partisan distraction. As you have said, California has too many important issues on which we have to focus together.

No more dirty tricks. No more partisan power-grabs.

Not in California. Not in America.

I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/TellArnold

LINK TO VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crxrx16v_cQ

[93ncsu]

1. The US Constitution explicitly states :

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:"

You aren't opposing the Constitution, are you ?

California is perfectly within its rights to change the way its electors are chosen. If the citizens of California decide they want THEIR state to apoint electors as outlined in the plan, who are you or the New York Times to tell them otherwise.

California tends to be an early adopter state for many areas. If every state adopted this plan, a Democrat President would be almost a foregone conclusion in 2008, no ? Such a system also allows the voice of the people to be more accurately heard.

[stimbox]

4. We already follow the Constitution here in CA

Winner take all baby!

The Pukes didn't bitch about getting all 47 votes for Raygun back in 1984, now did they?

They can't win California fairly so they try to change the rules since they can't rely on the Diebold machines anymore.

[93ncsu]

5. Where in the US Constitution does it say ...

that it is winner take all when it comes to s state's electors ?

[stimbox]

8. It says right here!

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:"

So I guess you support a bunch of crybabies trying to change the rules of the game in mid-game?

[93ncsu]

9. I support a state's right to appoint its electors how it sees fit.

That passage in the Constitution says that the states will appoint a total number of electors equal to the number of Senators and Representatives, but leaves it up to each state to decide how that total number will be reached.

There are currently several other state proposals looking at a couple of alternative ways to apportion their electors. They include :

1. Appointing all of the state's electors based on the national popular vote

2. Appointing the state's 2 electors for the Senate seats based on national popular vote , and then appointing each elector to the party that wins the Congressional district.

3. Appointing the state's 2 electors for the Senate seats to the party that wins the popular vote in the state, and then appointing each elector to the party that wins the Congressional district.

Many people feel that these alternatives give the people of the state more of a voice in the election instead of the winner-take-all approach whereby winning a state's popular vote by a single vote would effectively give the people in opposing districts no voice even if their candidate won their district in overwhelming fashion.

[stimbox]

10. You sound pretty CONSERVATIVE to me.

You guys didn't bitch about getting all 47 votes for Raygun back in 1984, now did you?
You can't win California fairly so you try to change the rules since you can't rely on the Diebold machines anymore.
Sorry man. I'm not biting.

[93ncsu]

12. I was 15 in 1984 ...

I know that President Reagan put a collosal whooping in Senator Mondale, but that' all I remember.

If a new method of assigning electors had been in place based on electors being assigned based on which party won the Congressional district, it may have been a much closer race (remember the Congress was under Democrat control at the time, although I don't remember the numbers).

[stimbox]

19. How about 1988?

When Daddy Bush got all 47 votes.
How soon the consterpatives forget.

[93ncsu]

24. I don't know if I even voted in 1988 ...

The college years are hazy in certain points.

Even so, I don't get your point. Didn't Clinton get all of Calif's votes in 1992 and 1996 ?

We're talking about making it more equitable for the voter. I don't see why people would have an issue with that.

[stimbox]

29. It's equitable as it is.

Yep Clinton got all the votes.
So did Gore and Kerry.
Don't you see this scheme is a way to subvert the will of the California voters?

[93ncsu]

31. How does it subvert the will of the voters ?

If a Congressional district's residents vote for Candidate A, why should their electoral vote be given to Candidate B ?

[stimbox]

35. No

We have winner take all.
If the people want to change it let the people do it.
Not a group of rich repuke interests from OC who use paid signature gatherers from out of state.

[93ncsu]

37. Given California's way of doing ballot initiatives ...

I doubt this would happen without it passing some sort of popular vote.

But if the people of California want it, then that is their right, right ?

[stimbox]

39. The people are not driving this issue.

And that is the problem.

[93ncsu]

43. The people may not be driving the issue , but ...

as long as they get to vote on the issue, what's the problem ?

Regardless of the driver behind it, as long as the people get to vote on it then what's the problem ?

If the people don't want it, then they can vote it down.

[The Doctor.]

11. Which means you would be fine with Texas, Tenessee and Florida all joining

on the same method.

Get on the phone!

[93ncsu]

14. If Texas, Florida and Tennessee want to follow the same model as California ...

then that is their right. The Constitution gives them he power to assign the electors as they see fit, as long as the total number is correct.

Why would I have a problem with these states exercising their rights ?

[The Doctor.]

22. The problem is not 'who has the right' or not,

The point is that unless all states adopt the same measure simultaneously, elections will become skewed.

