| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
2ndamendsis
PO3
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 288
Location: NJ
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:01 pm Post subject: News Flash>>>CO. Prop. on BALLOT TO SPLIT ELECTORAL |
 |
|
The first real stab at eliminating the ELECTORAL SYSTEM.
Colorado has a proposition on the ballot to legalize, through the state constitution, splitting the ELECTORAL VOTES by POPULAR VOTE 
If successful, it will be retroactive to include the Nov. 2 election.
Why in the world has this not been on every news outlet?
_________________
PROUD wife of Army ASA Vet - 66-70
mom of Sailor - Gulf 1
daughter of WW11 Army Vet |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stevie
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 1451
Location: Queen Creek, Arizona
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
that was on the news a few days ago.... I think 2 other states have split votes.... it might be a good idea to find out what other states can by their state constitution, do this...
_________________
Stevie
Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage
morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should
be arrested, exiled or hanged. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IMO, it looks like this is only happening because CO is "leaning Bush"
If CO were "firmly Kerry," there's no way this would have come up in the State Legislature.
But, I think there are two other states where the electoral votes split according to the popular vote.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eXcel
Seaman
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 174
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CO people are not happy about this because it would effectively render their state politically impotent in presidential elections, giving only 2 or 3 (net) votes to the winner |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2ndamendsis
PO3
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 288
Location: NJ
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2004 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Klinton duo put the shot over the bow in 2000. She was babbling & screaming popular vote continually. They all know that this will be the only way to gain control of a majority of states. They've all been babbling "Popular Vote". Say it often enough, don't teach our kids about the Constitution, keep infiltrating with illegal immigrants and what do you get..........?
It's very frustrating because our constitution is being attacked from 360 degrees and one would have to be a magician to juggle it all.
SAD  VERY SAD
_________________
PROUD wife of Army ASA Vet - 66-70
mom of Sailor - Gulf 1
daughter of WW11 Army Vet |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noc
PO1
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 492
Location: Dublin, CA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is an attempt to move our country away from being a republic.
This is a bad trend and weekens the power of smaller states.
The are very good reasons to keep a republic. It is a long standing compromise between pure popular vote and representation of smaller states. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wally626
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 85
Location: Yorktown
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
It still gives the smaller states more votes than their population relative to the rest of the country. However unless the big democratic states like New York and California do it as well it is a loss for the republicans.
I think it would be good if in all the states got one electrol vote for each house seat to be decided by the election results in each house district and two at large votes for the state as a whole. This is how Nebraska does it I think. This would retain the small state advatage while reducing the impact of a couple of swing states.
I haven't seen an add here for any candidate for a while, at least since Kerry gave up on the state. If each state could split its votes the campaigns would have to spread the wealth (to the TV stations) a lot more evenly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JCJR
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 114
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 2ndamendsis wrote: | The Klinton duo put the shot over the bow in 2000. She was babbling & screaming popular vote continually. They all know that this will be the only way to gain control of a majority of states. They've all been babbling "Popular Vote". Say it often enough, don't teach our kids about the Constitution, keep infiltrating with illegal immigrants and what do you get..........?
It's very frustrating because our constitution is being attacked from 360 degrees and one would have to be a magician to juggle it all.
SAD VERY SAD |
The constitution always left selection of electors up to the states. Up til now, most states figured they had the most power using 'winner takes all'. But the issue is up to each state, entirely constitutional, regardless of what the state decides.
Depending on the way electors are 'split selected', it wouldn't necessarily be beneficial for democrats (if all states repealed 'winner takes all').
Each state gets one elector for each Representative (population based), and one elector for each Senator (2 per state, equal power to all states regardless of population).
IF a state allocated electors in the following method-- Allocate the two 'senatorial' electors as 'winner takes all'. Then allocate one elector chosen by the vote in each congressional district.
If allocated this way, it wouldn't be the same as a national popular vote.
For instance, California is conservative except for the big cities. In the current setup, California delivers 55 Democrat electors even if the Democrats only win by a margin of one vote! Every election, the Republican California rural voters are effectively disenfranchised.
With only two electors selected by 'winner takes all', California would surrender a sizeable (minority) percentage of electors to Republicans. Lots of rural congressional districts would go Republican.
Of course, states like Texas or Florida would surrender some of their 'winner takes all' votes to Democrats. Overall, it would be unpredictable which party would gain an obvious advantage.
