[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers
Daily Email Summary

View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics
Event Calendar
February 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 * * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally

MBA Member

Blue CA Ad Network
Join Our eMail List
Email:

Photobucket

A Competing Initiative With The Right-Wing Electoral College Power Grab

by: David Dayen

Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 17:15:33 PM PDT


A lot going on for a Tuesday in August.  Dan Morain at the LAT has the latest story:

Democrats proposed an initiative today aimed at having California embrace the movement to elect presidents by popular vote.

The initiative also is designed to head off a Republican effort to wrest away California's electoral votes. Republican consultants are proposing a separate initiative to change California's winner-take-all system of awarding its 55 electoral votes. Under the Republican measure, electoral votes would be awarded based on how congressional districts vote, an idea that could benefit the Republican nominee.

If the competing Democratic and Republican measures make it to the ballot next June, California would become a battleground over the electoral college system. The state has 55 electoral votes, more than any other state, and more than 10% of the 538 electoral votes nationally.

Chris Lehane announced the competing initiative at a press conference today.  And the initiative has been filed with the Attorney General.

I should add that there was another poll out today on this issue, by Rasmussen, which showed that the right-wing Electoral College power grab fails badly once people are given information about it's implications, but that polling on a national popular vote concept is pretty favorable.  Numbers on the flip:
David Dayen :: A Competing Initiative With The Right-Wing Electoral College Power Grab
The proposal being pitched in California would award one Electoral Vote to the winner of each Congressional District along with two Electoral Votes for the statewide winner. In a theoretical sense, 45% of voters nationwide think that's a good idea. Thirty percent (30%) disagree while 25% are not sure. However, even that tepid level of support dissipates when voters learn that a change in California could significantly increase the number of Republican Electoral Votes. Once that is factored into the equation, support drops to 31% and opposition increases to 43%.

It's interesting to note that Republican support for the measure barely increases when told of the potential benefit to their own party. That may be due to a sense of fairness or a nagging realization that the same thing could happen in other states where the GOP would lose votes. Forty-five percent (45%) favor the concept in theory and 48% favor it after learning how it would impact the results in California. Among Democrats and unaffiliated voters, support plunges dramatically once the electoral implications of a change in California are explained.
Overall, 54% of voters would like to get rid of the Electoral College and have the winner of the popular vote become President. Thirty percent (30%) disagree. Democrats strongly support this approach while Republicans are evenly divided. Women are more enthusiastic about it than men.

I've been advocating for the National Popular Vote plan for some time.  If the Electoral College were enacted after the 14th Amendment, it would be found unconstitutional.  Every election in our system is majority-rule except for the one for the highest office in the land.  Californians are disenfranchised every year as they watch small states like Wyoming get an outsized portion of the electoral vote.

The GOP spin was predictable:

Kevin Eckery, spokesman for the GOP measure, said the Democratic-backed measure would leave Californians with little or no voice in national politics.

"If you ignore the congressional districts, there would be one big overwhelming national vote," Eckery said. "What matters in L.A. or what matters in Santa Monica, won't matter. It will be just one vote thrown into the mix."

Um, what's wrong with one big overwhelming national vote for a national office?  And did what matters in Santa Monica and LA matter in 2004?  2000?  1988?  That's a ridiculous argument.

This is getting very, very interesting.
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A Competing Initiative With The Right-Wing Electoral College Power Grab | 66 comments
I'm against them both (0.00 / 0)
unless EVERY state is required to agree to the compact before it takes effect anywhere. Otherwise, I hate to say it, but I agree with Arnold.

The other thing is, if it's just required to total in states that equal 270+ votes, in the states that don't agree to it, their voters' votes get counted twice: once in their own state, and once in what determines the other states' electoral votes

The Silent Consensus

que? (0.00 / 0)
I am from Spain, so I no getta you logic...

The compact would not take effect until states with 270+ EVs ratify it. 

The voter's votes would get counted twice is a brain-exploding argument.  As it is, Wyoming residents have their votes count 3x as much as Californians, so their votes are being counted 3 times, ok?  The point is that at the end of the day you'd have a system where the person who gets the most votes wins.  If you have a problem with that I'd love to hear it.

[ Parent ]
And the idea... (0.00 / 0)
"As it is, Wyoming residents have their votes count 3x as much as Californians, so their votes are being counted 3 times, ok?"

