The campaign cycle is becoming both longer and faster -- and the machinery of politics itself is becoming constantly more, well, political. The latest evidence is out in California, where "a team of GOP lawyers" is filing petition language to replace the standard "winner take all" rule of electoral votes and instead divvy up California's electors proportionately -- thus swinging about 20 electoral votes from the Democrats to the Republicans in 2008, if the initiative passes.

Doesn't this make sense? Shouldn't electors represent proportionally the division of the electorate itself? Sure -- and that's why ideas like the NationalPopularVote -- a plan that would effectively eliminate the distorting impacts of the Electoral College on a nation-wide level -- deserve consideration.

But doing this in a single state in a cynical attempt to swing the next election to the Republicans, even if most voters across the country prefer the Democrat? That's just a bad idea that is sure to increase distrust of the political process even more. Fortunately, some people are already organizing to stop this power-grab. If you live in California, be sure to check out the Courage Campaign's efforts to stop this power grab. There's a lot of work to be done here. The idea on its face -- real representation of the electorate in California -- is belied by the actual impact -- an extreme distortion of the electorate nationally.

In the last four presidential elections, California has voted for a Democrat. That's a galling fact-of-life for Republican lawyer Thomas Hiltachk, who is pushing a ballot initiative to radically alter how the state's electoral votes are counted:

California awards its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections - the largest single prize in the nation. But a prominent Republican lawyer wants to put a proposal on the ballot that would award the statewide winner only two electoral votes. The rest would be distributed to the winning candidate in each of the state's congressional districts. In effect, that would create 53 races, each with one electoral vote up for grabs.

The initiative is titled The Presidential Election Reform Act. Hiltachk works out of Sacramento, at a firm that represents the California Republican Party. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a past client of Hiltachk's, disavows any connection to the initiative. State Republican Chairman Ron Nehring, on the other hand, seems to think it's a swell idea, saying, "We'll take a serious look at it, once it qualifies for the ballot."

Call it gerrymandering writ-large. If you can't win California's electoral votes the way the elections are currently run, change the rules! Let's hope the voters of the Golden State shoot this shameless attempt at rigging the next election down in flames. If you want to make democracy more representative, then do so in every state of the union. These are, after all, national elections.

As if being in the majority wasn't enough, Democrats have sought even more power by proposing legislation that would giving the District of Columbia a vote in the House. The White House says Bush would veto the bill if it reached his desk.

The White House on Tuesday threatened a presidential veto of legislation giving the District of Columbia a vote in the House, possibly prolonging a two-century-long wait for representation in Congress.

The bill, the White House said in a statement, violates constitutional language saying the House should be made up of representatives chosen by the people of the states. "The District of Columbia is not a state," it said, and if the legislation reaches President Bush's desk, "his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."

The House is to vote Friday on the legislation that would give a vote to the D.C. delegate while creating, until the 2010 census, a new at- large seat for Utah.

That would increase House membership to 437, with the seat from overwhelmingly Democratic D.C. offset by the extra vote from Utah, a predominantly Republican state. Utah narrowly missed obtaining a fourth House seat after the 2000 census.

The White House cites the Constitutions clear language that statehood is a requirement for voting rights, and to change that would require a Constitutional amendment.

This legislation, while only affecting the House, would likely be the predecessor to legislation proposing D.C. get a vote in the Senate, too -- which is likely the ultimate goal of the Democrats' plan... Two more liberal votes in the House would only have minimal impact in the long run. Two more Democrat votes in the Senate, however, would have a much bigger impact.

When I read the story, I checked to see if the year was flying by quicker than I thought. Was it already April 1? The city of Beverly Hills is having an election. Who cares? Oops, there is one catch. The ballots have been written in English and in Farsi. It seems that over the last few years, the population of Beverly Hills is now 20% Persian. Iranian ex-Patriots are now flexing their political muscle, and three of them are running for City Council.

The influx of Iranians to Beverly Hills began in 1970 when the Shah was dethroned. These people have no use for the current administration of Iran. However, it seems to me that it is just a horrible idea, to come to America, take over a city and then change the language on the ballot to Persian.

Never talk politics or religion when you are out drinking? Guess that means you should limit your conversation to sports and sex. Isn't politics and religion so much more interesting though?

