When it comes to lying and sleaze, nobody beats the Republic Party!
The Republics are at it again in California. They want a ballot initiative that would allow the state's electoral votes to be split based on whichever candidate wins each congressional district. Now normally that would be all well and good. Maine and Nebraska do this already. But the Republicans' support for this idea stops at California. That's because California is the state where it would help the GOP the most. In many other states (such as Texas), it would hurt them. The measure was in fact filed by a Republican law firm.
Worse, they want the measure to be placed on the ballot in June - not November when it will be too late to save the 2008 election for them.
Can the party sleaze machine be any more transparent? Limiting their idea to just one state (which would help them) instead of trying to make it a nationwide rule is about as partisan as it gets.
An attorney from Lafayette, California, says the situation may be much worse than it appears. He's asking Congress to launch an investigation into whether or not Bush regime officials, the RNC, and other right-wing hobgoblins used the taxpayers' time and resources to coordinate this plainly partisan effort. Judging by the ruling regime's torrid record, we have to suspect that there probably are grounds for an investigation.
Much of the demand for a probe of the Bush White House centers on a memo the RNC wrote to Karl Rove back in 2002 and a meeting that took place involving Rove and other powerful White House aides. (The memo also discussed changing the electoral vote method in Michigan and Washington state, 2 other states where the GOP would benefit the most from this plan.) If the White House was involved at all in trying to seriously push this as a ballot initiative, it's clearly an abuse by White House officials.
Even when Bush is gone, his corrupt legacy will live on. As long as Bush's ideological allies remain in power, it will be like he's still looming above us like the monster he is.
(Source: http://www.contracostatimes.com/bayandstate/ci_6837615)
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Probe of White House over vote plan demanded
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The ballot measure to divide California’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated Electoral College system of electing the President. What the country needs is a national popular vote to make every person’s vote equally important to presidential campaigns, regardless of where that person lives.
ReplyDeleteIf the district approach were used nationally, it would less be less fair and accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts. Of course, if the district approach were unilaterally adopted by one large state such as California, it would greatly increase the chance that the White House would go to a candidate who did not win the most popular votes nationwide.
The district approach would not, as claimed, cause presidential candidates to focus on issues of concern to California. Under the winner-take-all rule (whether applied to districts or states), candidates have no reason to campaign in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. In California, the presidential race is a foregone conclusion in 50 of the state’s 53 gerrymandered congressional districts, so candidates will continue to ignore California. There are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections. Under the current statewide winner-take-all system, two-thirds of the states are ignored in presidential elections. If the district system were used nationally, seven-eighths of the nation’s congressional districts would ignored.
A national popular vote is the way to guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President and to make every person’s vote equal.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). 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 (270 of 538). When the bill is enacted in a group of states possessing 270 or more electoral votes, all of the electoral votes from those states would be awarded, as a bloc, to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). This would guarantee the White House to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The National Popular Vote bill has 320 legislative sponsors in 47 states. It has been signed into law in Maryland. Since its introduction in February 2006, the bill has passed by 11 legislative houses (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, and North Carolina, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and California).
See www.NationalPopularVote.com
Somebody needs to launch an investigation into why this blog isn't as exciting as advertised. I came here because you promised it would be exciting but so far all it is is a bunch of handwringing. Just let the government do it's thing. No sense worrying about it, you'll just get bad blood pressure and stomach cramps.
ReplyDeleteSomebody needs to launch an investigation into who this "Morris H. Mote" is and why he comes here everyday and complains about stuff.
ReplyDeleteAnd we've let the "government do its thing". Look where it's gotten us.