I won't defend it, I think the electoral college should be abolished. But at least their votes don't get counted in 2 states

Implement instant runoff voting, abolish the electoral college, implement proportional representation, and open the debates. Don't give me this proposal that's full of manure. It's also unconstitutional

I believe it should be all or nothing. All states should apportion their votes through the same process. If they all did it by who won the popular vote, great.

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
I Agree With You In Theory (8.00 / 1)
And I've got bona fides.  I first wrote an op-ed arguing for proportional representation for the Christian Science Monitor in 1994.

But there is simply no way in hell that we are going to abolish the electoral college directly.  The small states see themselves having more than their fair share of power, but feeling that even that isn't enough, and so they'll never agree to repeal it.  And there are simply too many of them.  So it just won't happen.

But the national compact gets around all that.  It simply says that whoever wins the national popular vote wins the presidency, period.  That's the black box, input-output model of how it works.

Does the inner wiring look unfair to different people, taking different points of view?  Clearly it does.  But that's simply not the right way to look at it, since it doesn't make any difference in terms of who gets elected.  And once you get that simple reality, then you can look at the wiring without distracting anxiety.

For example, consider your claim that folks in some states will get counted twice.  It sounds bad if you fixate on it.  But if you just look at the input-output model, then you know that it must not matter.  And if you know that, then you'll be more open to understanding why it's irrelevant.  The reason is fairly simple. Here's why:

Voter in compact state -> National Vote Total
Voter in non-compact state -> National Vote Total

National Vote Total -> 270+ EVs -> Elects President

Those are the only votes that matter.  While it's true that voters in non-compact states also influence their own state's votes, which aren't part of the compact, those "double-counted" votes have no impact on the outcome of the election.  They are what's known as "wasted votes."

Wasted votes are a typical problem of single-member non-PR systems.  Every vote for a winning candidate over the number needed to win is a wasted vote.  And every vote for a losing candidate is a wasted vote. That's a lot of wasted votes.  It's why a legislative majority only actually represents just over 25% of the population.  Wasted votes are not a good thing.

Usually.

But here they are not a problem, because the votes that are wasted are precisely the redundent ones, the ones that are getting counted twice.

Now, once we've had this national compact system in place for a few presidential election cycles, and everyone is totally accustomed to it, then it may be politically feasible to simply abolish the electoral college.  And I would be pleased as punch to see that happen.  But in the meantime, it's a rare kluge indeed that works as well as this one will.

Meanwhile the struggle for PR is one that has to be waged at whatever representative level we can.  It gives a lot more people a voice, because it drastically reduces the number of wasted votes.  And once people really get that, I think it will become an irresistable force--with one caveat.  People really do need to be assured that all georgraphical areas will have their needs attended to.  We need to devise mechanisms--such as the nascent neighborhood council system in Los Angeles-to make sure this happens.

American democracy has been in formal stasis for far too long, and we need to get it moving and growing again.  But we've got to do that within the context of the instutions we've already got.  That means we need to be creative sometimes, and the national electoral vote compact is a great example of that creativity.

[ Parent ]
It's a matter of... (0.00 / 0)
personal disagreement. I don't think California (or any state) should have to apportion their electoral votes to someone other than who the majority of voters support in that state.

If every state had to agree to this compact, it would be a different story

I still view this as a an end run around the constitution. I'd be willing to bet the courts will see that

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
Article I, Section 10 (0.00 / 0)
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
Wow (0.00 / 0)
are you suggesting that all agreements between states are unconstitutional now?

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer
[ Parent ]
Just to clarify my existential concern (0.00 / 0)
states have agreed to form a United States of America, which gives the Constitution both existence and power, but would then nullify itself.  Thus, the act of creating a nation preempts its very existence.

On a less theoretical level though, it's not at all difficult to get around what you're trying to argue by having states just declare into the ether that their own particular way of apportioning electors only kicks in if a sufficient number of other states, or states representing a sufficient number of people, make similar independent declarations into the ether.  So collusion isn't going to be your out.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

[ Parent ]
Do they have the consent from Congress? (0.00 / 0)
If no, then yes they are

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
Except (0.00 / 0)
The very existence of a Congress is an agreement between states. The Constitution had to be ratified by the states.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer
[ Parent ]
And the states... (0.00 / 0)
agreed to that restriction upon them. If you want to amend the constitution, do it the legal way, don't try these back door methods

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
Mmk (0.00 / 0)
Guess what? A Constitutional amendment doesn't require unanimous ratification.  It requires 3/4. So it would take effect without all states agreeing to it, and so you still wouldn't have what you want.

