Fox News Covers The California Electoral Vote Initiative — Oh, Boy

Comments (28)

renato wrote on August 23, 2007 1:50 PM:

Nice rug there, Kevin. Almost as good as Frank Luntz'.

Do Repiglicans all go shopping for toup's at the same place?

JohnW1141 wrote on August 23, 2007 1:55 PM:

Worse rugs in Congress, Trent Lott and John Mica

If the Dems don't beat this skullduggery they're hopeless.

DanRiffle wrote on August 23, 2007 2:06 PM:

I'll tell you what, the republicans better be careful - this is a can of worms they may not want to open. Think about the advantage they get from all those underpopulated and overrepresented western states. If this plan goes universal it might very well end up hurting them in the long run.

mcboo wrote on August 23, 2007 2:13 PM:

*sigh*

Well this is certainly no surprise coming out of FOX News. They love to coyly present mouthpieces as "regular-Joe opinion holders". In fact opinion is about as deep as their research department goes I think and it only further supports my belief that FOX is little more than a tabloid. Unfortunately it's a tabloid far too many people watch and think is real...

In terms of this legislation...it's garbage, pure and simple. If only we could kick our politicians in the pants hard enough to get rid of the electoral college entirely.

A man can dream can't he?

illlich wrote on August 23, 2007 2:16 PM:

Oh, I don't know, this seems pretty standard for FoxNews, nothing any more biased than I would expect, I'm sure the majority of people watching it wouldn't even notice the bias unless pointed out to them (and that's an indictment of the mentally-lazy American public, not a defense of FoxNews). Fox has a way of making bias seem reasonable and logical to the lazy viewer.

Of course it goes without saying that the GOP would be opposed to this same "reform" in other states that won't benefit them. Perhaps if the CA front group wins this "reform" the DEMs should create a front group to try and get the same "reform" in another state to their advantage (and see what FoxNews, Limbaugh, et al, have to say about it: "This is OUTRAGEOUS! the DEMs are trying to create a new kind of gerrymandering!!")

ohiomeister wrote on August 23, 2007 2:21 PM:

If only Texas had better ballot access for initiatives.

Legalize wrote on August 23, 2007 2:51 PM:

Ok, fine. It's my understanding that there are some relatively liberal districts in Texas, Colorado, Missouri, Florida, Ohio, etc that if split up could swing large amounts of votes to the Dems. If we're gonna do this with the most populous state in the country, we should do it with all of the states. This IS a national election of course; it's absurd that the standards and rules vary so alarmingly from state to state.

Cal Damage wrote on August 23, 2007 3:00 PM:

Always remember: When RealUglyCans use the word 'REFORM' they mean 'REPEAL.' Use this simple substitution in all cases of RealUglyCan double-plus-good duckspeak, and you can see their true agenda...never fails.

RLAdlof wrote on August 23, 2007 3:01 PM:

The true impact of this happy horse hockey is being missed here . . .

California is one tenth of the nation. We are BIG. There is no other place in the nation like us.

The big cities are true blue. Outside the cities is blood red. Two and a half to one live in the cities . . . But six outta every seven counties are red. California is the nation made small.

Remember jack_holes like Duncan Hunter and Rick Pambo crawled from the red colored slime growing away from the California coast. Add to this all the folk moving from fly-over states . . . Looking for opportunities while dragging allong their backwater beliefs about the evilness o' the government and you got disaster if this crap gets through.

RLAdlof wrote on August 23, 2007 3:07 PM:

Texas is more about the amount of dirt NOT the number of bodies. Bodies are votes . . . Landscape is not votes.

In this story, when one thinks Texas . . . They are thinking Alaska or Montana not California . . .

hrebendorf wrote on August 23, 2007 3:20 PM:

This is a real threat to the Democrats and I'd like to think we could expect to see a tough battle over the issue. Luckily for the Republicans, though, the Democrats usually back down when there's something vitally important on the line, so I don't think the Republicans need to be too worried.

Tom Hilton wrote on August 23, 2007 3:26 PM:

Not too surprised that Fox that blatant. The worse things get for them, the more shameless they have to be.

Anyway, this would be disastrous but I don't see it passing. The current poll has more pros than cons (47% - 35%, 49% - 42% after it's explained more clearly), but it's not over 50%, and in California in recent years initiatives have been losing support as the election gets closer.

LongTom wrote on August 23, 2007 3:31 PM:

If the Repubs get 20 electoral votes from California, they'll never lose power again. How in the world would Dems manage to enact such a law in states where they're outnumbered 3 to 2, like the "underpopulated and overrepresented"
states you're talking about?

