Entroper on 03 December 2007
| ckmlb said: @Final Fan: I read the that and it still doesn't answer why the writer of the article is against proportional representation. If electoral votes were split proportionally then the winner of the popular vote would win... @NJ5: Each state decides on thei own what system to follow if they want, so if California decides they want it this way it's entirely fair. @Entroper: to the writer of the article and the OP who posted with no comment meaning he/she agrees. |
If electoral votes were split proportionally for the entire country, then the winner of the popular vote would win. Implementing this would require an amendment to the Constitution. If people really wanted to change the system, they'd be trying to change the Constitution, not get California and California only to adopt this new system.
They are close to getting the number of signatures they need to secure a referendum in June. (The Los Angeles Downtown News claims to have witnessed signature-gatherers offering homeless people food in return for signing.) The turnout for the referendum is expected to be extremely low, because the statewide primaries usually held on that date have been moved forward to February. So the Republicans only have to activate a small part of their base to push it through -- and they have the cash to do it.
Is this what you mean by California deciding they want it this way?
