Can you say, "Giuliani"!

Can you say "Gibson"?

Can you say "Gibson"?

Hey, Brian Dennert, there are a bunch of signature gatherers in Ventura already for the anti-Wal-Mart measure, but I don't think it's going to get enough signatures to qualify. Too many people favor a Wal-Mart in town.

It is a fact that these signature gatherers have been lying to get people to sign, that is why you must always read it first!

If you can't win by the rules...change em!

I wonder if it is possible that some of those signature-gatherers actually misinform because they have no idea what they are gathering signatures for.

I'm not saying people don't lie, especially in politics, but usually when you have a signature-gathering campaign, you'll take anyone and not really spend much time educating them.

The signature gatherers are paid professionals who by law must know the ballot proposition signature sheets they are passing around. It isn't a coincidence that the only electoral reform Rethuglicans support hurts Democrats and helps them. And it is no coincidence they put it on bottom.

Rethuglicans do not respect democracy and it is proven time again with moves like this one.

I do admire that Heather looks for the best in people.

All you need to get an initiative on the ballot is $1M. Half goes to the signature gatherers for finding creative ways to get their petitions filled and the other half goes to consultants who feather their nests by skewing the System. Perhaps in the future signature gathering should be done without pay?

Actually, TT, the current system respects democracy less than the proposed changed. Under the current system counties like Ventura and Orange are deprived of their voices and votes. Individual voters are disenfranshised because they know that their vote won't make a difference. If you really cared about giving all people a voice, you'd open the states up as this initiative suggests. Moreover, your short-sighted remark about this reform only helping Republicans completely ignores the gains that Democrats would make in states like Texas and Florida. Of course, from your post it would appear that you don't actually care about the structure and whether it adequetly represents the people of California. All you care about is making sure that your tribe dominates over people who disagree with you.

I haven't heard that Texas, Florida and other winner-take-all states are contemplating a similar change. If so, then it might be a fairer system. Until then, it's a change that gives an overwhelming advantage to only one GOP candidate.

Also, if you agree with the logic of the Giuliani camp why not simply decentralize the system further, by electing the president by popular vote?

I used to support the popular vote, this House testimony by Curtis Gans changed my mind, I read it back in 2000.

http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/222316.htm

The Rethuglicans in California are so desperate that they knowingly hire signature gatherers who will lie to get people to sign, or in the case of Riverside they do voter registration and then throw away the dem registrations, is that the rethuglican version of democracy!

A few years ago the Democrats changed to paying signature gatherers on an hourly basis rather than on a "per Democrat" registered to avoid the chance that the gatherers would try and influence registrations, pre-fill the Democrat box on the form, or throw away the non-Dems. I assume they had a problem and that's how they solved it. I think both Riverside and Orange County Republicans have had problems with signature gatherers. You can see where the temptation comes from payment per signature. Some firms are professional, and some remind me of carnies.

Owen,

If the country is willing to change to this format, then let's talk change. If the country is not, then we should not be be considering ways for Orange and Ventura Counties to elect U.S. Presidents. This is a national election. Gerrymandered districts don't justify changing a national outcome. Each party has already received its advantage with its districting format and that is already unfair to BOTH parties across the country. If you favor the change, just be honest and say you favor it because it has an advantage for Republicans in California and you support anything that favors "your tribe." But please don't sugar coat it with the "lost voices of Orange and Ventura Counties" rhetoric.

As for signing anything without reading it...we should all educate ourselves and learn to read...and just say NO to signing when we disagree.

"The country" can't change it, anything at the federal level would require a constitutional amendment. States control how their delegates are selected, and as such they are the engines of change. I think that all states should elect delegates based on congressional districts (two going to the overall winner). Apparently, however, I'm one of the few around here who supports things on principal, and not what political benefits can be given to me in the short term. Instead of using the system to encourage more voices to be heard, many people on this site want to take advantage of it to suppress the those who dissent. Disappointing - and not that different from most countries around the world.

This site is five years out of date, but it does show that there are several different reform ideas being pushed around the country: http://www.presidentelect.org/art_ecreform2002.html

There's also another way to supports things, Owen. Its by being principled enough to allow the most good for the most people, despite one's personal principles.

As for electoral reform, change is fine but changing ONLY California's rules as a way of getting a corrupt New York mayor elected president is NOT.

So instead of letting the people themselves choose, you get to decide what the "most good" is for the "most people." And the answer is "Democrats." Hm, imagine that.

So Owen then does that mean you and McCain believe a woman should have a right to choose? Or do you favor the government telling women if they can choose or not? This should be an interesting answer folks.

Also for the record, the republican power grab for electoral votes in California will go down harder to defeat then McCain will in Iowa!