Heavily Republican states' legislators want 'winner takes all' because it favors their guy. Similarly, heavily Democrat states' legislators like 'winner takes all' because it favors Democrats. It seems unlikely that strongly partisan states would ever repeal 'winner takes all', because it would be against the state's dominant party self-interest.
Here is a potential benefit for true democracy-- If each congressional district selects its own elector, a few Green, Libertarian, Reform and Constitution party electors might be chosen.
It is VERY conceivable that locations like Seattle and San Francisco could manage to win a few Green electors (which would ding the current Democratic pool of electors). Not only would California lose electors to Republicans, they would also lose electors to Greens!
Similarly, some Libertarian or Constitution Party electors might come out of the rural heartland (dinging the Republican pool of electors).
In a very close race, this handful of third-party electors could swing the election. It would force Demopublicans and Republicrats to pay more attention to third-party sentiments, in order to assemble a winning majority.
It is currently IMPOSSIBLE that a third party can ever win president, so the two major parties can safely entirely ignore the third parties.
All I'm saying, is that elimination 'winner takes all' IS NOT NECESSARILY a bad thing (though it could be a bad thing).
Even if each state uses an state-wide popular election to allocate electors, the small states would still have extra leverage, because of the two 'senatorial' electors assigned regardless of population. It would still be possible to have an electoral victory but a popular loss. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slednfool
Seaman
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 198
Location: New Brighton, MN
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | that was on the news a few days ago.... I think 2 other states have split votes.... |
I think it was two other states are considering it, no state has split there votes before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wally626
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 23 Aug 2004
Posts: 85
Location: Yorktown
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Slednfool wrote: | | Quote: | | that was on the news a few days ago.... I think 2 other states have split votes.... |
I think it was two other states are considering it, no state has split there votes before. |
Maine and Nebraska can split their votes now. Edit: Or was that New Hampshire? i forgot but definitely Nebrask and one NE state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ccr
Commander
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 325
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is one that is going to backfire....
This ballot measure is a perfect setup for the ultimate "Pyrrhic victory".
Colorado and Florida are the only two "red states" that Kerry has any realistic chance of winning.
If Bush wins Colorado, this measure is most likely going to fail.
On the other hand, if Kerry wins Colorado, this measure may pass. If that happens, Kerry will end up with five electoral votes and Bush 4.
So, thanks to this measure, the two MOST LIKELY scenarios are:
Bush 9
Kerry 0
or
Bush 4
Kerry 5
Now, let's look at it a bit more big picture: this measure could be the difference in the electoral college victory.
IF BUSH WINS ALL 2000 RED STATES, the electoral college results are:
BUSH 278
KERRY 260
If Bush wins all red states EXCEPT COLORADO AND THE BALLOT MEASURE FAILS:
BUSH 269
KERRY 269
(Election goes to House of Reps)
If Bush wins all red states EXCEPT COLORADO AND THE BALLOT MEASURE PASSES:
BUSH 273
Kerry 265
If you live in Colorado and it looks like Kerry is going to win, VOTE FOR THE BALLOT MEASURE!
_________________
Whose side is John Kerry really on? Take this quiz and decide for yourself.
http://www.learnthat.com/quiz/
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
neverforget
Vice Admiral
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
Posts: 875
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maine, you were right the first time.
_________________
US Army Security Agency
1965-1971 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Polaris
Rear Admiral
Joined: 16 Aug 2004
Posts: 626
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I woldn't worry.
First of all the measure won't pass. Both parties will (in the end) campaign against it because it makes CO irrelevant.
Secondly, it is unconstitutional.
Why?
Because the selection of EVs is the sole responsibility of the State Legistature as it sees fit, but they don't get that power under the state constitutution. They get is under Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution. Because the state legislature has nothing to do with this proposed amendment, it is unconstitutional under Article I, Section 3. I will bet you any amount that SCOTUS is going to be a real stickler about it, too.
_________________
-Polaris
Truth is Beauty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ProudDaughterofVet
Commander
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 340
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2004 1:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Polaris..
I believe that if this happens, and it is a tie again..we are back at SCOTUS..OMG, could it be a set up from the beginning..you bet! Well, lets put is this way..Bush needs to make sure that Colorado does not matter either way..and put this puppy away by 10:00pm est..and I think he will.
..again, changing the rules before the election..can not do it..isn't that what they said in 2000...The Dems will sue for anything..
PD
_________________
"We will not tire, We will not falter, We will not fail."
-President George W. Bush
www.timetotakeastand.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
