So, under the current system, electoral votes from congressional districts that voted for one canidate are awarded to another canidate simply because other districts in the same state voted differently. And this seems fair to liberals? The very same people who protested over Al Gore winning the the popular vote, but losing the election?

Excuse me while I compose myself. Ahem.

California is a very large state which has gone solidly Democratic for years. In fact, without awarding the electoral votes from California's Republican districts to Democrats, it is difficult to see how a Democrat could be elected president.

So.

Both parties want to win. Democrats want to keep California in the D column, at the expense of disenfranchising Republican districts. Republicans want to split the votes to ensure victory. Both sides are solidly pursuing their own best interests, but who is right?

The Republicans of course. Splitting the votes for the largest state is completely fair, and in fact is the same system used by two other states. A logical comeback for the Democrats is to introduce a law requiring a split vote in every state (what the Republicans can do for California, the Democrats can certainly do for Texas and Florida). Their actions would have the added benefit of making California, one of the largest and most economically powerfull states in the union, relevant again. Heck, Republicans might actually campaign there.

Regarding your logic that the initiative process defies the constitution, please reconsider. The legislature of California created the initiative process. The process is being used to amend the state constitution to allow award of electoral votes by district. Therefore, it is not a stretch to say that the legislature enacted the laws to determine how electoral votes would be counted, by enabling the people themselves to decide the matter.

Even if what you were saying is true, it is very likely that the legislature would themselves enact such a provision, if the people voted for it. So, the first step in forcing the Democratic legislature of California to enact such a provision, is to pass an initiative. In this case the initiative could be viewed as an expression of the will of the people.

Most interesting is the part of your post where you damn the voter initiative by discussing how the initiative process has been abused in other cases. This is of course demagogic tomfoolery. The initiative process (developed by progressives) has been sorely abused, by both liberals, conservatives, and every political stripe in between. Because the process, introduced for noble purposes, has been abused, does not mean it is being abused in this instance. But of course, I suspect you know that. Argument by comparison is the last refuge of the intellectually bankrupt.

In summary, nice try.

I know you are believing your own bullshit just as hard as you can, but let's see the legislatures of Texas and Florida follow suit. Then we can take you seriously.

It sounds like there are things in the Constitution that even the initiative process can't circumvent. But I'm no lawyer. It doesn't sound like you are, either, though. The initiative process is NOT a proxy for the legislature, passed initiatives are NOT the same as the the legislature passing a bill. Your reasoning isn't illogical, but I do think it's legally incorrect.

Speaking as a liberal, I'd say yes, I'm wholeheartedly in favor of this system, applied nationwide. Better yet, scrap the undemocractic electoral college altogether. One man, one vote.

But surely you wouldn't expect me to support a system applied piecemeal, designed to wreck the sources of my current electoral power. I wouldn't expect Republican supporters of the system to support Texas doing it by itself, either. That's not hypocritical, it's practical. As far as California becoming more powerful, I think you're right, especially for Republican presidencies. Bush has clearly kissed off California.

As far as the Democrat-controlled CA legislature taking the approval of the voters as a signal they should approve it themselves - you must be unfamiliar with CA state politics and the sadly venomous level of partisanship. Would NEVER happen. Laughable idea.

In general, I think you've got some decent points, but you're clearly taking logical leaps that support your position that don't really hold up to legal or political scrutiny.

I'll assume you meant "perfidy". Second, since when is there something wrong with "argument by comparison"? This is the Jurisprudence board, after all. That said, your post was not terrible.

BIG D(umbass) wrote: >>So, under the current system, electoral votes from congressional districts that voted for one canidate are awarded to another canidate simply because other districts in the same state voted differently.<<

SO - under the current system, electoral votes went to Bush even though the MAJORITY OF AMERICA voted against the bastard.

You can't eat your cake and have it to, no matter HOW hard you whine and snivel like the Republiturd moron you are.

Big D, you have your facts wrong, and the error is fatal to your legal argument.

You state that "The legislature of California created the initiative process." You then suggest a delegation theory, that the legislature is acting through the people. This might have some traction, except that the legislature did NOT create the initiative process. It was created by the people of California in a constitutional amendment. It was designed specifically to "bypass" the legislature and withhold some legislative power from the legislature itself. See this link for more information:

<link>

Regarding your statement (sui generis, as far as I know): "argument by comparison is the last refuse of the intellectually bankrupt," that strongly suggests that you are not a lawyer, as argument by comparison is a basic tool of legal analysis. Now, you might find the practice of law to be "intellectually bankrupt," that is your right, but be aware, arguments by comparison will carry great weight with courts, including the Supreme Court which will certainly strike down this initiative were it to pass and be challenged.

There are a number of issues you've either failed to raise, or ignored to make your point.

First, and most obvious, is that the population of California (and other states with extremely large populations centered in only a few urban areas) does not reflect the voting districts. Yes there are more districts in and around L.A. than in, say, Baker or Eureka, but these are still wildly disproportionate to the difference in population in those areas. Voting by district, or county, or anything else would devalue the votes of the millions that live in cities and dramatically increase the value of those who do not. There may be a way around this, somehow, but it is not the plan currently proposed.

Second, you wrote:

"Regarding your logic that the initiative process defies the constitution, please reconsider. The legislature of California created the initiative process. The process is being used to amend the state constitution to allow award of electoral votes by district. Therefore, it is not a stretch to say that the legislature enacted the laws to determine how electoral votes would be counted, by enabling the people themselves to decide the matter."

I cannot begin to imagine where you came up with this. Not a stretch?! It flies in the face of every legal and procedural precedent we have. Just because the legislature has created a system within which citizens can put forth a WIDE variety of potential laws, it does not mean anything enacted via that system is automatically constitutional. In fact, it is far more likely that boneheaded ballot initiatives will be struck down as unconstitutional because they have not been through the legislative wringer.

You're basically saying that, because the California legislature created, say, the Department of Insurance to oversee and regulate the insurance industry, the Department is in their legal rights to summarily execute the CEO of State Farm. After all, everything they do is approved by the legislature, right?

Like Republicans haven't won the majority of presidential elections over the last three f-ing decades or anything?!?

The Republican Party seems to think the ends justify the means in just about any situation. You know, "torture's OK because we'll get the terrorists".

Furthermore, why don't they just rig electronic voting machines in Cali? Seemed to work in other states the last go around. Low key too- you don't have to argue the constitutionality of it and all.

If the republicans were actually out to make the election process more about democracy then let them first do it in republican states and make it dependent upon all states following suite. Instead they have attempted to lock the White House down by changing california alone.