The DailyKos crowd is getting all upset about a proposed ballot initiative (representative democracy at its finest) that would apportion the state's presidential electoral votes
From Kos:
Democrats are launching a critical effort in California to fight a ballot proposal that would award two electoral votes to the statewide winner in the presidential contest, with the rest allocated according to results in each congressional district. Dividing up California's huge electoral vote this way would likely mean the loss of 20 electoral votes to the Dem.
Currently, California's electoral votes are winner-take-all, the way it is in most states. But not all states. Maine and Nebraska award their electoral votes by congressional district - the presidential candidate that wins the popular vote in a congressional district gets the electoral votes from that district. It's a method that more closely aligns each candidate's percentage of the state's electoral vote with the candidate's percentage of the state's popular vote.
I seem to recall after 2000 election that the Democrats were crying about how Al Gore won the popular vote and deserved to be president. Well, apportioning electoral votes by congressional district would, if done in every state, make for an electoral vote tally more reflective of the popular vote.
Which means that Democrats fighting the proposal in California are fighting against a proposal to have Californians' votes more accurately represented in the election of the next president.
Sure, it would be more fair if all states moved to a district-by-district assigning of electoral votes, but, hey, the trend has to start somewhere and California often is a trendsetter.
"Which means that Democrats fighting the proposal in California are fighting against a proposal to have Californians' votes more accurately represented in the election of the next president."
Um No.
It is called fighting changing the rules mid-game, something you seem to ignore (wink-wink) with willful ignorance: "Hey. Gotta start somewhere. If it just so happens that making this one change would swing an entire election to the Republicans, it's a small price to pay for democracy."
If you bother to go back and read what kos himself has posted on the issue, you will see a discussion about how this would be a good thing IF it were done everywhere across the board at once. If you care so much about the matter you should propose doing the same thing in say Ohio and Florida at the same time in order to avoid having the mid-game rule-change benefiting only one party. But where is the benefit for Republicans in that.
I can understand why you want to push this though. It's really the only chance you have. It's kinda sad really.
Question: Do you think the partisan Republicans trying to push this throuh are doing it to further some abstract sense of representative democracy?
If your ilk had any credibility on such an issue, that BS might have a chance. But as it stands most Americans see it for what it is: a desperate ploy for power by those who realize they have no chance at winning the election the old fashioned way.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 17, 2007 5:27 AM | Permalink to Comment