Exactly…They have ZERO chance of winning California, & that’s why there pushing that EV split initiative….

Republicans have nothing to run on, all that’s left is gerrymandering & the outright rigging of an election, which is all this California proposal is..

If the district approach were used nationally, it would less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. If the district approach were installed in only one large state such as California, it would greatly increase the chance that the winner of the presidential election would not have received the most votes nationwide.

The district approach would not, as claimed, make California relevant in presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to campaign in districts (or states) where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Currently, candidates concentrate over two-thirds of their money and visits on just six closely divided “battleground” states, and 99% of their expenditures in just 16 states. Thus, two thirds of the states are ignored in presidential elections (including California). In California, the presidential race is a foregone conclusion in 50 of the state’s 53 congressional districts. Candidates would have no incentive than they do now to pay attention to California remaining 50 districts. Even if the district approach were used nationally, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections, so seven-eighths of the county would be left out of presidential elections. This is even worse than the current system, where two-thirds of the states are spectators.

A national popular vote is the way to guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President. It is the way to make every person’s vote relevant, regardless of where that person lives.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President. When the legislation is in effect in that sized group of states, all of the electoral votes in the participating states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Thus, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the Presidency.

The bill has 320 legislative sponsors in 47 states. It has been signed into law in Maryland. The bill has passed by 11 legislative houses since its introduction in February 2006 (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, and North Carolina, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and California).

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

That’s NONSENSE, Captain.

On the contrary, we favor a Constitutional Amendment (not state initiatives) to EXPLICITLY establish our right to vote, over any manipulation by state legislatures, and that the Electoral College be required under that amendment to cast the EC votes for the majority winner (as stated above in the amendment text).

Our primary right under the Constitution is only implicit. WE must make it explicit, so that Bush v. Gore can never happen again (and so that this kind of ill-meaning initiative will be MOOT).

“Most Americans believe that the “legal right to vote” in our democracy is explicit (not just implicit) in our Constitution and laws. However, our Constitution only provides explicitly for non-discrimination in voting on the basis of race, sex, and age in the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments respectively.”

“That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, …

`SECTION 1. All citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections.”

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:hj28:

“H. J. Res. 28 [...] requires the Electors from each state [...] cast their Electoral College votes for the candidate who wins a majority of the popular votes in that state.

“Under the present Constitution, a state legislature can ignore the popular vote in a state and elect their own electors to the Electoral College regardless of the popular vote in the state – as the Republicans were prepared to do in Florida in 2000.”

http://www.house.gov/jackson/VotingRightsFAQ.htm

http://www.house.gov/jackson/VotingAmendment.htm

(I am not a natural born American either and therefore cannot run for President, which is irrelevant. But I am grateful for this provision being there because it keeps the governator from running.)

The table would not be turned because the Republicans would not be stupid enough to do this in the Red states. They only want this in the blue states.

The Democrats would welcome this if it were done in ALL states. But if it is only done in the Blue states and not in the Red states it is a Republican dirty trick to make it possible for the Republican candidate to win the electoral vote even if he loses the popular vote by a substantial margin.

The only way that the Republicans can win the next election is by cheating, and they are perfectly willing to cheat.

More than 200 veterans have signed a letter from the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth seeking the release of records. Retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann commanded the fleet of swift boats — the Navy’s Task Force 115 — during Kerry’s tour of duty. Today he serves as chairman of the veterans’ group.

Actually they attacked a liar (Winter Soldier, etc) who was using his questionable military record for political gain. If Kerry was running today, he’d get his ass handed to him again by the same group. Alas Kerry days as a presidential canidate are gone forever, ask your own party.

That was the HUMOR, doucher.

Can’t you read?

I know – stupid question – you’re a RUBE!

I didn’t say I hated O’Neil. He’s just a proven liar, that’s all. And, for the purpose of this discussion, Kerry is irrelevant. This is about the veracity of the Swiftboat people. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve proven that they cannot be trusted.

But it was seared, seared in his memory on the floor of Congress, then the SBV’s come along, then nothing… or maybe Kerry’s muttering’s to Rolling Stone or some mag, “ya know I could of been there I think.”

Hey, you hate O’Neil, fine, whatever. But expending the energy on Kerry is odd. A Kerry presidency could have hurt the Dems as bad as Carter did.

Irrelevant. John O’Neill said it was impossible for Kerry to have been in Camodia. Two years later, tapes emerged on which John O’Neill bragged to Richard Nixon’s face that HE was in Cambodia.

To a sane, intelligent and honest person, this is simple proof that John O’Neill is a liar. That’s all. Nothing more, nothing less.

“Kerry was proven not to be in Cambodia based on what his patrol records said. Kerry himself became silent when this pointed out.”

Exactly. Kerry may have thought he was in Cambodia at some point. Maybe he was, but it was illegal to be there so it wouldn’t have been in the official records. If you have been in the military and you know anything about the Viet Nam conflict, you would have to agree that there is nothing particularly strange about that.

Again, this is about political dirty tricksters trying to play a trick on the voters of California. One of them, John O’Neill, is a proven liar.

Ironic for a lying wingnut to put swiftboat and ‘truth’ in the same sentence! You’re such a lying sack of shit Mr. Pee!

As opposed to Dan Rather and Mary Mapes, that went well.