I agree with the other poster--if the Dems can't beat this back in a Democratic state, they ARE hopeless and hapless, and deserve extinction as political dodos.

LongTom wrote on August 23, 2007 3:34 PM:

Yeah? Is it on the ballot anywhere else? If not, then it's not "fine," as you put it. It's another fascist grab a permanent power.
The idea that this could spread elsewhere is ridiculous.

LongTom wrote on August 23, 2007 3:36 PM:

It's AHEAD!? But you don't see it passing? With those poll numbers, it's a done deal, and if it's a done deal, the Dems can kiss the presidency goodbye for 100 years.

AJ MA wrote on August 23, 2007 3:48 PM:

Calm down there. Most amendments in CA go down to defeat as voters get cold feat and suspect they are being hoodwinked (with a long history to prove them right). And even if it did pass, another initiatve could remove it well before the turn of the next century.

ahem wrote on August 23, 2007 4:22 PM:

That doesn't work out because of how districts are apportioned. It overweights small states and rural areas: particularly small states, which already benefit from the electoral votes of their two Senators.

The only way to reform the electoral college without a constitutional amendment is the other ballot initiative: the one which awards the state's electoral college votes to the popular vote winner.

Tom Hilton wrote on August 23, 2007 4:34 PM:

Calm down there. Most amendments in CA go down to defeat as voters get cold feat and suspect they are being hoodwinked (with a long history to prove them right).

Exactly. The near-universal trend with initiatives (in recent years) is for support to drop over time. The fact that it's below 50% now suggests that it's a long shot at best (or worst, from our perspective).

It'll still take a lot of valuable resources to fight it off, which is certainly part of the point.

dndobson wrote on August 23, 2007 4:58 PM:

IF it goes universal, it's not a bad plan.
Problem is the GOP version only applies to CA, now and by itself.
The National Popular Vote plan is also good, doesn't take affect until enough other states agree, and makes the national popular vote the only thing that matters (not gerrymandered Congressional Districts.)

Eric Kleefeld wrote on August 23, 2007 5:05 PM:

If it went nationwide, it would actually be a terrible plan — possibly worse than what we've got right now.

I'll reprint here my comments from another thread:

The Congressional district system is really quite horrible, in that it rewards gerrymandering efforts by also giving them an impact on the presidential race, not just on Congress. And since Democrats often thrive on minority voters and other urbanites, who tend to be packed into certain districts, this system ultimately tilts in favor of the Republicans.

Let's take my favorite example, and suppose the Virginia Senate race of 2006 had worked under these rules. Jim Webb narrowly defeated George Allen statewide, but carried only four of the eleven House districts. This would give him six electoral votes to George Allen's seven votes. Thus Allen is the winner, despite the fact that more people voted for Webb.

The system is harmless enough right now being confined to Maine and Nebraska, two states that are both small and fairly homogenous — indeed, the votes actually don't split in practice, despite a close call in 2000 for Maine's Second District. But if you tried extending it across the whole country, it would really be a nightmare.

And before anybody pretends that a strict national vote would be perfect, it also has a problem as indeed every system does if you look hard enough. Imagine what might happen if there were a very narrow national race, and the legitimate winner of the popular vote became a matter of some contention. What would states entering into a national vote compact do, then?

terje wrote on August 23, 2007 5:45 PM:

Obviously this needs to be defeated in California -- it is such a blatant power grab that I'm (nearly) certain California voters will vote it down.

But people need to understand that this would be equally as much of a disaster if it was implemented on a national basis. Republicans have a built in advantage if votes were allocated by Congressional Districts.

In the election of 2000, when Gore won more of the popular vote, Bush won 228 Congressional Districts, while Gore won only 207. In the close election of 2004, the margin widened to Bush 255 and 180 for Kerry.

Why the Republican advantage? Partly (as some have pointed out) because of gerrymandering in states with Republican legislatures/governors.

But even more important is the greater concentration of Democratic votes in urban and minority areas -- while Republicans might win a fair number of districts (say in surburban or rural areas) by margins in the 54-46 range, Democrats have a large number of districts that deliver presidential vote totals of 75% and more...

The result of this concentration of votes would be to create a built in Republican bias in winning Congressional districts (coupled with their already present advantage in the electoral college over-representation caused by adding 2 at lagre electoral votes to each state -- counting small Red states like Utah the same as California or New York -- creating a built in advantage of at least 14 electoral college voyes for the GOP candidate.