And since the Constitution says that states determine how they apportion their electors, this IS the legal way.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

[ Parent ]
Nope... (0.00 / 0)
if we were to amend the constitution to abolish the electoral college, then fine

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
You realize (0.00 / 0)
That you're making no sense at all right?

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer
[ Parent ]
No... (0.00 / 0)
If we were to amend the constitution to abolish the electoral college for every state, then fine. If every state had to agree to this compact, then fine. I just don't want two different systems going on at the same time

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
Yes, we can go around in circles for days (0.00 / 0)
But you continue to not make any sense. You support this if every state agrees to it. You support this if 3/4 of the states support this. But you do not support majority rule if it's implemented via majority rule.  That is to say, only a supermajority or unanimity may sanction majority rule. If you have something new to say, feel free.  But otherwise there's nothing left to this discussion.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer
[ Parent ]
And you're misrepresenting me... (0.00 / 0)
If we abolish the electoral college via the legal way, then every state goes by the popular vote. If every state agrees to this compact, then every state goes by the popular vote. I am consistent, and you are either just misunderstanding or misrepresenting me

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
What is illegal (0.00 / 0)
about states changing how they apportion their votes? It's the manner established in the Constitution.  Further, you're just making up that this is a compact.  A guy in a duck costume may walk like a duck and talk like a duck, but he is not, in fact, a duck. No matter how unwilling onlookers might be to make that distinction, no matter how hard they really want him to be a duck, he's still not a duck.  If you choose to ignore the distinction between entities doing the same thing at the same time and entities acting in overt concert with each other, that's your own business. But I assure you that your willful ignorance is no longer any business of mine.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer
[ Parent ]
Oh it's not? (0.00 / 0)
Just look at the legislative analysis of SB 37:

http://info.sen.ca.g...

The first 4 words of the summary: RATIFIES AN INTERSTATE COMPACT

Does the initiative differ?

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
There, I provided you (0.00 / 0)
with a citation and concrete proof. Unless this initiative isn't a carbon copy of SB 37, YOU are the ignorant one

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
Who's name calling now? (0.00 / 0)
I've criticized your arguments and I've criticized your behavior. You're the one engaging in personal attacks.

As to your argument, my response is twofold. One, I have not personally seen anything saying that this initiative would be a copy of SB37. But even if it is, as has been pointed out already in these comments, the bit of Constitution you are citing does not, in fact, mean that states are required to have Congressional consent in order to cooperate in any way, shape or form.

And even if all of that is irrelevant to you, then fine. If the initiative is rewritten to stand independently and simply say that if the necessary number of states independently adopt effectively similar measures, California's system will change, it would have the exact same effect without containing the word "compact." At that point, in what way would your concerns have been addressed?

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

[ Parent ]
Partially... (0.00 / 0)
I'm not engaging in personal attacks, I am just returning them to the owner.

the constitutional part of it would be addressed, but not my full opposition.

That part of the constitution says we can't enter into interstate compacts without congressional approval. I don't know what could say it clearer than that. If this isn't an interstate compact (which would mean it's not like SB 37), then it's not unconstitutional

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
You Don't Know How To Read The Constitution (0.00 / 0)
That part of the constitution says we can't enter into interstate compacts without congressional approval. I don't know what could say it clearer than that.

The Constitution, believe it or not, was very carefully crafted.  If you read it carelessly--the way gun nuts do, for example--you can get in a lot of trouble.

As the pdf linked to by Brian says:

Whether Congressional Consent Is Required

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution provides that "No State shall, without the consent of Congress… enter into agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power…". The broadness of the language of the "Compact Clause", when read literally, IMPLIES THAT all agreements between or among states would require the consent of Congress. However, in Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 13 S.Ct. 728, 37 L.Ed. 537 (1893), the United States Supreme Court held that, only those agreements which affect the power of the national government or the "political balance" within the federal government require the consent of Congress. Under the Virginia v. Tennessee rule, just because an agreement by two or more states is called a "compact" that does not automatically MEAN THAT IT MUST OBTAIN CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT.

In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court AFFIRMED THEIR RULING IN Virginia v. Tennessee THROUGH a CASE THAT INVOLVED A DISPUTE between New Hampshire and Maine.

