Update on GOP measure to split CA electoral votes

[Mz Pip]

It's not going so well. Looks like support has slipped to around 25% :bounce:

Scroll halfway down the page to read the whole segment.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/09/19/BAVJS8Q77.DTL

<<Lead weight: A Republican move to change how California would allocate its electoral votes in the next presidential election appears to be sinking under the weight of its own language.

Voters initially appeared inclined to support the proposed initiative, which would change the winner-take-all system for the state's 55 electoral votes to a more Republican-friendly, congressional-district-by-congressional-district count.

But a statewide poll of 600 voters conducted earlier this month by J. Moore Methods found support dropping to only 25 percent.>>

Mz Pip
:dem:

[T Wolf]

1. Sounds like the word has gotten out on this attempted theft. Good news. nt

[Orrex]

2. Wouldn't it be easier if they just cut to the chase

And only counted votes cast for Republicans? None of this district-by-district nonsense!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Gee.........what a shame!

What a riot!

And that's the clear part.

Wow...

How many people know what the word plurality means?

Hmmm...I'm not sure, myself...:blush:

I'm thrilled to hear this news!

Thank you for posting...

K&R

:woohoo:

[flpoljunkie]

4. Great!

:bounce:

[Mz Pip]

5. It will be interesting to see

if they are able to even get enough signatures to get it on the ballot. I rarely sign the petitions to put initiatives on the ballot because the initiative process has resulted in some really bad laws. This is one I for sure won't be signing.

It would be a very bad law.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Vincardog]

6. So not only is it UNconstitutional it is UNpopular too!

[Mz Pip]

7. I don't know if it's unconstitutional

Two other states do it and I do think the states can decide how the handle their elections. IT sure is unethical though, since there is no move by the GOP to do this in any of the Red States like Texas or Florida or Georgia.

This ploy is beyond obvious. I don't see how any Democrat would vote for it.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Greyskye]

9. Which other states do this?

Just curious. Thanks!

[mitchtv]

12. Two inconsequential ones

I think are ME &NE

[Vincardog]

11. The constitution says the the states get to divide up their Electoral Votes by action of their

LEGISLATORS not by referendum.
Any state whose legislators approve can divide their EV any way they want.e

[Mz Pip]

21. It would never pass our

legislature. CA legislature is heavily Democratic.

If this really isn't Constitutional then someone needs to tell the Repugs to stop wasting our time and money.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. This would be perfectly constitutional

The constitution only requires that each state shall have as many electors as it has Congresscritters, and that the electors of each state shall meet on a date set by federal law to cast their ballots. All other details -- including requirements on how electors shall vote -- are set by STATE law, thanks to the Tenth Amendment.

Currently, all states (except Vermont, I think) allows the political party which wins the plurality of votes in the Presidential race to appoint all of the electors. Most (but not all) states require that the electors vote for their own party's candidate, effectively pre-determining the state's electoral vote the moment a winner is declared by the state election authority. Again, this is all determined by state law, and a state is within its bounds to change those laws as it sees fit.

[Vincardog]

15. “in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct

Under the current system, all of a state’s electoral votes are apportioned to ... appointed by states “in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. How is that different from what I wrote?

:hi:

[Vincardog]

19. The current topic is about California Republicans trying to use a referendum to alocate the EV on a

district by district method.
My comment was that the method of changing the EV was unconstitutional.
Your comment that the states have the right to do as they will with their EV seemed to support the California initiative approach.

My post was to agree they they could change the method of allocation their EVs but that the approved method of making that change was to have their legislature do it. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to change it by referendum.

[yodermon]

23. Unless the state legislature legislates that the referendum is binding,

quite a dance, but the heavily Democratic CA legislature will never allow it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

24. Ah. I disagree with your assesment

Every state constitution that I have read which allows citizen sponsored ballot measures makes such measures equivalent to any law passed by the Legislature. Also, the various things dealing with presidential electors are statutes, not legislative decrees. So any method that changes the statutes is valid.

[Vincardog]

25. WE will see what the judge says. I am not talking about the state constitutions you have read

nor am I talking about "various things dealing with presidential electors".

I am talking about the US Constitution and how it says the EVs can be changed by the LEGISLATORS.

Do you support the repugs in their effort to subvert the will of the voters again?

It's patently unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution prohibits a ballot measure that would trump a state legislature's chosen method of appointing electors. In Article II, Section 1, the Constitution declares that electors shall be appointed by states "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." That's legislature. California's could scrap its current winner-take-all approach and adopt a district-by-district system for allocating electors (as only Maine and Nebraska currently do). But the voters—whom the initiative supporters have turned to because they don't have the support of the Democratic-controlled legislature—cannot do this on their own.

[robinlynne]

8. amazing what can happen when the media TALKS.

[Carrieyazel]

13. It's never going to happen, thankfully. All of those EVs will be ours again

[mark414]

14. i would support this only if it applied to all 50 states and was enacted simultaneously

the Electoral College is a sham

[DeepModem Mom]

16. K&R!

[the other one]

18. Scrap the whole goddam electoral congress

Then the gop will never see the white house again except for the Rose Garden.

[Vincardog]

20. And NY California and Florida will elect every Federal US rep from now on..

[ljm2002]

22. Best news I've heard today! n/t

[yurbud]

26. some good news for a change. Hopefully, the Democrats won't capitulate and vote for in legislature

[OnionPatch]

27. That made my day!

Thanks so much for posting that! :woohoo:
I knew that when Californians had enough time to figure it out, they'd understand it's a Republican ploy.