Make no mistake -- this is not true electoral college reform... we need to work to change our constitution to allow direct popular vote of the President -- don't fall for this kind of Republican trap attempting to further manipulate the electoral process to steal more elections.

tomanjeri wrote on August 23, 2007 6:39 PM:

Is this just patently unfair in that it divides CA electoral votes evenly among land area rather than population? The millions of people in LA County will get the same amount of electoral votes in CA as the people in whatever county Death Valley is in if this passes. I'd be willing to bet most of the "blue" voters and their districts are coastal and probably account for 70% of the voting population while those voters in "red" districts makes up the other 30% but with this proposal they would each get about 50% of the electoral votes.

rustyaustin wrote on August 23, 2007 6:40 PM:

Over the last few election cycles, all the initiatives have lost. Even with Arnold behind them. We have to fight this of course but I bet the more people hear about it the less likely they are to support it. Plus it's not on the ballot yet, they still have to spend a couple million to get it there, and it may be that the Democrats will qualify one that repeals this one, so it's not over yet by a long shot.

By the way, I will never sign a ballot initiative again (unless it's a recall of a republican governor), they have evolved into corporate tools to raid the treasury. Prop 103 was the last one that passed that was worth anything, and it's still tied up in court...

LongTom wrote on August 23, 2007 8:50 PM:

Okay, if you say so. But nobody ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of American voters. Next thing you know, they'll put our First Amendment rights on a referendum ballot, and we'll really be toast!

Eric Kleefeld wrote on August 23, 2007 9:19 PM:

I'm reminded of something a history professor of mine in college — something of a liberal/libertarian Republican, who ran a very strong campaign as the GOP nominee for Congress in 2000 — said to us during a lecture. In a functioning democracy, we don't vote on the truly important stuff. We put freedom of speech, religion, etc, in the Constitution, and then make the thing almost impossible to amend.

There are certain laws we set in stone as our foundation, and then we quibble over the day-to-day details. And the reason we do this is because we simply can't be trusted with the power to dispute those foundational rights.

And he's absolutely correct. If the First Amendment were put up for a vote today, I believe it would fail miserably.

Sagebrush wrote on August 23, 2007 9:35 PM:

In the wake of the 2000 election, I recall reading an in-depth research comparison of the current system vs. straight majority of the full vote vs. the exact plan proposed in California, applied everywhere in the U.S., looking back over the last 12 presidential elections.

Going by majority vote, the only one that switched outcome was 2000, as we all sadly remember. But here's the interesting part: When the California plan was applied everywhere retrospectively, NOT A SINGLE ELECTION RESULT SINCE KENNEDY CHANGED. In other words, the electoral college outcome is the same in every case. As I recall, even the re-calculated vote totals by candidate in the College didn't change significantly. It definitely has the advantage of being easier to explain than the current electoral college system.

If it were universally applied, it might even have a positive effect on the general election. For years, the rap on the system has been that candidates focus only on swing states. The California plan would force them to identify and campaign in swing DISTRICTS. If nothing else, this would force them to travel more widely. But if it is to happen, it should happen everywhere, and not just in California.

My only concern has to do with the change in candidate incentives. There are not-so-obvious effects that the College has in influencing the way presidents run, what they promise to do to get elected, and how they govern. But I'm not quite sure exactly how a by-district (and two by state) system influences what it takes to become President, in terms of at least offering a balanced platform. (...and hoping that he's not just saying what it takes to be elected and then doing something completely different, like a certain President whose name is witheld to prevent nausea.)

As it is, the system discourages efforts to run up huge vote totals in particular regions of the country. Once you get one vote over 50% of a state's total, pushing for more is a time-waster, so you can move on to other places, which is a good thing, since you want the President to be the President of as much of the country as possible.

This is the big problem with the idea of going to straight majority rule. All of a sudden, it would profit a presidential candidate greatly to really pander to a few large states, or one section of the country, and to try to run up huge totals there while just barely holding on everywhere else. Discouraging such "regionalism" is exactly what the founders had in mind when they designed the Electoral College. They also had in mind to restore some balance to the election process, in which large states have a natural advantage in their large numbers of voters.

In that way, the Electoral College is to the Presidency what the Senate is to Congress, a small offset to the huge whims of the majority. Large state residents may snub it as "anti-democratic," but anyone who sends forty or fifty electors to the College and Representatives to the House needs to lighten up about that. Also, anyone from one of the smaller 25 states who favors eliminating it needs to have his head examined.

Full disclosure: I am a big fan of the Electoral College, and I always have been. (Read: Life-long Rhode Islander.)

Sagebrush

tag06 wrote on August 24, 2007 10:54 AM:

this proposal just hi-lites the need to scrap the Electrol College. If 2000 wasn't the hi-light enough. The need for the College is long past

antonsemrad wrote on August 24, 2007 1:09 PM:

So who's makin ads to educatate the Ca public?

I've got 25 bucks, and there is more where that came from.

We've got the internets, lets use it.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)