Rudy finances attempt to split California's electoral votes

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by it5five, Oct 4, 2007.

  1. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #1
  2. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #2
    I'm not one to use terms like "scumbag" lightly, but Rudy Giuliani certainly does seem like an opportunistic, tragedy-whoring, well, scumbag.

    As much as I hate to assign labels with broad implications, I actually think he might be a bit of a sociopath.
     
  3. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #3
    If this actually gets play, it could come back to hurt him. Even Republicans were against this. It'd be one thing to do this to all the states, but since they only wanted to it to CA, it reeked of partisan hackery. The irony is that if Rudy does happen to win the nomination, it's only because he leaned so far to the right to do so that he risks losing the moderates, but he needs the moderates to win, since people are really unhappy with what the right has been doing and have been leaving the GOP. Hillary is trying to play the middle, and even though everyone hates her and the left is unhappy with her and the lack of progress with the Dems, will vote for her by default.

    Seriously, it's like the right wants Hillary to win, because they keep doing these things.
     
  4. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #4
  5. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #5
    Better yet, how about getting rid of the electoral college completely?
     
  6. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #6
    Because it's a key component of our Constitution and was created so that smaller states would actually sign on.
     
  7. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #7
    I can't imagine getting rid of it would result in the immediate secession of Rhode Island, Hawaii etc. The current system was designed for the communications of two centuries ago. Why not change it to the popular vote, like modern forward thinking countries such as France do?
     
  8. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #8
    Which might have been good 200 years ago, but now it does more to empower the biggest states more than the smaller. link

    A direct popular vote would force campaigns to be run on a national scale rather than in a few swing states. Since the winner is going to be the president of the whole country, is it really a bad thing to have them try to campaign in the whole country? It's not like after the election he only has to run Florida and/or Iowa...

    Proportional allotment would probably solve the problem since it would be nearly impossible to win the popular vote and not the Electoral College, but it just serves as a level of obfuscation in the process.

    Another option would be to actually use the EC as it was meant to be used. Have Electors campaign locally and once the Electors are voted on, lock them in a smoke filled room to pick the most qualified individual for President. At least this way the whole primary system would disappear and we might end up with qualified leaders rather than the schmucks we've had running recently....
     
  9. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #9
    Because we'd run the risk of becoming like France.
     
  10. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #10
    What, cultured, advanced, and stylish with excellent food? Yeah, sounds horrible....
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    Don't forget good taste in architecture.
     
  12. it5five thread starter macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #12
    You should have know better than to mention the "F" word to Swarm.
     
  13. FreeState macrumors 68000

    FreeState

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #13
    But the Senate takes that void already - every state gets two senators - you don't see CA asking for more even though the state has 30 times the population of other states. This was set up so the less populated states have some say and a balance. The electoral collage, while it has under-markings of the same principle does not really work that way.
     
  14. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #14
    Also in elections the smaller states are more powerful. It is that way for a reason. If presidental elections was just based on popular vote I an promise you the smaller states would suffer greatly. Campaigning would only be done in the big states and most of the promises would really only effect the big states.

    It would completely change the rules of the presidental elections. The 3 most powerful states would be California. Texas and New York I believe. Lets got back to 2000 when Bush got into office. If he lost a SINGLE state he would not of been president so it was the small states that held the power there. That also meant that he had to go campaign in a lot more states. I personally think the current system is the way to go because it gives the small states some real say in the election.

    As for getting Democrats in office there is an easy way to do it. GET MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE. There are more Democrats than Republicans just more of the Republicans vote. If everyone in this country who could vote would vote Democrats would win by a land slide.
     
  15. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #15
    Aren't the number of electoral votes based on population? To me the issue with the electoral college is that you can win a few states by very small margins and lose other states by landslides and still squeak by with a victory even though much less than half of our voters wanted you. It also makes democratic votes in Texas and Republican votes in Mass rather useless. I remember living in Utah and the democrats I knew didn't even vote beause they saw no point in it.
     
  16. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #16
    And this boys and girls is an example of why Democrates are not in office. People do not vote. I repeat again there are more Democrates than republicans. If you do not vote you have no right to complain because clearly you do not care enough about your opinion on the government to express it when it counts at the VOTING BOOTH.
    Also you forget when you go to the voting booth you are voting for more than just the president. You are voting for your congressmen and any thing else on the ballet. Also I might like to point out that the Super fund for presidential campaigns based on % of popular vote. So when you go vote no matter what you are giving the party you voted for more money to campaign for the next president with.

