http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...ack=crosspromo

In california, the state legislature is run by democrats, and we have a RINO governor. The 55 electoral votes of california, 20% of the 270 needed to win, have always been a freebie for dems right out of the gate. Ah, but thanks to the efforts of the Progressive movement of the early 20th century, the people can bypass that crud with the state initiative, and the republicans have put forth the California Electoral Vote Initiative. This would replace the "winner take all" system with one based on congressional districts. California republicans don't have illegal aliens to vote early and often, but republicans do turn out in a high percentage, and sometimes they have gotten their way with the state initiative. Even I might turn out for this one. If it gets on the ballot and is adopted, then california's 19 republican congressional districts would go for the republican. Know what that means? It's like have an extra "Ohio" in you column.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

and chances are, Debra will either not ratify the signatures or stall it out.

__________________
"Mister Downchild, please take a fools advice -- never let no one woman misuse you twice"

Sonny Boy Williamson II and the Yardbirds at the Crawdaddy club, London, 1964

I fully support measures to split a state's electoral votes, rather than the "winner-take-all" approach that disenfranchises Republicans in California and Democrats in Texas.

That said, I'd be more impressed if the Republicans were pushing for such a measure not just in California but also in red-state bastions. And vice-versa with the Democrats.

Support it everywhere on principle, not in selected states because of anticipated partisan gain.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

I support it strongly in California...but not anywhere else. The intent of the electoral system was to give power to small states. I support that ideal still. And I certainly don't want crackpots in California determining how the rest of the country is run.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

then we can have a lifetime of Hillarys. Think about it.

__________________
"Mister Downchild, please take a fools advice -- never let no one woman misuse you twice"

Sonny Boy Williamson II and the Yardbirds at the Crawdaddy club, London, 1964

Darn you guys, you just reminded me I have an unfinished obligation as a US Citizen - I gotta do jury duty!

Darn stupid clowns are all on automated systems now, right? So, like, I call in for three days out my five, and nothing's going on, and then I gotta go to San Francisco 'cause my kid's sick and I'm like, "I can do this later", and I just kinda forgot about it.... so.... I guess I need to circle back.

ANYWAY, yeah, the way Ahnuld's got this State set up, it's government, "of, by, and for" the People. It's actually pretty good, all things considered. The loony lefties up in San Fran get their little spot they can do things in, and the conservative cowboys out in Simi get their little spot, and everyone's happy. You know, the admin has both Reps and Dems, Ahnuld's kinda "in the middle" there somewhere, probably leaning "slightly" to the Rep side.....

At the federal level though, I mean, like everyone's having problems with that relationship these days, right? Freakin' LA here, can't get any federal money anymore, and the feds are invading our turf with their stupid "war on little old ladies", and you know, it's like, when they threaten us with cutting off their money, we just laugh it their faces, it's like, "what money? you aren't giving us any, in the first place"....

What a bunch of clowns, these feds are. This Bush administration is god-awfulest crock-up I've ever seen in my life. I mean, you know, I've been like all over the corporate world, my career has touched on government, academia, secret stuff, you name it - and I've never seen a sorrier bunch of clowns than these Bush people. And I've seen some sorry-a** stuff in my life, right? I mean, I remember when Exxon was trying to get rid of their computer division (they used to own Zilog for a while, way back when)... some of the politics and behavior around that piece, were "almost" as bad as Bushie and his clown parade, but "not quite".

Well, so... I think what someone said about Debra, is probably correct. And that, is probably the way it should be. It's a good system of "checks and balances". That's kinda the way it works in my band, too. It's like, "any" of us, can veto "anything", for "any" reason, at "any" time. And it's like, no one has a problem with that, right? 'Cause there's "enough" common ground, where we just go, "meh... next?" and that's about how much consideration that piece deserves, right?

But I suppose that works in "small, like-minded communities"....

But yeah, I'm going to liberal-ville (San Fran) in about four or five hours, so I"ll have to put on my other hat for a while (just in case any of those gay nun clowns are looking for someone else to pick on)....

HUH??? Democrats have ruled in Texas forever! It's ONLY in the last 12 years or so that Republicans became the Majority. So, your premise is all wrong. IF any "disenfrashising" has gone on in Texas, it's been the Democrats doing it!!!!

So, where were YOU when the Democrats ruled Texas for decades and decades??? Didn't care so much then.....right???

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Here, here!!!!

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

I second (third?) that -

You know, and I don't think anyone out here would want to tell you guys what to do.

Nah, we're pretty clear that way, we tend to support self-determination.

And you know, we help out too, like we sent teams down to Katrina and so on -

So I mean, that's the way the US is supposed to be, right? You don't like it in Pennsylvania, you can go to California. Or vice versa. States' Rights.

But the thing that's not "American", is for the federal government to try to impose any kind of "uniformity" among the States. They're not allowed to do that. It says so right in the contract.

So, I mean, when I look at issues like the way electors are chosen and so on - I also gotta consider that in a "larger context" - like, f'r instance, what's going on with Florida and so on, and these states that are trying to move their primaries up, and both Parties are fightin' 'em tooth and nail.

I mean, it's almost like the Parties are a "parallel power structure", parallel to the government. Know what I mean? If they have that much clout, to where they can tell a State when and whether to hold or not hold elections, then I submit to y'all, that something's wrong.

Yes?

Note folks that the proposed california system wouldn't end the electoral college system. Every state in the country could have that system and a candidate could still win without a majority of the popular vote.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847