Do you believe elections would still be fair and reflect the will of the people if all the 'Red States' decided to divide up their electoral votes for the candidates while all the 'Blue States' continued to deliver all their electoral votes to the candidate who won the state by a few dozen votes?

Just answer that one question.

[93ncsu]

23. Once again, it is up to each state ...

Its their business according to the Constitution.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat the same thing.

Throw all the scenarios you want, but it I will give you the same answer.

[The Doctor.]

27. So you won't answer the question....

I guess I shouldn't be shocked, I've seen this sort of evasiveness before... but not very often on this board.

Welcome to DU.

Enjoy your stay.

[93ncsu]

32. What question have I failed to answer ?

Repost it and I will answer.

As far as I can tell, not only have I answered every question, I have done so consistently.

[The Doctor.]

42. Ok, I'll try again.

I already understand and support state autonomy to a fairly high degree. That's not what this question is about.

"If all the 'Red' states adopted the measure of splitting their electoral votes between candidates while all 'Blue' states continued rewarding all their electoral votes to the winner, would that skew elections in favor of one party? Explain your answer please."

Avoiding simple questions is kind of suspicious around these parts... you'll find that it rarely happens here.

[93ncsu]

44. And my answer to that question is ...

Sorry, I must have misread it the first time.

Would it skew the elections ? Maybe.

Look at 1984. If this policy were in place, Mondale would have received many more electoral votes than he did, but the outcome would have been the same.

My homestate, NC, has said they will only change as part of multi-state compact (they are looking at giving all of their electors to the national popular vote winner ... a horrific plan if you ask me). My guess is that other states are thinking the same, except CA in this case.

[The Doctor.]

47. Much better. Thanks.

Although there's no 'maybe' about it. In the case I mentioned (however far-fetched), the Democratic candidate would win all the electoral votes from the 'blue' states and then collect a handful of EVs from many of the 'red' states. Under those circumstances, it would be all but impossible for a Republican to win. I am completely against something so patently unbalanced.

I would be completely for California's plan only if every state in the nation does the same. Therefore we'd be closer to always getting the popular candidate as well as the one chosen as much by geographical distribution.

[diane in sf]

13. You are out of your mind--or a troll--do you see the Repugs pushing this in the big red states???

[93ncsu]

15. The question is, why aren't the Democrats pushing this in the big red states ?

[jmp]

16. Because the red staters don't want the Dems to get any ...

Of their electoral votes. This proposal is designed to exploit a sense of "fairness" that Darwinian right wingers simply do not believe in. I must admit that this is a brilliant strategy on the part of the GOP. At the very least the DNC will have to spend a ton of cash just to keep California's electoral votes from being split.

[93ncsu]

17. Many red states are controlled by Democrat legislatures ...

Surely these legislatures could affect such a change.

If California does this, look for other states to follow.

[stimbox]

20. obviously a troll

State's rights should be the clue.

[DeepModem Mom]

21. How about "a Democrat President" for a clue. I haven't responded...

because it's not a good idea for me to get started on this issue in my own words, and not just posting from a source.

[93ncsu]

26. What's wrong with "Democrat President" ?

I have always referred to the parties as the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. The "Democratic Party" never made sense to me.

When somebody asks your affiliation, do they ask "Are you a Republican or a Democratic ?" . No, they don't.

Just my own personal preference. You're reading too much into things.

[The Doctor.]

28. Dude, It's called 'English'... something that certain 'types' have a weak grasp of...

You can have a 'Democrat' (noun) for President, or a 'Democratic' (adjective) President for President.

It's a 'Democrat' who is elected, that would be the 'Democratic' candidate.

Republican (noun) is the same as Republican (adjective), that's why there's no apparent difference. Apparently Rush never explained that to his listeners.

Now, if you have to ask what the difference between a 'noun' and an 'adjective' is, then we'll know for sure just what the story is.

Like I said, 'enjoy your stay'. ;)

[93ncsu]

33. Wouldn't "Democratic" describe all of the candidates in the election ?

After all, they are all participating in the Democratic process.

This is why I do not like the word.

So answer this: when you tell someone your political affiliation, do you call yourself a Democrat or a Democratic ?

I don't have this problem because I am an Independent.

[The Doctor.]

41. So you don't know the difference between a noun and an adjective?

When I refer to myself, I say, "I am a Republican" because 'Republican' is a noun. If I ran for office, I would be a "Republican" candidate because 'Republican' is an adjective. I don't have to capitalize the 'R', because it's not a proper noun... I just do anyway. The "Republican Party" is technically a proper noun, even though 'Republican' is the operative adjective still.

If I were a Democrat, I would call myself a "Democrat" because 'Democrat' is a noun. If I ran for office, I would be a "Democratic" candidate because 'Democratic' is an adjective. The "Democratic Party" is proper noun, but 'Democratic' is the operative adjective still.