    Again if everyone votes Democrats would win by a land slide in almost every single state. Yes even the ones where people choose not to vote because they think there vote does not matter.

    As for the electoral college based on each states representives in congress. Each state has at least 3. 2 senators and at least 1 at least one in the house.

    Again I point out if they split the elector college the small states would truly suffer because it becomes more based on popular vote which removes all power from the small states
     
  17. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #17
    Finally, the rest of the country will see what most NYers already know about this guy.
     

    Attached Files:

  18. CorvusCamenarum macrumors 65816

    CorvusCamenarum

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2004
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    #18
    Both Maine and Nebraska do not allocate their electoral votes as a single block, but instead as more representative of their populations. Actually I'd like to see more of that method used throughout the country. The way it stands now presidential elections play out like a game of Othello.
     
  19. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #19
    Senators aren't the ones casting the votes for the President. My statement stands. States like California effectively disenfranchise those in San Diego county which are overwhelmingly conservative and those in the eastern, rural areas.

    Splitting the electoral votes within a state can alleviate that a bit and make for a better election cycle through the primaries at least.
     
  20. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #20
    But that wasn't what they were trying to do. Texas wasn't part of this. That's why people didn't like it.

    I know why I don't like France, but I'm wondering what you don't like about it and whether it's based on reality.
     
  21. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #21
    A pattern repeated in either direction across many states in the Union. Exactly why so many people are for abolishing the EC altogether.
     
  22. Swarmlord macrumors 6502a

    Swarmlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #22
    The taxation level and anti-employer bias. I love the food, attractions and people, although I base this only on visits to Paris and the surrounding area. I did NOT encounter people that knew English but refused to speak it which seems to be an old stereotype.
     
  23. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #23
    I did some research on the electoral splitting system, and I can tell you that it wouldn't fly in a lot of states. There is a stronger Republican leaning in Republican states than Democrat leaning in Democratic states. Clinton and Carter would both have lost (I just did preliminary research - I was hoping to develop further detail, suggestions, etc for a thesis level paper).

    Now, splitting CA in half as a state, I think is reasonable. With the number of people there, and the diverse interests - especially comparing NorCal with SoCal - it would be better to split them. Distinguishing them from NY, NYC has strong pull, but the number of legislators from the rest of the state balance out any influence from the city. CA is just too even.
     
  24. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #24
    This is a myth. The larger states are far more courted than the small ones as it is. Also states that are a "given" like Texas, New York, and California are also ignored. A direct popular vote would force candidates to try to appeal to everyone in the country rather than just people in Iowa, Florida, and the other swing states. The current model allows a president to be elected by winning 50% + 1 vote in only the 11 largest states. I did the calculation a few years ago and this accounts for only about 30% of the US population (and I believe that assumed everyone can vote). Here is an article about a book on the EC. link


    Sure CA, NY, and TX would be the most powerful states but currently CA and NY are "givens" for the Dems while TX is a "given" for the Republicans. As a result the Dem candidates ignore TX and most of the south, while the Republicans ignore CA and NY and much of the Northeast. A direct popular vote would make every state/individual count.

    Going back to 2000, sure a single tiny state could have swung the election but in a direct popular vote would have given a voice to Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Northeast and CA. Why should all of those voters be ignored? Sure the urban centers would see more of the candidates but how is that different than massive campaigns run mostly in the urban centers of a few swing states?
     
  25. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #25
    How do the interests of "NorCal" and "SoCal" differ? Are "Hollywood values" and "San Francisco values" all that different, from the conservative perspective?

    You'd be better off suggesting that the state be split between coastal and inland regions. That would give you more homogenous populations (though by no means completely homogenous) than a north - south divide would.

    It would make for a better election cycle though the general too. Candidates do not campaign in California because they know there is no point. Swing states are where all the candidates practice their love on the people.

    I actually would too. But it can't happen like this, with a candidate from outside the state trying to use the issue to get themselves elected.

    There is a lot of merit to the argument that allocating votes in a "winner-take-all" fashion is not a good representation of the will of the people. Why should someone who got 50% +1 vote get all the state's delegates?
     

Share This Page