Is Howard Dean insane, or just niave?

[Jennifer]

If you can't win, cheat.

Apparently that's the Republicans' answer to our work in California. If they have their way, this reliably "blue" state won't be so blue in 2008.

Faced with a strong Democratic presence, Republicans are campaigning for a new election system instead of their own candidates.

If they get what they're after, it could cost us the White House.

In California, Republican operatives -- including some of the 2004 Swift Boaters -- are working on a proposition for the June ballot that would essentially hand over 20 of the state's electoral votes before the elections even begin next November.

Electoral reform is a good thing -- but this proposition doesn't even come close to an honest effort. It's designed for just one thing: to make California the only big state in the country to break up its electoral votes, handing the White House back over to the Republicans. We need election reform, but let's do it for real -- and let's not pick and choose which states we do it in.

We can't let this proposition get on the ballot. Reject the Republican power grab in California:

http://www.democrats.org/DirtyTricks

California, like 47 other states, awards all of its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes. In the last four elections, all of California's electoral votes have gone to the Democratic nominee.

Republicans want to change the rules to award one electoral vote for each Congressional district a presidential candidate wins. In 2004, that would have given George Bush 19 of John Kerry's 55 votes.

These so-called "reformers" aren't proposing to do this in Texas, or Florida, or Ohio, or any other large state that the Republicans won in 2004.

Only California.

This isn't electoral reform -- it's a blatant power grab. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger is against the proposal, saying:

"I feel like, if you're all of a sudden in the middle of the game start changing the rules, it's kind of odd... It almost feels like a loser's mentality, saying, 'I cannot win with those rules. So let me change the rules.'"

Don't let the Republicans cheat to win the election. Make your voice heard now:

http://www.democrats.org/DirtyTricks

For Republicans, it's not Iowa or New Hampshire that matters most in 2008 -- it's California.

Tell them to play by the rules.

Sincerely,

Gov. Howard Dean, M.D.



Splitting a state's electoral votes is not only legal, but it's not even new! Electoral votes should go to the candidate that won that electorate's district as it did in the days of Washington, Jefferson, Adams and most other presidents. It is just recently it became an all or nothing game for most states (including California).

[Smurf-Herder]

Another example of the Dems assuming the voters will fall for whatever they say - which they usually do, on the Left.

I'm surprized anyone listens to what Dean has to say anymore, since his maniacal pterodactyl call.

[TheCenturion]

Splitting a state's electoral votes is not only legal, but it's not even new! Electoral votes should go to the candidate that won that electorate's district as it did in the days of Washington, Jefferson, Adams and most other presidents. It is just recently it became an all or nothing game for most states (including California).


This wouldn't be equitable unless all the states do it in kind. Actually, the electoral college should be eliminated and the popular vote be the determining factor in all elections. And we certainly know what that would mean for GOP electioneering criminals don't we? That's an idea whose time is long overdue. BTW: What's "niave" mean?

[Jennifer]

Centurion:

Actually, the all or nothing electoral vote for a state in the Presidential election is unconstitutional, not the other way around. The individual electoral college members are supposed to submit their vote based on how their district voted, it's representative.

However, it's been perverted so that states like California and Florida put all their electoral votes in for one candidate. However, this is NOT how it is done across all the states, much to Dean's surprise - evidentially. There are states that still run their colleges the correct way, splitting their votes between the candidates in a more representative manner.

Now, you also mentioned the extinction of the electoral college. Great. You just disenfranchised the majority of Americans. States like Idaho, Nebraska, North Carolina, Georgia, Alaska, etc will never be visited by a candidate again. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington DC will run this country because they are the major population centers.

That is why our founders created the electoral college. (Which is a number based on your population + a constant just for being a state. This ensures that every state will be represented in the presidential election and that the population will also be represented.)

Our founding fathers were geniuses. We should restore the election process to the way it was originally written. (And no, that doesn't mean disenfranchising women or minorities. The US Constitution makes no distinction based on race, gender, creed or income bracket. Only ignoramuses who are elected make those distinctions and read them into our primary legal document.) Much of the fraud we see in the Clinton Machine or the Daley Machine or the Democrat or Republican machines would be destroyed if we relied on the original abilities of man to vote for government. It was really created in a very remarkable way!

