Comments on: California: Debate over Winner-Take-All

By: Donald

Donald — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:48:47 +0000

Good idea. That has precedence in Congress.

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:32:23 +0000

I can understand why 49% of Californians would like for their votes to count in the election! It is definitely not the Federal Government’s jurisdiction to mandate which way it is done. The winner-takes-all method makes California an extremely important state in an election, but what good is that if nearly half of the voters are ignored? Perhaps all states should choose electors by district, but if two thirds or more of the general vote in that state goes to a single candidate, the winner takes all. Would that be a decent non-partisan balance?

By: Donald

Donald — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:32:08 +0000

Wow I don’t know what to think. If winner-take-all policies were partisan in the first place then the resurrection of the issue could mean a lot more partisan discord for a long time to come. That’s amazing that Maine and Nebraska held to their own that long. It seems that the states ought to be able to agree on a general principle as a whole rather than “just for California” but I agree with Robert: It’s California’s decision now and it will be interesting to see what they, as Californians, decide. “49 percent of California’s voters would like to see a change in the way the electoral votes are allocated . . .”–Hmm. It still sounds like a house divided. Why Washington appointed Madison and Jefferson to work together I will probably never fully understand. It reminds me of Isaac and Ishmael, if I dare say.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 03:38:55 +0000

The important thing is that each state decide for itself what voting system to have in its own electoral college. We definitely don’t want the Federal Government mandating yet more laws that are obviously not under its Constitutional jurisdiction.