The political balance test is something else you don't understand, as witnessed by your gibberish about counting votes twice.

[ Parent ]
A good explanation on the law on compacts (0.00 / 0)
Here's a PDF about interstate compact law. It's got all the basics and is a decent primer.  I thought it would be a decent way to start if we are seriously going to debate the constitutionality of interstate compacts.

But, of course, the threshold question is whether this is acutally a compact.  There's case law for that too.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.

[ Parent ]
puh-leeze (8.00 / 2)
Hey originalist, that is in reference to matters of military engagement.  There are hundreds of interstate compacts currently in use by the states:

Compacts typically address problems that no one state can solve unilaterally. For example, the Colorado River Compact apportions waters of the Colorado River among seven western states. No one state would want to limit its access to the river's water unless it could rely on the fact that other states would similarly limit their usage. The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children is an example of a compact involving all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is an example of the bi-state compact.

It may have to go through Congress potentially to be ratified as an interstate compact, but there are no constitutional restrictions other than that the powers agreed to be available to the states to exercise.  And to quote the Constitution, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." (and that power is exclusive and plenary)

I know what the next question is, and seeing that the legislature in California has directed themselves to be bound by the initiative process if such a measure qualifies for the ballot, then there are no constitutional qualms with this being governed by ballot measure, either.

[ Parent ]
This is not a compact with any other state (0.00 / 0)
Article I, Section 10 does not apply. Delegating electoral votes is 100% up to each state, and a state is free to say it will do what other states are doing. That's not a compact between two states.
[ Parent ]
Yes it is (0.00 / 0)
it's an interstate compact. It only takes effect if states totaling 270+ votes

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
No, Technically It's NOT A Compact, Despite The Name (0.00 / 0)
There's a subtle distinction here, but it's a real one.  The states are not making agreements with one another.  They are passing laws that will only take effect once enough states have passed similar laws.

If a set list of states were involved, and those states all passed the same law, then that definitely would be a compact.

[ Parent ]
Give that man a cookie (0.00 / 0)
For an excellent insight on what is a compact.  Compacts require specific signatories, not general conditions.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG.
[ Parent ]
So is the LAO wrong? (0.00 / 0)
http://info.sen.ca.g...

SB 37 doesn't require "specific signatories" but what are the first 4 words of the summary: RATIFIES AN INTERSTATE COMPACT

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
Think With The Learned, Speak With The Vulgar (aka Design vs. Function) (0.00 / 0)
That was Hume's self-description, and it's a good one to keep in mind.  I, too, refer to it as a compact, because that's how it functions--but not how it's designed.  If you look at Article I, Section 10, you get the learned take on what the difference is:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

While some have argued from this context that it only pertains to war-making or security issues, this is not my point here.  What is my point is that there is a clear implication that they are talking about agreements between specific political entities that may distort, interfere with or undermine the functioning of the federal government, or unfairly disadvantage another state or states.

If there were an agreement with a set list of states, then if could at least be arguable that this applied to such an agreement.  It would be a foolish argument, since compact depends on the votes of all the people, not just the people in the states who join it.  But, it could be argued on some wierd tangent or another.

However, the agreement does not list a set of states.  Indeed, it is not actually about states at all.  States agreeing to this compact are not entering into it with other specific states.  They are, in essence, pledging to abide by a principle, in common with whatever other states shall join them, once a certain threshold is crossed.

Thus there is a distinction that the learned can readily understand.  But there is no need to create new words to draw such distinctions. Instead, we should simply speak with the vulgar, and call it a compact, because that describes what its function would be in our political system, even if its not an Article I Section 10 "compact."

That said, I have nothing at all against getting Congressional approval, simply to make it completely immune from attack.

[ Parent ]
So the LAO is wrong? (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Well, Obviously... (0.00 / 0)
You're vulgar all the way down.

No larnin' 4U!

But, then, we already knew that, didn't we?

[ Parent ]
Answer my question (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
You First, Dude! (0.00 / 0)
You still haven't replied to my extensive take down of your double voting lie.
[ Parent ]
It's not a lie... (0.00 / 0)
If I believe what I'm saying, it's not a lie.

I said, up there, that it's just personal disagreement. I don't want two systems

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
Everyone's Entitled To Their Own Opinions (0.00 / 0)
But they aren't entitled to their own facts.

