California GOP's Election "Reform" Measure Reeks of Rove

Was it a Karl Rove plan in North Carolina where the Democrats tried to push the same plan through the past two years? They only stopped when DNC officials told them to...

Says the pot to the kettle!

Look out! Karl Rove in his black helicopter is swooping down on California!

Thank you Mr. Leno...

And for your concern over this federal election issue. If you don't mind, I would like to draw your attention to one closer to home, you know, inside the legislature you are a part of called "Term Limits Reform"

Please, tell us why this ballot measure in reducing term limits will actually keep politicians currently in office there LONGER than the currently approved term limits in effect? Politicians starting with your party members Don Perata and Fabian Nunez.

Once you address this in house, the one YOU work in, local calamity, I'll start looking out the window for Rove's black helicopter...

Ps: Nice the way you messed with Carole Migden's initiatives in committee that I witnessed on the Cal Channel a few weeks back. Her logic was defeated by you shutting down the forum in progress. I guess the democratic party isn't in disarray now is it. Anything personal or competitive going on there?

To Mark Leno: Don't worry about responding to the last commenter--he manages to post a bunch of gibberish about just about every article we publish with a bunch of red herrings and lashing out at other issues.

I think he's a "Republican operative."

To Russo: While I disagree with pretty much everything Gould says his comment about term limits should be answered and I will. Term limits hasn't solved anything in California and has probably made things worse. The alteration in limits on the ballot in February will give the current leadership additional time but it really should be judged on whether it improves things or makes things worse. On balance, it probably helps things, as once a legislator is elected he/she doesn't have to think about moving on quite as quickly. The fact that it gives the current leadership additional time is pretty much irrelevant aside from the fact that this leadership is experienced and can work with the Governor.

Hello from the "Republican Operative"!

Seriously, why did you give Mr. Leno "permission" to not address my issues? He is a leader in his own right and should be quite capable to speak up for himself isn't he? Were my issues a little to hard for him to answer? I say lets give him a chance. Plus, as an elected official, it is kinda an obligation too.

Now labeling me as a "republican operative": Lets think about this for a second. Is it an attempt to marginalize me? I mean I bring up issues, sure some tongue in cheek, but like the "Term Limits" I bring up above, there is a real issue there (And cavala never does tongue in cheek, if not in fact stuck out, at his political opponents expense? Come on, lets be fair here).

Mr. Leno alludes to some "Rovian Conspiracy" in his above article. I would like him to answer my question on "Term Limits" above which when supported by the two most powerfull folks in the legislature, Senate Pro Tem Don Perata and Speaker Fabian Nunez, has it's own "conspiracy". See they are TERMED OUT via existing term limits BUT if new "term limits" get approved, they keep their jobs LONGER that todays laws allow, while follow on politicians will get less time in office. Doesn't that seen strange to the casual observer?

(Publius, if term limits are so bad, then why is this democratic supported "Term Limit" initiative actually reduce time in office from 14 to 12 years? (Remember, for follow on politicians, not the ones in office today-they get an EXTENSION). Shouldn't they propose instead the ELIMINATION of all term limits? My opinion, the longer they are in office, the more intrenched special interests get with them at the expense of the general public).

Mr. Russo, I am pretty sure I am not even by whatever definition you may have a "republican operative". I am actually your WORST NIGHTMARE:

An informed and educated member of the electorate capable of independent thought.

But I will take your label as a "republican operative" as a compliment. Since being labeled as such by you, I must be getting to the meat of our issues we face as both Californians and Americans. Besides, if your positions are superior/better than ones I would question, then you have nothing to worry about!

My email you have if you wish to chat off-line. But I would prefer out in the open so others may benefit from our dialog and in ways of their own choosing, democrats, republicans and independents. Your choice or both.

