Skip to main content

View Diary: Colorado may change EV allocation (108 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Same reason (none)
    It doesn't really have to get Democrats.  Just Republicans, plus enough Independents to make a majority.  Certainly it wouldn't be in the  interest of Democratic-leaning California to vote for it, but they vote for lots of initiatives that sound good, but aren't in their interest:  term limits, laws that mandate spending and tax limits to make the budget untenable, etc.  
    •  But (none)
      a convincing case cannot be made to pass it. You cannot argue that politicians would lavish more attention on the state (I mean California specifically), because campaigns would have to spend millions to change a few percentage points, while in other states they could spend the same amount of money to flip the entire EV tally to their side.

      So it comes down to a battle of how influential the voters want the state to be. Independents will want the state to remain influential because they know that they hold the key to which way the state goes. Whether they vote for a Republican or a Democrat, they will want all of the state's votes to go that way. Democrats of course want the state to be influential because they usually carry the state. And actually, if the Republicans would ever run a candidate that's to the left of Atilla the Hun, it is in the GOP's interest to have winner take all as well.

      The nation was paralyzed by the administration's mundacity.

      by Doug in SF on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 11:50:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wanna bet? (none)
            "...a convincing case cannot be made to pass it."

        I can make one:

        This initiative is in the interest of all California voters. It brings fairness to the electoral process. The winner-take-all method means that only certain voters opinions are represented. This reform will insure that every vote counts.

        They could call it the "Every Vote Counts" initiative. For the record, I'm against it unless it is invoked nationally. But it would not be hard for the right to craft a convincing campaign if they want to. That's why I think its dangerous for us to do it where its in our favor because it will be turned around and used against us as well. Even a losing campaign would cause the same problems for the Dems that were outlined above for the Reps in CO.

        Keep your dissidence.

        by KingOneEye on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 12:23:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's only convincing... (none)
          ...until the "No On" advertising starts. And they will be ruthless in opposing it.

          Politicians will spend even less time campaigning here than they normally do.

          The state could have less of a say in selecting our President than New Hampshire. We already have that in the primaries, why extend it to the general election?

          To Democrats, like in the Bay Area: Republicans are trying to diminish California's impact on national elections by forcing proportional voting here while not allowing it in Texas and other states (it may not be true, but hey, it's a California initiative campaign, where the truth does not matter).

          This would drive up voter participation in Democratic Areas. Meanwhile, independents and a lot of Republicans wouldn't care (the leadership would, but only the Christian radicals would follow).

          Give me a NO ON initiative campaign to work on over a YES ON campaign ANY DAY in California. Almost anything that isn't crime related can be defeated by trumpeting the hidden motives of the backers.

          The nation was paralyzed by the administration's mundacity.

          by Doug in SF on Tue Jun 15, 2004 at 01:55:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is precisely the problem (none)
            Republican money is nearly infinite.  They can spend lavishly to pick up even 20 EVs in CA.  Our money is much tighter.  Most likely we wouldn't have the cash to advertise the 'NO' side or we'd be diverting it from something else.  Suddenly we'd have to spend millions to protect those 20 or so EVs.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site