I laid out a factual argument, and you still haven't responded to it.

[ Parent ]
And I'm not saying... (0.00 / 0)
that your facts are wrong, but rather, I don't want two systems going on simultaneously.

Now, you answer my question about the LAO. Why are they wrong to say it's a ratification of an interstate compact?

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
Then You ADMIT That Votes AREN'T Being Counted Twice? (0.00 / 0)
And that you're just irrational and easily confused?

OK. Fair enough.

Now for your question:  I already answered it.

The LAO is speaking with the vulgar.

Whether the LAO understands the points made here by myself and others, I can't say.  I'm not a mindreader, and I haven't investigated the matter, because it's irrelevant.  As the document Brian pointed to make clear.

This is settled constitutional law.  There is no there there.

[ Parent ]
I suppose they're not (0.00 / 0)
being counted twice, but I still don't want two systems.

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
Neither Do I (0.00 / 0)
But it's a minor annoyance compared to what we've got now.

And, it's the only politically feasible way to eventually get rid of the Electoral College.  Once you make it functionally irrelevant, people will be willing to ax it completely after a few presidential election cycles.

[ Parent ]
Um did you read it? (0.00 / 0)

The national movement toward a popular vote would not scrap the electoral college system, but rather require that states award their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the most actual votes nationally. It would take effect only if states representing a majority of the electoral votes agree to the change.


I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer
[ Parent ]
And that's why I'm against it... (0.00 / 0)
"It would take effect only if states representing a majority of the electoral votes agree to the change."

I'd be for it if every state had to agree to it, but that's not the case, so I'm against

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
How would you imagine (0.00 / 0)
such a thing being particularly possible? and for that matter, explain the logic of requiring unanimous endorsement of majority rules?

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer
[ Parent ]
I'm not saying it is (0.00 / 0)
"how would you imagine such a thing being possible?"

I'm not saying it is feasible, but unless if the condition is that every state has to agree to it, I'm against it.

What's the logic? I don't want people's votes counting in two states' electoral votes. That violates the one person one vote clause. At least the current system is constitutional

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
So, your argument (6.50 / 2)
As I understand it, is that majority rule is contingent upon unanimous consent?

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer
[ Parent ]
People's Votes DON'T Count Twice (0.00 / 0)
As I explained in my rather long comment "I Agree With You In Theory", the votes of people in non-compact states count twice only in a non-essential sense.

The electoral votes they contribute to directly in their own states play no role in electing the president.  Only the electoral votes of the compact states will matter.

[ Parent ]
They do count twice... (0.00 / 0)
actually more than twice. They count in their own state, and in every state in this compact

The Silent Consensus
[ Parent ]
I'm Sorry, But You're An IDIOT (0.00 / 0)
I've tried to be patient, and understanding, but apparently that doesn't work with you.

I have explained this quite clearly and you have completely ignored me.

Restating a lie does not make it true.  That's how Republicans think.

[ Parent ]
And that... (0.00 / 0)
was a baseless personal attack.

You have stated it, and I don't agree with it

The Silent Consensus

[ Parent ]
Perhaps (0.00 / 0)
But your argument here is idiotic. The vote does not count more than once and all evidence points to you behaving in a belligerent and willfully ignorant manner for no particular reason.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer
[ Parent ]
An Idiot Is "One Who Stands Alone" (8.00 / 1)
By refusing to respond to my argument but simply repeating your lies, you have emdodied the classic meaning of "idiot."

I put a something like 20 minutes of work into carefully explaining why you were mistaken yesterday, and utterly ignored it.  I posted a short reminded of what I had posted, and you responded with a more extravagent lie.  You have never responded to the detailed explanation I presented.

You are an idiot.

And I am off to work, you can slime me baseless all you want, since you are obviously incapable of responding to my argument.

But others will note what you are up to.

[ Parent ]
this is an excellent tactic (0.00 / 0)
and one I have been advocating for in private. It will help sow confusion making the passage of the Republican plan much less likely. Plus a national change in how we elect our president is in order. The legislature already passed the national electoral vote last year but Arnold vetoed it. This will place him in an interesting situation.

We will see how willing the Republicans are to push this with a second initiative in the mix.

totally disagree (8.00 / 1)
A confuse strategy works best with low information voters -- they aren't voting next June.

While I agree with the idea of a popular vote, this pretty much grants the GOP's talking point that something needs to be done.

