Why is there oposition in California to splitting up electoral votes by the districts? Wouldn't this be better representation for the voters?
2007-08-23 21:32:22 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
How would it decrease its power in national elections? As it is now, Democrats an Republicans spend very little time there, and don't worry about Californias issues because they know the electoral votes will go to Democrats.
If there were real electoral votes up for grabs both parties would have to ponder to them.
2007-08-23 21:55:25 · update #1
I didn't mention the other states because that is not where it is being discussed right now. I would be for it in all states.
2007-08-23 22:12:24 · update #2
If you did it nationwide it would most likely benefit Republicans.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/
2007-08-23 22:15:56 · update #3
http://electoralreformcalifornia.com/
2007-08-23 22:18:41 · update #4
Because then Southern California's votes would mean something and, in reality, nobody cares what Southern California thinks.
2007-08-23 21:41:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anon 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
The reason? It would dilute California's power, marginalizing it in national elections. Other states, like Colorado, have rejected splitting up their electoral votes on these grounds.
Now, if you just wanted to chuck the electoral system, a system put in place by our founding fathers who did not believe in a direct democracy, then that would result in a more representative system for everyone, every vote really would count. But in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court basically shut down any possibility of the electoral abomination (sorry, system) going away any time soon.
Note: In California, the GOP is backing the idea because it would make their task of electing another one of them in 08 a stronger possibility.They would gain electoral votes in California. In Colorado several years ago, the GOP was strongly against it because Colorado is reliably GOP in national election sand doing away with the winner-takes-all approach would have cost the GOP electoral votes there. This is just a highly cynical mind game. If you don't believe me, go read the archives on the Denver Post.
2007-08-24 04:44:53 · answer #2 · answered by joanby 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why California? Why not Ohio and Florida? Oh, right, because those states would lose even more electoral votes to the dems.
Funny how all this worry about "representation" doesn't exist if it's a state that narrowly throws all it's votes to the Republicans.
Quit pretending that it's anything other than a political ploy. I'd be all for it if it was universal. Since that's not how other states do it, there's no reason to push for it there. If it should apply there, it should apply elsewhere, as well.
2007-08-24 04:59:15 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not in this case its a Republican ploy to take the next Presidential election... Thats all we need 4 more years of gustopo rule.
2007-08-24 04:42:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They're afraid the government might become one "of the people, for the people, by the people".
2007-08-24 04:41:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