Remember, we are 50 sovereign nations working in conjunction to form a united front for the world to see and deal with. We are not one nation with 50 colonies all subject to a master ruler (or monarch.) As such, the states should have their 10th amendment rights applied and taken seriously, instead of undermined and sabotaged at every possible turn by a monarchial federal government.

[Moby]

Electoral votes should go to no one. It should be a flat out majority plain and simple. Of course this would have kept Dubya from entering office since he didn't win the majority.

Let's either make it a fair vote where every vote gets counter equally os just admit that the system sucks.

[Jennifer]

President Bush is not the first president in American history to win the office and not get the majority of the popular vote. Don't forget that. There were two democrats who also won the electoral college but not the popular vote for the Executive Office in American history.


Anyway, switching to a popular vote only system would be detrimental to our way of life. You could guarantee that a majority of this nation would be disenfranchised over night. Why? Because who cares how Cairo, IL votes or Lexington, KY or Hell, MI? As long as you get Detroit, Chicago, LA, DC, Cleveland, etc you're fine! Screw the farmers. Screw the poor. Screw the rural citizens. You don't even need to pass laws to protect them because they're fodder. Use them like cogs and throw them away when you are done with them. They have no bearing on your maintenance of power because they can't vote in significant numbers to sway an election one way or the other, so why bother? Focus on draining those poor bastards dry to feed your socialist programs for the cities, that's where you get power!



Meanwhile, under the current system, you have to get as many states as possible. Urban or Rural. Population still plays an impact on your getting office, but so does number of states. That means you have to listen to what the country-bumpkins want as well as the intelligensia elite of the cities. This ensures equal representation in government, a cornerstone; no, THE CORNERSTONE of our society! It was this above all else that drove our founders and our revolutionary soldiers to create this nation. Remember the phrases "No taxation without representation" and "Live free or Die!"? Both of those refer to the need of the government to be held responsible to all the people of the nation of all walks of life. Not just the snobbish ragamuffins of the urban societies as you would get if you went to a popular vote only election system!

Besides, there is a whole branch of government that revolves around the direct election of members. Congress/Senate. That's where your popular vote goes, but it's tempered in that every state and every district gets their own representatives, not one for the entire nation.

No, doing away with the electoral college would end this nation. There would be armed revolution once the huddled masses learn they've been disenfranchised. When the military learns they have no input into who their commander in chief is anymore. When farmers hit by tornadoes are left to fend for themselves or die while rich elitists in the cities are given temporary aid for needy families when they get hangnails.

[TheCenturion]

President Bush is not the first president in American history to win the office and not get the majority of the popular vote. Don't forget that. There were two democrats who also won the electoral college but not the popular vote for the Executive Office in American history.


Anyway, switching to a popular vote only system would be detrimental to our way of life. You could guarantee that a majority of this nation would be disenfranchised over night. Why? Because who cares how Cairo, IL votes or Lexington, KY or Hell, MI? As long as you get Detroit, Chicago, LA, DC, Cleveland, etc you're fine! Screw the farmers. Screw the poor. Screw the rural citizens. You don't even need to pass laws to protect them because they're fodder. Use them like cogs and throw them away when you are done with them. They have no bearing on your maintenance of power because they can't vote in significant numbers to sway an election one way or the other, so why bother? Focus on draining those poor bastards dry to feed your socialist programs for the cities, that's where you get power!



Meanwhile, under the current system, you have to get as many states as possible. Urban or Rural. Population still plays an impact on your getting office, but so does number of states. That means you have to listen to what the country-bumpkins want as well as the intelligensia elite of the cities. This ensures equal representation in government, a cornerstone; no, THE CORNERSTONE of our society! It was this above all else that drove our founders and our revolutionary soldiers to create this nation. Remember the phrases "No taxation without representation" and "Live free or Die!"? Both of those refer to the need of the government to be held responsible to all the people of the nation of all walks of life. Not just the snobbish ragamuffins of the urban societies as you would get if you went to a popular vote only election system!

Besides, there is a whole branch of government that revolves around the direct election of members. Congress/Senate. That's where your popular vote goes, but it's tempered in that every state and every district gets their own representatives, not one for the entire nation.

No, doing away with the electoral college would end this nation. There would be armed revolution once the huddled masses learn they've been disenfranchised. When the military learns they have no input into who their commander in chief is anymore. When farmers hit by tornadoes are left to fend for themselves or die while rich elitists in the cities are given temporary aid for needy families when they get hangnails.