IMHO, this is to 2008 as Cruz was to 2003.

And for the life of me, I can't see any reason why the GOP wouldn't push this regardless -- it is in their best interests. I can almost picture John Doolittle running around the foothills yelling at the top of his lungs that if CA-04 doesn't support Hillary, it is undemocratic for her to get CA-04's electoral vote.

[ Parent ]
I Agree, UNLESS (0.00 / 0)
We do what we should have done in 2003: pound like hell on the rightwing power-grab frame, as George Lakoff wrote about in Don't Think of An Elephant, and which I discussed in a Dkos diary back in January, 2005, "Uniting DKos #4: The Rightwing Power Grab."

The big differences between 2003 and now are three-fold:

(1) For all my distaste for Davis, the recall effort was a totally bum rap, while the problems with the electoral college are not.

(2) In 2003, we failed to recognize, articulate and unifying around a simple central message that could have derailed the GOP--the message of defeating a rightwing power grab.  Now, thanks to the growth of the netroots, and bottom-up progressive power generally, we have a much better shot at getting this right.

(3) The GOP is a lot more unpopular now than it was back then.

[ Parent ]
Indy's and a bunch of Dem's couldn't force themselves (0.00 / 0)
to vote for Bustamante even though they wanted to vote for a Democrat.  When Cruz bowed down to the Indian tribes, that was the end for him.  There's just no corollary between the ugly politics that he represented and this initiative. 

Is it put forward by Dem insiders and should that make you take a close look?  Sure. But that in itself doesn't mean the initiative's bad. 

Need a contact # for a CA Legislator? Check here

[ Parent ]
That's not exactly good politics (0.00 / 0)
I agree with you that competing initiatives will make both fail. But I don't think that's a good way to make any actual progress......
[ Parent ]
Confusion (0.00 / 0)
Lehane's measure will simply confuse the issue and help the Republican proposition.  It is a stupid idea and as an earlier poster implied, it will help Republicans change the debate from one of whether they should be able to game the system by just changing California's rules into a question of whether voters think there should be a different system nationally. 
I don't think it necessarily follows (8.00 / 2)
that confusion automatically means that the original plan is helped.  In fact, recent history on ballot initiatives shows that competing measures usually hurts both of them.  The best example is the competing prescription drug plans on the ballot in 2005.
[ Parent ]
Double-work for grassroots activists (8.00 / 1)
From a boots-on-the-ground perspective, this counter-initiative is NUTS! It means that all our blog postings and grassroots literature and people have to argue a pro- and a con-, work overtime to make sure voters know which is which, and spend far more time than we would have to simply explain why the GOP initiative is a very bad idea.

Chris Lehane, I fear, is muddying the waters. And I'm being really polite when I put it that way.

Ellen Dana Nagler
Santa Barbara
http://www.thenewpol... (The Broad View blog)

[ Parent ]
No... (0.00 / 0)
You just campaign against both.
[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
You campaign against the GOP initiative. That's what low-information voters most need to understand, because it's the one that's deceptive.

Once they understand what's wrong with it, the Dem alternative is a no-brainer.

[ Parent ]
You'd save a lot of work if you campaigned against both... (0.00 / 0)
...besides, do you really think the Dems are putting up the competing proposition for any other reason than to play the strategy of competing propositions generally failing at the same time?
[ Parent ]
You Save A Lot Of Work By Not Thinking (0.00 / 0)
Do you recommend that, too?
[ Parent ]
I support Lehane's competing initiative (8.00 / 1)
Although with the Republican initiative at 47-35 approval/disapproval means it barely has a chance of passing. If an initiative is not at 55% when first announced it has a very low chance of passing!

I do think that we should get as many states to pass initiatives agreeing to assign their electoral votes for the candidate who gets the most votes nationally.

##########################

The Mad Professah Lectures
http://www.madprofessah.com

It Would Be Great (0.00 / 0)
If we could mobilize a positive backlash response to this power-grab attempt.

Up to now, I've simply assumed we couldn't possibly get enough states to ratify in time for the 2008 election.  But one must always leave room for the impossible.

[ Parent ]
A Competing Initiative With The Right-Wing Electoral College Power Grab | 66 comments
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads
Photobucket


Support Calitics:

Shop on Amazon.com

Advertisers

California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch
Powered by: SoapBlox