"In his canonical "Federalist 10" essay, James Madison warned of factions: groups of citizens united by "some common impulse of passion" that is adverse to "the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Madison then explained that factions are better thwarted by a representative democracy (where elected representatives enact legislation on behalf of voters) than by a direct or pure democracy (where voters themselves make laws)."

Thats extremely misleading.

Madison is arguing for a Republican form of Government over a Democratic form.

This does not mean that the people don't have the right to have their votes count for the Presidential election. It has nothing to even to do with that, and the winner take all system is one of those "factions" of the masses which is forcing its view upon all people.

Madison would clearly be against the winner take all approach! He was afraid that the majority of people will force their view upon the minority and strip them of their rights, as the Californian Democrats have done that to the Californian Republicans. The Republicans have no right to a say in who becomes President, and their voice is as meaningless as it is in every other Democrat/Communist controlled state. One party rule is not what the Federalists was about.

All initiatives are attempts to impose the will of the majority on the minority. So is it ok to support the initiative process when the will of the majority is to protect the minority? Would Madison support this initiative or would he rather go trough the legislature? In any event, it is not clear to me that this initiative is any better in the long run for disenfranchised CA republicans.

And what about all the disenfranchised Democrats in Texas who were victimized by the last round of Perrymandering?


A numerical majority of voters supported Al Gore, which makes the 2000 election AT LEAST a tie, not the whopping big victory the Bushies made it out to be.


In any swing state with a nearly balanced electorate, winner-take-all means half will feel like they've lost. That's the same system that gave us George Bush. if you think that was wrong, San, well, why don't you say so?

It seems to me you don't mind the system so much, you just don't like it when you lose.

Most initiatives are the result of an act of the minority (usually a well-moneyed special interest) to dupe the majority into going their way.

I don't believe that Madison would have appreciated the initiative process. Rightly or wrongly (and I think rightly), he thought that most voters weren't educated enough to make good decisions on specific laws. And he certainly wouldn't go for the current system that lets wealthy special interests flood the airwaves with lies in order to convince the masses to vote their way.

And if a CA Republican thinks he's being disenfranchised (he's not - his vote gets counted, it's just beaten by others), let him move to a Red State. Or get this proposal approved in all 50 states at once.

as long as all the states do it the same way. If not, screw the red staters.

The author was "Doug Kendall." Not a woman. And a perfect summary of your reading comprehension.

And it remains amusing how you ignore the ONE PARTY RULE of the Republicans in Texas and the rest of the South. It's okay if it's Republicans forcing their will on Democrats, but not the other way around?

Man, you're such a tool.

The Republicans disenfranchised the Democrats in Texas? In Texas in 2002, roughly 56% of voters voted for a Republican in House races -- about the same percentage as voted for the Republicans for statewide offices. Yet due to the 1990 gerrymander by the 1990 Democratic state legislature (which the courts left largely intact after 2000 when the Democrats, controlling half of the state legislature, blocked any new redistricting plan), 54% the congressional districts were won by Democrats.

So, despite getting 44% of the vote in Texas, the Democratic candidates for the House in Texas got 54% of the seats. The Republicans, who got 56% of the vote, got 46% of the seats. To get that sort of swing by mundane disenfranchisement, you'd have to disenfranchise well over a third of all Republican voters.

After the "Perrymandering", the delegation wound up split 19 Republican, 13 Democrat. That's not perfectly representative of the state -- it's tilted one seat in favor of the Republicans. But that's a lot less disenfranchising than the old Democratic gerrymander was.

Hmm, I think we can put that into the dictionary:

Perrymander per•ree'•man•der' v. To reverse a gerrymander imposed by the opposition in a manner that greatly reduces net voter disenfranchisement.

Apparently intentionally.

The fact is that Texas is an all or nothing state, and that means that all of its electors go Red.

So if Republican voters are disenfranchised in California because the state overwhelming votes Democratic for President, then Democratic voters are equally disenfranchised in Texas.

Comprende'?

Although apparently only through poor reading comprehension skills.

Because, you see, I wasn't responding to you, but to Melvyl. Hints to this include my repeating of Melvyl's "Perrymandering", and the fact that my subject line was the same as Melvyl's post, not yours. I was not addressing the larger question of whether winner-takes-all was disenfranchising (or, you know, I'd have actually mentioned the Electoral College, presidential elections, or the like), but rather the specific claim, put forth by Melvyl, that the "Perrymander" was disenfranchising.

So, a bit of friendly advice. Next time you want to accuse someone of intentionally missing the point, take the time to be especially sure you're not sticking your foot in your own mouth. Because I can tell you it looks rather silly there. Almost . . . tool-ish.

Initiatives aren't supposed to be imposing anything on anything.

As a citizen, you follow the basic philosophy of jurisprudence based off of primary rights to determine what is best for all citizens.

Murder is not illegal because the majority thinks it should be. Murder is illegal because it violates a primary right.

Understand the difference?

" And what about all the disenfranchised Democrats in Texas who were victimized by the last round of Perrymandering?"

If you go off of percentage and then base the electoral votes on percentage, it doesn't matter how skewed the actual lines are, the Presidential would be based on the whole.

Its fair for everyone.

Hey, I just want my voice in Maryland to be heard. We go Democrat because there is a solid 65% majority.

"I don't believe that Madison would have appreciated the initiative process."

I have no idea about the initiative nor care about California.

I'm just talking about political philosophy in general.

"The author was "Doug Kendall." Not a woman. And a perfect summary of your reading comprehension."

It sure looked like a Dahlia Lithwick piece.

And if you read above, it would apply to every state.

Yes, Texas. Yes, Florida. Yes, Pennsylvania. Yes, New York.

And on and on and on.

Guess what?

One of Montana's votes would probably go Democrat. Wouldn't that make you happy?

You really need a few classes in reading comprehension. Your abilities in this regard are inadequate.

And exactly what hallmarks were you using to determine that it looked like a Dahlia Lithwick piece? The fact that it was a cogent analysis with legal precedent and factual supports? Or just the fact that it was in Jurisprudence and the author held a GOP proposal as unconstitutional? Pray tell.

"And if you read above, it would apply to every state."

What would? The California initiative? Nope, sorry Charlie. State law in California only applies to California. There is nothing that would force this means of tallying votes to affect any state other than CA.

I couldn't care less whose post you were responding to. It isn't relevant to the fact that you dodged the point about the lack of parity between the GOP plan in CA and status quo in Texas. And it's irrelevant that your topic line was the same as Melvyl, as it was the same as cridge and San, too.

My foot's not in my mouth. As usual, it's up the backside of moronic RWN fools like your self.

So a bit of not-friendly advice. Stick it.