Presidential Election Reform Act and Gray Davis Recall

Yeah they're exactly the same (8.00 / 1)

In 2003, Gray Davis' personal approval ratings were under 20%, Schwarzenegger's were in the 60-70% range, there was no liberal blogosphere that was able to raise more than a peep or two.

In 2007, the Republican Party is nearing a historic trashing of their brand, plus the liberal blogs and the progressive movement as a whole are engaged and organized.

Your point about not resting on laurels is well-made, but comparing the environment for Democrats in 2003 versus 2007 is just totally unfounded.

---

by: David Dayen @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 02:04:17 AM UTC

Still... (8.00 / 1)

it's absolutely nauseating that despite Gray Davis's horrid approvals back then, only 28% of Democrats wanted to recall him, while 41% of Democrats would right now vote for the dirty ballot initiative.  That number should be freaking ZERO.  I'm getting nightmare images of the same stupid Connecticut Democrats who helped vote Lieberman back in office.

Actually the truly disturbing number from the poll is that even AFTER being told of how the GOP would get 22 extra electoral votes, 41% of Democrats STILL support the measure!!  Who the hell are these people??

---

by: BruinKid @ Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 12:29:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

National Popular Vote (0.00 / 0)

The ballot measure to divide California's 55 electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated system of electing the President.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Obviously, if the district approach were installed in only one large state (such as California), it would greatly increase the chance that the winner of the presidential election would not have received the most votes nationwide.

The district approach would not, as claimed, make California relevant in presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to campaign in districts (or states) where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Currently, candidates concentrate over two-thirds of their money and visits on just six closely divided "battleground" states, and 99% of their expenditures in just 16 states. Thus, two thirds of the states are ignored in presidential elections (including California). In California, the presidential race is a foregone conclusion in 50 of the state's 53 congressional districts. Candidates would have no incentive than they do now to pay attention to California remaining 50 districts. Even if the district approach were used nationally, there are only 55 "battleground" districts that are competitive in presidential elections, so seven-eighths of the county would be left out of presidential elections. This is even worse than the current system, where two-thirds of the states are spectators.

A national popular vote is the way to guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President. It is the way to make every person's vote relevant, regardless of where that person lives.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes-that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President. When the legislation is in effect in that sized group of states, all of the electoral votes in the participating states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Thus, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the Presidency.

The bill has 320 legislative sponsors in 47 states. It has been signed into law in Maryland. The bill has passed by 11 legislative houses since its introduction in February 2006 (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, and North Carolina, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and California).

See www.NationalPopularVote.com

---

by: joreko @ Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 18:13:59 PM UTC