NationStates Jolt Archive

In 2000, the vast majority of states operated under a "winner take all" system, where the winner of the state popular vote got 100% of the electoral college votes, which allowed President Bush to win, despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore.

Fast Forward to 2007 and the increasing chance of a Democratic takeover of the White House, and suddenly...that doesn't seem good enough. The Republican Party has made motions to have the electoral votes of California be divided based on how the representatives are elected. Instead of allowing for a straight popular vote for president, electoral votes will be granted to the party candidate in proportion to how many representatives of that party the state elects to the House.

source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/09/california.split/index.html)

California, the state with the most number of electoral votes, is almost always a democrat stronghold for electoral votes.

The National Branch of the GOP supports this measure. The National Branch of the Democratic party does not, and likewise does not support a similar measure in North Caroline, a heavily republican state.

the GOP has, not surprisingly, not brought forth similar measures in Ohio, Florida, or any other swing states that narrowly went to Bush in 2000 or 2004. And frankly speaking, if the republican party seems to want to support this while trying to pretend to have no ulteriour motive, I say let's test them, and put similar initiatives in Florida, Texas, and every other republican state with strong Democratic presence

In 2000, the vast majority of states operated under a "winner take all" system, where the winner of the state popular vote got 100% of the electoral college votes, which allowed President Bush to win, despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore.

Fast Forward to 2007 and the increasing chance of a Democratic takeover of the White House, and suddenly...that doesn't seem good enough. The Republican Party has made motions to have the electoral votes of California be divided based on how the representatives are elected. Instead of allowing for a straight popular vote for president, electoral votes will be granted to the party candidate in proportion to how many representatives of that party the state elects to the House.

source (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/09/california.split/index.html)

California, the state with the most number of electoral votes, is almost always a democrat stronghold for electoral votes.

The National Branch of the GOP supports this measure. The National Branch of the Democratic party does not, and likewise does not support a similar measure in North Caroline, a heavily republican state.

the GOP has, not surprisingly, not brought forth similar measures in Ohio, Florida, or any other swing states that narrowly went to Bush in 2000 or 2004.

Ummm... which party did we hear the most about changing individual state electoral systems after the 2000 and 2004 elections?

It's the same effect as having GEICO show those commercials encouraging you to shop around and change insurance companies.

Most people used to never change their insurance. Then they were taught that they could do it.

Well, Democrats taught us that we can mess with the electoral system. Are you surprised? Really?

Electoral votes ought be split based upon percentage of popular vote.

Well, Democrats taught us that we can mess with the electoral system. Are you surprised? Really?

Surprised that the republican party in a desperate bid to keep power will try to screw with the election system only in the most advantageous place to them while at the same time quite comfortably keeping it the way it is when it is advantageous to them?

No, not really.

Surprised that the republican party in a desperate bid to keep power will try to screw with the election system only in the most advantageous place to them while at the same time quite comfortably keeping it the way it is when it is advantageous to them?

No, not really.

I would hope you wouldn't be after the Texas redistricting fiasco.

Electoral votes ought be split based upon percentage of popular vote.

sure, I agree. And were this a NATIONAL effort by either party, I would be happy to sign on to it, just as i was happy to agree with New Hampshire law that sought to do just that.

This, however, is not a national effort. It is an effort focused squarely on getting the republican party more votes. No talk of doing this in Florida, Texas, or anywhere else.

Which leads to the unmistakable conclusion that the GOP doesn't give a shit about voter's intent, and cares only about keeping power.

sure, I agree. And were this a NATIONAL effort by either party, I would be happy to sign on to it, just as i was happy to agree with New Hampshire law that sought to do just that.

This, however, is not a national effort. It is an effort focused squarely on getting the republican party more votes. No talk of doing this in Florida, Texas, or anywhere else.

Which leads to the unmistakable conclusion that the GOP doesn't give a shit about voter's intent, and cares only about keeping power.

Duh.

Surprised that the republican party in a desperate bid to keep power will try to screw with the election system only in the most advantageous place to them while at the same time quite comfortably keeping it the way it is when it is advantageous to them?

No, not really.

Isn't that why the Democrats were originally proposing changes to the electoral system - to give themselves an advantage?

Yes, really.

Did you think that the Republicans would not go where the Democrats went first?

sure, I agree. And were this a NATIONAL effort by either party, I would be happy to sign on to it, just as i was happy to agree with New Hampshire law that sought to do just that.

This, however, is not a national effort. It is an effort focused squarely on getting the republican party more votes. No talk of doing this in Florida, Texas, or anywhere else.

Which leads to the unmistakable conclusion that the GOP doesn't give a shit about voter's intent, and cares only about keeping power.

The Democrats were proposing doing the same thing on a state by state basis.

So that means they don't give a shit about voter's intent, and care only about keeping power.

See how that works?

sure, I agree. And were this a NATIONAL effort by either party, I would be happy to sign on to it, just as i was happy to agree with New Hampshire law that sought to do just that.

This, however, is not a national effort. It is an effort focused squarely on getting the republican party more votes. No talk of doing this in Florida, Texas, or anywhere else.

Which leads to the unmistakable conclusion that the GOP doesn't give a shit about voter's intent, and cares only about keeping power.

it would be the democratic party's responsibility to press such measures in republican majority states.

its silly to expect any party to work against its own best interest.

I imagine, Neo Art, you'll be telling us next that Democrats never engage in gerrymandering...

Isn't that why the Democrats were originally proposing changes to the electoral system - to give themselves an advantage?

What advantage could the democratic party POSSIBLY have by changing the system to an entirely popular vote AFTER the 2000 election?

What possible benefit could there be strictly to the democratic party and not to the republican party? It wouldn't have been retroactive and suddenly vaulted gore into the white house. The odds of a 2000 situation were extremely small, and could happen equally to EITHER party, as 2004 showed us (had a few thousand Ohio votes gone the other way, we'd have President Kerry, despite Bush winning by over a million).

Changing the system to be purely based on popular vote, nation wide, would benefit NEITHER party, both parties have the same chance of getting stuck in the situation of having the popular vote but losing the electoral college vote. That's not a phenominon restricted only to democrats and damn near happend to republicans in 2004.

The move was simple, let the voters intent whatever it may be, be what decides the election.

So please, explain to me how making the popular vote be the counted vote give the democratic party any specific advantage, considering but for a few thousand votes, the winner of the popular vote would be retired in texas by now.

The Democrats were proposing doing the same thing on a state by state basis.

So that means they don't give a shit about voter's intent, and care only about keeping power.

See how that works?

actually no, the democrats were proposing doing this same thing on a national basis, for every state. As you will note, I also included mention how the national democratic party has rejected attempts to do the same in North Carolina.

sure, I agree. And were this a NATIONAL effort by either party, I would be happy to sign on to it, just as i was happy to agree with New Hampshire law that sought to do just that.

This, however, is not a national effort. It is an effort focused squarely on getting the republican party more votes. No talk of doing this in Florida, Texas, or anywhere else.

Which leads to the unmistakable conclusion that the GOP doesn't give a shit about voter's intent, and cares only about keeping power.

I agree, of course, and I find it interesting that the attempt by California activists to do what you describe was opposed by the same Republicans who are trying this little escapade. If they were honest about electoral reform, they'd be on board with the national movement.