There are always those who argue that we can't question the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. It's ironic coming from some who have no problem trampling virtually every other tenet that is a pillar of their Constitution, particularly the 4th Amendment.

But some people tend to forget, by today's standards, the Founding Fathers,perhaps, weren't that prescient when it came to voting rights. They arbitrarily denied the vote to women and blacks. They didn't trust the people to elect U.S. senators. And they didn't trust us to elect our own president, either. That's why there's an electoral college.

The United States has matured into a united country over the last 200 years, with national interests and beliefs that cross all state boundaries. We go to war and pay taxes as a country, we should vote as a country too.

We are now just as well informed as the electors we vote for, probably more so in many cases. So, there is no need to have intermediaries to cast votes on our behalf.

The Electoral College actually undermines the cohesiveness of the country by creating the possibility of minority rule over the majority and by creating a system of safe states and swing states. A system which encourages the presidential campaigns to ignore two-thirds of the country is hardly one which contributes to our country's unity.

Because a state's representation in the U.S. House of Representatives is determined by its population in the census, larger states have more votes in the Electoral College than small states. However, small states end up having a greater representation in the Electoral College per capita than larger states because of the two electoral votes allotted for each state's Senators, which are not linked to population.

Thus, Wyoming has one electoral vote per 160,000 residents, while California has one electoral vote per 650,000 residents. This creates a situation in which a person standing on the Delaware side of the Delaware river has more than double the say of a person standing on the New Jersey side in who gets elected president. That's arcane and stupid and does not properly serve the demography of the country.

Supporters of the Electoral College point to this as evidence that the Electoral College is working and that small states are protected from the large states. A look at the electoral map in the United States debunks this theory. We are no longer a nation in which the political divide runs along the lines of small states and large states, but one in which California, Delaware, and Maryland go one way and Texas, Georgia, and South Dakota go another.

The small-state/large-state argument is an anachronism. The truth is that the United States is a much more cohesive nation now than it was 200 years ago.

We are attacked as a nation, not as a group of states. We go to war as a nation, not as a group of states. We pay taxes as a nation, not as a group of states. In picking the president, the person who would lead us on all these issues, we should vote as a nation too.

The events of the past 6 years is a prior and unequivocal proof of that.

There's no reasonable argument to be made that a parochial bunch of knuckle dragging evangelical wackos in the South should have a disproportionate influence over the fates and fortunes of 200 Million citizens who dwell in urban areas who are called upon to provide most of the financial and intellectual resources of the nation.

But I'm stumped about one thing. What two democrats were the beneficiaries of a disparity between the electoral college and the popular vote? I can only think of a couple of Republicans - off hand.

[Linkster]

Looks like this is a dead issue now since the group that was pushing the initiative in Ca has dropped out - no money to support getting the required signatures they needed before the cut off date

[Jennifer]

Centurion:

You are completely clueless. I've never supported government action that is not explicitly given them by the power of the US Constitution or, at least attributed to them by the Federalist Papers or the Declaration of Independence (and that's the only gray area I'll give them!)


You, on the other hand, have called for the vast expansion of government in dozens of threads so far. If you want to live in a socialist nation, feel free to move to China.

[Kinky Jones]

Anyway, switching to a popular vote only system would be detrimental to our way of life. You could guarantee that a majority of this nation would be disenfranchised over night. Why? Because who cares how Cairo, IL votes or Lexington, KY or Hell, MI? As long as you get Detroit, Chicago, LA, DC, Cleveland, etc you're fine! Screw the farmers. Screw the poor. Screw the rural citizens. You don't even need to pass laws to protect them because they're fodder. Use them like cogs and throw them away when you are done with them. They have no bearing on your maintenance of power because they can't vote in significant numbers to sway an election one way or the other, so why bother? Focus on draining those poor bastards dry to feed your socialist programs for the cities, that's where you get power!

the electoral college is an archaic piece of crap that was used to make it easier to run elections in the time of no phoes and foot powered transportation, it now breaks the elections down so that candidates know most of the votes they will get and therefore concentrate on less than a handful of "swing" states usually conservative like Ohio or Florida these days, so i can see how you would love it :disbelief:

[Jennifer]

The Electoral College is a way to ensure that all the people of the nation have a say in who is going to be President, not just major metropolitan centers.