Don't get all atwitter on me, Owen. The first part of my post was a global reference, not directed at the attempt to change the electoral process. But with regards to the choosing of EVs in CA, if you're advocating a truly person-by-person vote process then why not simply do away with the EV system and give the office to the winner of the popular vote? Oops! That's what we do here in CA! So that means your (I mean, Giuliani's) plan is to deny the will of the majority and allow a minority to elect their president. Hmmmm.

No Owen, the country cannot change it. And if other states remain status quo - I see no reason to simply allow a party to change California for is own purposes. That's not principal, it partisan as usual. If Republicans want to win California, they'll need to allow the moderates it cast aside (like myself) to have a voice.

By the way - it's "principle."

Yes, apparently neither of us can spell. If any of you are interested in John McCain's positions on the issues, I would direct you to his website where you can read to your heart's content: http://johnmccain.com. GS, did you even read the article I linked to earlier? The status quo, which you support, completely denies any voice to the minority.

There you have it folks. Owen and his buddy McCain want to give the voters "choice" in the electoral process because they are against "big government". But at the same time Owen and his pal McCain do not want to given women the right to choose and they want "big government" to forbid women from having the right to choose. So Owen for the record is McCain pro-choice? Are you pro-choice? Or do you want big government telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies?

Owen, I'm on record as being for change as long as ALL the states change. My only beef is with Giuliani campaign advisors and bankers seeking to change the system in the one state that can almost insure his election to the White House. I dont see them attempting similar changes in texas, Florida or Ohio...any of which would favor the Dem candidate.

I DID look over the link and I'm not opposed to splitting EVs. Personally I think the Electoral College system is obsolete and gives too much political weight to too many small states. However, I don't have a solution so I'd have to go with the status quo until a better system is found. And so what if the minority's wishes are denied!! That's the logical result of being part of a minority in a two-party system, otherwise we'd have a parlimentary system.

NO: The pro-life position is about the most basic role of government, the protection of its people, and we should certainly defend the most helpless among us. Of course, you're not actually interested in any real discussion of the issues, only sound-byte politics. So please forgive me if in the future I don't respond to any comments whose goal is not conversation and understanding, but division.

GS: You know well that we can't change all the systems at once, it can only be done state by state. If you're not willing to go first, who should? Moreover, if they did change, you'd have an even bigger incentive to keep California the way it is now because you'd be losing some Democratic electoral votes. After all, you've already shown that you're unwilling to vote based on principle, making it subordinate to partisanship.

Being a liberal, it was a pretty good guess that you were opposed to Federalism, and you're last post simply made it manifest. Do you not think of America as a Republic, as a Union of States? You don't care if the wishes of the minority are denied? That's going to be a great future quote. Of course, it's all hypocrisy. You were yelling like mad about how fascist the Republicans were when they controlled the Congress. When you're out of power, the minority must be respected, the future of our Republic depends on it. When you're in power, screw the small states and minority. Well, that just supports my principle argument of the previous paragraph.

Doesn't anyone else want in on this thread??? I feel like we've lost some Conservatives on this site. Does anyone remember? Who used to post that hasn't in a while?

Owen, don't try that garbage about liberal vs federalism. You want the process changed in CA and no where else so that YOUR guys can win an election they otherwise dont have a chance of winning. There's NO other reason for that change and you know it...you're just too craven to admit it. I've already stated my position: change across the board...a level playing field. If that's liberal then I'm all for it.

And try as you might to grab the dialogue we were talking about two parties not the country's various minorities. Stay on topic!

gs,

Why shouldn't a vote in Ventura count as much as a vote in San Francisco?

I never said it SHOULDN'T.

Then you have no problem with allotting electors by Congressional Districts since with the present system LA and San Fran make all other counties irrelevant.

If this congressional electoral vote idea is so hot how come Republicans aren't proposing it in Texas? Or Florida?

California talked about signing a compact to move towards a popular vote but Arnold and the Republican party were against it.

This is a blatant power grab by Republicans. They have no interest in reform for reform sake on this issue, just another way to take power.

What you said, Brian.....

What you and Owen and Rudy G are proposing is as elitist as it gets. Your reason is that since red voters are in a minority and confined to certain geographical areas, those areas should have greater say in national affairs than everbody else in the state. Isn't that so?

Why limit electoral vote partition to two parties? Why not base it on ethnic groups: each gets to choose where their EVs go? Or it can be based on educational background. College grads get to choose their EVs while non-college voters choose theirs? Or why not do away with ALL designations and give each voter one vote and do away with the EV system? You know that if that were the case there may not be a GOP after 2008.

Funny, in North Carolina democrats were attempting to split electoral votes by district. I don't recall Brian or others ever calling that a blatant power grab by democrats.

Before the 2004 election it was the democrats that were lobbying to divide the electoral votes in a number of conservative states, including Arizona as I recall.