Now, I am, in fact, a "Republican", and like many Republicans, I am amazed at the damage this administration has done to this nation. Unlike most so-called Republicans these days, I know the difference between Facts and Opinions, News and Propaganda, and Nouns and Adjectives. It is shameful that so many self-described 'Republicans' are being so deftly taken advantage of through their ignorance these last many years. A perfect example of this is the exploitation of the ignorance of english resulting in folks using the noun "Democrat" in place of the adjective "Democratic". I cannot help but think that the people who have convinced so many like yourself that this is viable usage are actually laughing at the ignorance of their 'followers'.

As a person who is educated and capable of critical thought, I am amazed at how easily so many have been fooled... but perhaps I shouldn't be.

A vast portion of the American people have been lured into a sports-fan mentality over politics, so much so that they cheer their team no matter how many penalties they accrue, how much damage they do to the field, or how much they gouge us at the concession stand while making their owners rich off of their 'fans'.

This is done through the exploitation of ignorance and then telling people 'you're smart and right for believing what we tell you'... only in not so many words.

So tell ya' what 93ncsu, try not to get banned. Listen and ask honest not pointed questions here and you will likely learn more than you realized was possible as this truly is a reality-based community. Today, hopefully you learned the difference between 'Nouns' and 'Adjectives', I recommend you learn the difference between 'honest' and 'pointed' right away, that way you'll still be around when we do colors and numbers in a few weeks. :smoke:

Good luck.

:hi:

[WCGreen]

40. I was with you until the Democrat president...

Sorry Reggie, your gig is up...

BTW, North Carolina is also mulling a change in how they apportion the electoral vote...

And I don't remember people getting upset about that...

Clearly it is a trap for the Democrats, but, since Ohio is gonna go Blue this time around, I think we will survive this one...

Since CA has initiative legislation, you never really know what will show up on the ballot...

It's like having a fourth branch of government...

[Zodiak]

46. Here's a comforting thought

Looks like the GOP will carry only Utah at this point. The rest is blue.....so blue, in fact, that they had to use a new color for some states.

I know that Bush's approval may not translate to another puke, but if this is the baseline disgruntlement we have to work with, the loss of 20EVs from Cali may be moot.

I unfortunately agree that if California wants to do this, it is their right. But I hope they understand that giving more electoral power to a party that has $%#%@ed this country up for 6 years and are extremely unpopular to boot is potentially disastrous to the country as a a whole.

[93ncsu]

48. NC will only change their elector selection process if ...

enough other states join a compact that would have them all make the same change and would give the winner of the national popular vote at least 270 electors.

NC legislature has said they are not going out on their own on this.

[93ncsu]

25. Are you implying that Democrats canot be in favor of states' rights ?

If so, why not ?

[stimbox]

30. State's rights is right wing code.

It was also the Southern justification for the civil war and slavery.

[93ncsu]

34. Regardless of the perversions of the concept ...

it is the underpinning of the Constitution and the founders' desire for a government based on Federalism.

Many honorable concepts have ben co-opted by people to advance immoral causes. That does not make the honorable concept less honorable.

[stimbox]

36. Then I guess you don't mind the company of RWers.

[93ncsu]

38. I do not let a person's political leanings get in the way ...

of a relationship with that person.

We can't all think alike, nor will we.

Open, healthy and spirited debate is good for the mind and the process.

[Mountainman]

18. If you want the voice of the people heard get rid of the electoral system.

That way no republican could win. Do you like that idea? Gore won the popular vote in 2000 did the will of the people win out? No!

The repubs will use every trick in the book to win an election that they otherwise can't win with the rules everyone else plays by.

Here's a novel idea. Why don't the repubs get a popular platform that people want to vote for instead?

[Zodiak]

45. Democrat"IC" President, you mean

Using "Democrat" as an adjective is a purposeful mispronunciation used by conservatives to emphsize the "Rat" ending to the word. It is a baseline insult and allows right-wing blowhards to identify each other like a gang sign.

You're new, so you should know how such word usage is taken around here.

And welcome to DU!

[snowbear]

2. CNN Radio reported all day today that Arnold was going to say NO to this plan..

Every hour when CNN radio came on today the story was brought up.

CNN stated that Schwartzenegger said to the Republicans that made the proposel "Don't ask me to change something just because it's the only way you can win"

That's what CNN radio said today anyway..

[DeepModem Mom]

7. Thanks, larissa -- that's encouraging! nt

[rumpel]

3. in any event,

signed.

thanks. :hi:

[DeepModem Mom]

6. Thank YOU, rumpel! nt