To do away with the Electoral College in favor for a direct election system would be to dissolve the United States. Farmers would stop selling food to the cities since they have no say in government. The military would stop enforcing the laws as they have no say in who their commander in chief is. Suburbs would stop working in the cities because they don't want to support the minority who have unfair advantage in deciding who the president is.

Why? Because presidents wouldn't give two shits about suburbians, farmers, soldiers, sailors, or anyone not living in a very major metropolitan area because their votes would be meaningless. Much better to secure Chicago, LA, NY, DC, Portland, Cleveland, Miami, etc.

[Kinky Jones]

The Electoral College is a way to ensure that all the people of the nation have a say in who is going to be President, not just major metropolitan centers.

To do away with the Electoral College in favor for a direct election system would be to dissolve the United States. Farmers would stop selling food to the cities since they have no say in government. The military would stop enforcing the laws as they have no say in who their commander in chief is. Suburbs would stop working in the cities because they don't want to support the minority who have unfair advantage in deciding who the president is.

Why? Because presidents wouldn't give two shits about suburbians, farmers, soldiers, sailors, or anyone not living in a very major metropolitan area because their votes would be meaningless. Much better to secure Chicago, LA, NY, DC, Portland, Cleveland, Miami, etc.

so getting rid of the electoral college would dissolve the US? :lmao2: you just dont get it i guess, the current sytem does what you are saying getting rid of it would do :thumbsup: the fact that you think presidents currently give a shit is the first problem i think

http://www.vote-smart.org/election_president_electoral_college.php

check out that list and tell me if the states with 4 votes get as much attention, if any at all, as the states with say 31? and how many of those states could you probably name yourself the way the votes will go?

[Moby]

The Electoral College is a way to ensure that all the people of the nation have a say in who is going to be President, not just major metropolitan centers.

To do away with the Electoral College in favor for a direct election system would be to dissolve the United States. Farmers would stop selling food to the cities since they have no say in government. The military would stop enforcing the laws as they have no say in who their commander in chief is. Suburbs would stop working in the cities because they don't want to support the minority who have unfair advantage in deciding who the president is.

Why? Because presidents wouldn't give two shits about suburbians, farmers, soldiers, sailors, or anyone not living in a very major metropolitan area because their votes would be meaningless. Much better to secure Chicago, LA, NY, DC, Portland, Cleveland, Miami, etc.
I don't buy your logic here and the reason is below.

If you take the population of the top 50 cities in America you have less then 50,00,000 people. That's only 1/6 of the population.

If you take the top 250 cities you have about 80,000,000 million people and now you're about 1/4 of the population.

Even if you won every vote in the top 250 cities without gaining the votes in the smaller areas you would lose the election by a land slide.

Right now the politicians that want to win a particular state focus most of their attention in the major cities but still have to go get votes in the smaller towns. If you remove the electoral you have the same thing.

The USA is not one of those countries where most people live in major cities. Australia is but not the USA.

[Kinky Jones]

I don't buy your logic here and the reason is below.

If you take the population of the top 50 cities in America you have less then 50,00,000 people. That's only 1/6 of the population.

If you take the top 250 cities you have about 80,000,000 million people and now you're about 1/4 of the population.

Even if you won every vote in the top 250 cities without gaining the votes in the smaller areas you would lose the election by a land slide.

Right now the politicians that want to win a particular state focus most of their attention in the major cities but still have to go get votes in the smaller towns. If you remove the electoral you have the same thing.

The USA is not one of those countries where most people live in major cities. Australia is but not the USA.

throwing fractions into it aint gonna help Sir :D

[Moby]

throwing fractions into it aint gonna help Sir :D
That's true. I know using facts to debate beliefs is silly.

[UserName]

Centurion:

You are completely clueless. I've never supported government action that is not explicitly given them by the power of the US Constitution or, at least attributed to them by the Federalist Papers or the Declaration of Independence (and that's the only gray area I'll give them!)


You, on the other hand, have called for the vast expansion of government in dozens of threads so far. If you want to live in a socialist nation, feel free to move to China.


LOL.... why is it when an obvious reicht-wing supporter gets their asses handed to them they immediately request the one who handed them their ass to move to China or Iran.
This must be Republican ideology in action.:D

[Jennifer]

Why is it every time a socialist gets blasted out of the water in a debate, like I just did to you, you resort to name calling and public slander?


States with 4 Electoral Votes have significant representation in the government. States with 22 Electoral Votes have signification representation in the government.

Why? It's based on you being a state + your population. Not just your population.