After Gore lost the 2000 election there was a huge outcry from democrats to move to a popular vote, since that would have altered the outcome of that election. I remember lots of democrats claiming that Gore was the legitimate president because he had won the popular vote. But when Kerry lost the popular vote in the 2004 presidential election democrats did a 180 and instead complained about alleged irregularities in Ohio that would have allowed Kerry to win a majority of electoral votes. Suddenly popular vote wasn't important anymore and the same democrats would have been happy with a democratic president who won an electoral college majority but lost the popular vote.

Owen is right that this has simply become a partisan issue. If breaking up California electoral votes were to the benefit of democrats then I bet gs and Brian would be all for it.

Hey, it's funny, but I saw a Lou Cunningham sign way out on the east end of Telephone this morning. It was kind of tilted over, but still quite visible from the road. Didn't get a chance to snap a pic, but oh well.

Actually recent polling shows that a majority of republicans in California do not support this Electoral initiative and in fact many of them labled it a "power grab". At this point it only has the support of 28% of the people who were asked and about 60% oppose it. For an initiative to pass it must start with at least 65% approval, this turkey is D.O.A. I also think as soon as people hear that Darrel Issa is behind something they tend to run the other way.

BK, why don't you try addressing what I've said rather than what you, with your complete lack of integrity, want people to believe I've said?

Gary, you of all people have no business lecturing others about a lack of integrity.

So, wanting more voices to be heard is "elitist," while "denying" the minority's wishes is "logical." Glad we cleared this up. Add to that the fact that you think violence would decrease if we left Iraq, and we're starting to get a good idea of your "logic."

On a completely unrelated note, have you heard that "Republicans Report Much Better Mental Health Than Others." Click on my name, the results are pretty stark. Just something to think about.

Quick, gopher alert! Get your traps and poison out. Gopher out of his hole!

Let's get it straight, Owen. You're not advocating that MORE voices be heard, only that the votes of Repubs in CA have greater weight in the national election than the majority, who are Dems. That's all you've offered and yes, that is an elitist's argument. But you won't admit that and instead you've deliberately avoided responding to my statement of support for a nationwide change in the system to place ALL states on a level playing field. You also avoid responding to Texas. Florida and Ohio's failure to pursue the same plan in those states because that would defeat the purpose of the CA initiative.

Secondly, I never said violence would decrease in Iraq. I did say that I don't know whether or not violence would decrease or increase.

If you can't respond to what is said and instead find the need to resort to disingenuous play with the semantics of what I said, then you've already convinced yourself that you're supporting a failed argument.

And all I'm saying is that you never accused democrats of being "elitists" when they pursued the exact same strategy in other states. That is what is known as selective outrage. By your own reasoning democrats would also be elitists. Your refusal to acknowledge your own double-standard is what makes it is hard to take your argument very seriously.

I have said since the beginning that all states should allocate based on district, however, I'm only registered in California.

Please explain how I want the Republicans to have "greater weight" than the Democrats. I honestly don't understand what you're talking about. I want all the congressional districts to have equal weight. In fact, the Democrats would still have disproportionately more votes because they'd get the two Senate votes based on majority. Your argument is completely backwards.

Bubba,

You are surprised I never blogged about something that was proposed but never happened all the way across the country?

Were North Carolina Democrats looking to increase their power? Of Course they were. Just like you, Owen, and California Republicans want to change just one state's system.

Just because I didn't blog about it proves nothing. I also have not blogged about Pakistan, Russia, and Iran but that doesn't mean I don't support democratic reforms there.

I support a popular vote. Maybe we can freeze it for twenty years to get the partisan advantage argument thrown out? Who knows what party will have an electoral advantage with a popular vote in 20 years.

California Democrats wanted to sign onto a compact pledging our electoral votes to the popular vote winner but only if enough other states did too. I supported that as it wouldn't give anyone a clear advantage.

The congressional district system just seems to ripe for gerrymandering. Worse yet is when people give up on winning California votes so they just want to change it in one state.

BK, I'm not aware that there were any Dem-backed initiatives to change the EV system in key states. Just because you think you may of heard somethign like that some time ago doesn't make it so...it only makes it a guess. But if any have tried it I'd also call them "elitists". But that's what it means when I say I support a level playing field in all states.

Owen, let's try this:

A GOP-backed initiative is presently seeking to change the way CA awards its electoral votes for the 2008 presidency . Currently CA employs a winner-take-all system and the GOP wants to change that to a system whereby each congressional district awards their own vote according to party majority. Note that only two small states in the nation allow their EV votes to be apportioned, according to the proportion of votes won by candidates. No other state allows votes to be apportioned by congressional district. This change is being sought for ONLY California's electoral votes.

Your question: do you feel that the change promoted by the GOP initiative in CA only, is fair?

That last question was for all Brian's readers. Let's see what you think.

It is categorically unfair Gary, unless all states are using that procedure. If a playing field is uneven it is not a fair game for Democrats or Republicans