Signature gatherers are collecting signatures on the Sac State campus on the Republican initiative to change the way California distributes the state’s electoral votes.
As explained above this is anti Democrat initiative. It will give electoral votes to the Republicans and could well determine the 2008 presidential election.
Those gathering signatures are deliberately mis representing the initiative as sponsored by the Democratic Party. When I confronted one operative, he seemed confused. He really did not understand the initiative, he was just earning money.
Since some of the signatures were gathered under false pretenses, the initiative should be challenged in the courts.
It is a sad commentary on the state of higher education that university students would sign such an initiative without knowing or understanding its significance. they sign after a 30 sec. intro speech. This lack of civic education is another result of mis guided school reform. (http://www.choosingdemocracy.blogspot.com)

Duane,

I suggest you switch the issues: "Electoral Votes" for "Term Limits Reform" in your entry above and you will have the exact same scenario playing out but to the advantage of the opposite political party.

The signature gathering process to place term limits "reform" on the ballot was EXACTLY like you say above for the electoral college vote distrobution.

I don't like it either, but BOTH parties do it, and in these cases simultaneously and without shame.

Ok, so you're right that the Republicans are trying get a piece of California. But with legislation like this passing in California, we can take the momentum to the rest of the country. The Electoral College is archaic and misrepresentative of the people. It is because of the Electoral College that not much more than half of the Voting Age Population voted in the 2004 presidential election (up significantly over the previous election).

Look long term - abolishing the Electoral College will have massive positive effects. Let's try to do it by 2012 nationwide.

It is a critical time for California's future. What we do, or fail to do, in the coming years will have a great effect on Californian politics for untold future generations.
2007 is the time where we must rise up as concerned citizens to reform the Electoral College in California. California will be a hot seat in the 2008 election if we are successful.
There is 49 % statewide support for the
Reform of the Electoral College in California as reported by the Field Poll.

The Plan

The Electoral Reform Initiative is that the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in each Congressional District gets the Elector.
The two Electors that reflect the two Senate seats would be selected by
the statewide popular vote. It is very simple.

Why the Reform is a really good idea!

*$100,000,000! That’s right; one hundred million will be spent in California in media purchases and campaign activities. *Returns the power of the vote back to the people.
*Reinforces our founding fathers concept of representative government.
*Presidential candidates will not ignore California like they did in 2000 and 2004.
*California will become a competitive market in the Presidential race forcing candidates to campaign in this great state.
*Grass roots political issues, such as energy and the environment, will be emphasized in the election.
*Local campaign offices will make a difference.
*Independents votes will matter.
*Rural voters will have a voice.
*California will reflect its political demography.
*It enhances the importance of swing voters and competitive districts.
*It is the fairest system possible.

Today

The current system is that the winner of the popular vote in California takes all 55 Electors. The areas of Los Angeles and San Francisco determine
the Electors for the entire State. This is not democratic, and is unfair.
California in 2004, had 10% of the Electors but we were not involved in the process of selecting our president. In the 2004 presidential election 285 nationwide Electors selected George W. Bush to be the President of the United States. All of the 55 California electors voted for Democrat John Kerry.
If we fail here, there will be no presidential contest in California. We will not see or hear the candidates. They will ignore California. The candidates will take our money and spend it in Ohio and Florida. The election of 2000 and 2004 proves that today we are irrelevant.

Lets Reform the System!

John Kennedy’s whistle stop train in 1960 is still remembered. It was so much fun.
California will be a hot seat in the 2008 election if we are successful and the contest for president will be from Redding to San Diego and it will be exciting.

Visit our website ElectoralReformCalifornia.com

In the 2004 election, the GOP vote was
5,509,826 while the DEM vote was 6,745,485. It is true that 1,225,659 was the difference, but
it is the Democrats like Russo who would cheat
over 5 and a half million people of having their vote counted. One of these times, the shoe will be on the other foot, and Russo better run for the hills with his winner take all as long as he is winning ideas. Many of us will not forget how HE AND HIS COHORTS STOLE OUR VOTE.

Post a comment