Ask me if Southern Illinois feels represented in Illinois Government or it they resent Chicago because every governor of Illinois has to win Chicago to win the Governor's Mansion.


Ask me if suburban or rural Americans will feel represented if they are disenfranchised by going to a direct election system.


The electoral college has worked every election since we established it. IF it aint broke, don't fix it! (And yes, the previous winning of the Electoral College but not popular vote was a democrat. So don't give me that tripe about Bush being the only president who didn't have the majority of the popular vote in his FIRST term. BTW, he did have the vast majority, HUGE majority in his second term.)

[Moby]

Jennifer, we're talking about Presidential elections and not congress. There's a big difference.

[Kinky Jones]

Jennifer, we're talking about Presidential elections and not congress. There's a big difference.

southern illinois = the whole country :lmao2:

maybe i'll ask my family that lives there if they agree with you and then enjoy the laughter

[Jennifer]

Jennifer, we're talking about Presidential elections and not congress. There's a big difference.


Exactly. We're talking about making sure that all parts of the country are represented in the selection of the person to hold the highest office in the land.

To dissolve the electoral college would be to dissolve the majority of America's land mass from having a say in who the President will be.

It is much like Southern Illinois' issues with selecting a governor. The only reason all 7 of their petitions have failed to be submitted to Congress for consideration of making the rest of Illinois a separate state is because they need the money from Chicago for their roads.

So would you hold the money of the vast majority of your farmers, laborers and good honest, hard working citizen's hostage so you can have a few unintelligent bourgeoisie cities elect presidents without even consulting them?

[asroc]

Living in Indiana, my vote going to anything except a Republican presidential candidate is useless because of the Electoral College.

The end.

[Kinky Jones]

To dissolve the electoral college would be to dissolve the majority of America's land mass from having a say in who the President will be.

yes because they wouldnt go vote would they? those poor rural people wouldnt have any say at all, they couldnty just turn the television on and see what the candidates are saying? how many people actually go listen/see politicians in person during election races? how many times have you seen the politicians you vote for in person? my god that quote is the dumbest thing i have heard in a long time, it would be funny if hillary loses the popular and wins the electoral and watch as you republicans try to retroactively get rid of the electoral and put in the publican :lmao2:

now ignore this post completly like you do all the rest that i have handed you your ass in, prove that i am wrong like you proved rush isnt a traitor, then slander some democrats and tell me you arent gonna let me slander rush limbaugh

:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

[Leeguana]

(And yes, the previous winning of the Electoral College but not popular vote was a democrat. So don't give me that tripe about Bush being the only president who didn't have the majority of the popular vote in his FIRST term.
Yup. You're right. It was a democrat. Grover flippin' Cleveland in 1888.


BTW, he did have the vast majority, HUGE majority in his second term.)
Okay, now you're being just plain silly. It was 62 million votes (50.7%) to 59 million (48.3). Not exactly what most would call a VAST or HUGE majority. Carter beat Ford 50.1% to 48%. I'm guessing you wouldn't classify that race as a VAST or HUGE majority, now would you?

[Leeguana]

The electoral college is bunk. If I were a republican living in Minnesota, what what would be my motivation to vote in a presidential election? The 2008 election will be the 36 year anniversary of the last repub candidate to take MN > Tricky Dick, 1972. In essence, not one single vote, for one single republican presidential candidate, has counted for jack squat in the last 36 years (might as well say 40, because MN is going DEM in '08, without a doubt). Aside from voting for the other offices on the ballot, all those voters could have just stayed home, and it would have made no difference in the outcome. What kind of effect does that have on a voter's psyche?

Like Centurion said earlier in this thread:

The United States has matured into a united country over the last 200 years, with national interests and beliefs that cross all state boundaries. We go to war and pay taxes as a country, we should vote as a country too.

We are now just as well informed as the electors we vote for, probably more so in many cases. So, there is no need to have intermediaries to cast votes on our behalf.

[Moby]

We do know that Dubya won his second term by the smallest margin of any second term President.

[Leeguana]

We do know that Dubya won his second term by the smallest margin of any second term President.You mean by a vast, huge majority?:huh:

[Little Red Dog]

BTW, he did have the vast majority, HUGE majority in his second term.)

Planet Earth calling. Please come in.

[Leeguana]

And to think Kerry had the second most votes received in the history of our elections, and he still lost by a VAST, HUGE majority, lol.