It's funny how religion continues to enter into the debate of who should be the next President. Ever think how Christ might vote if he lived in America. Would he be leading the Christian Right in making sure they retain their political influence after the 2008 election? Guess they are a little concerned that old Rudy might not be their cup of tea. Those three marriages and his support of gay rights is just a little too much.

So, I was wondering, what do you think Jesus would do? Well, what was going on in the Temple irritated him enough that he went through knocking everything over. Guess he didn't like the fact that they had forgotten what religion really was and were more interested in making money. Things don't really change, do they?

Then we have those social issues. What did Christ have to say about those? Seemed he liked just about everybody. That doesn't work if you are religious today. No sir. You should hate somebody if you are really religious. Imagine, Christ said give that prostitute a break. Slim chance that would happen today. And imagine what he picked out as his favorite commandment. Do you remember? It was love thy neighbor as you would love thyself. Religion has come a long way. No more of that loving your neighbor stuff.

There was a time when unions were needed. When working conditions were so horrid that protections were strongly required. That time is long past. Nowadays, workers have more protections than ever dramed of and the unions are no longer required.

Enter union hack, Ted Kennedy. He has introduced a bill that will embolden the unions and thus cost more to make goods. Those additional costs will be a drain on the economy:

The Employee Free Choice Act would allow workers to more easily form unions by signing cards or petitions, strengthen penalties on companies that stymie workers trying to form a union, and allow for a neutral third party to form a contract if the company and employees cannot agree.

The House debate is likely to be fierce. Republican Rep. Charlie Norwood of Georgia will probably introduce an alternative piece of legislation called the "Secret Ballot Protection Act" that would require workers to use a National Labor Relations Board secret ballot (instead of public petitions) whenever forming a union.

If you want proof that unions do nothing but harm companies and the economy, just take a look at the American auto industry. Ford and GM make an inferior product that costs too much. That's simply because unions get annual raises, and while their pay goes up, the car makers must maintain their pricing to compete with higher quality Japanese imports and those made by Japanese companies in America.

Thanks, Senator Kennedy, I'm sure the pilfered union dues will go far in supporting your next campaign.

Say you're an activist leading the charge against eminent domain. Over the years your case winds through the justice system and finally makes it all the way to the Supreme Court... where you lose. Is your battle over? Hardly.

In fact, the LA Times reports today, getting nixed by the Supremes was a victory of sorts for the Institute for Justice, a libertarian group who shepherded the infamous case of Susette Kelo all the way to the nation's highest court. Kelo ultimately had her Connecticut house condemned so upscale condos could be built on the land.

The Kelo ruling set off a political earthquake, and the tremors were felt across the country. On Dec. 18, the Institute reported that 34 states had tightened their laws since the June 2005 decision and made it harder for city officials to take private property for development.

"This is a remarkable and historic response to the most reviled Supreme Court decision of our time," the Institute said.

A similar phenomenon occurred for a Washington law firm who lost an anti-affirmative action case. The Center for Individual Rights used its Supreme Court loss as a battle cry in pushing for a constitutional amendment in Michigan. It passed Nov. 7 by a 58-42% margin.

It's a fascinating article and shows there's always hope for those who believe in a cause strongly enough.

For years, those that may have liked Democratic candidates but couldn't vote for them because of issues such as abortion and gay marriage found an alternative this year. The values Democrat:

In many cases it was the first time in decades that voters could vote for a Democrat who was pro-life, against legalization of same-sex marriage, supportive of responsible firearm ownership, comfortable talking about his or her own personal faith and willing to allow everyone - including Christians - the opportunity to express their own faith in the public square.

A look at Democrats who won show many who are very conservative including John Tester, James Webb and Heath Shuler. They are akin to the golden Democrats of the fifties and sixties such as Truman and "Scoop" Jackson who weren't so ideologically driven when it came to social issues. Granted, gay marriage was not even a blip on the radar screen at that point, but other social issues such as the sexual revolution were starting to arrive.

The lefty "progressives" are having a field day with the fact that Mary Cheney--the lesbian daughter of the Vice President--is going to have a child with her partner. The major question is why would they get so worked up about it?

Probably for the same reason that John Kerry and John Edwards thought it was damaging enough to the VP to bring it up during their debate thinking the "Christian Conservatives" would stay home once they realized that his daughter was GAY! Despicable behavior for anyone, but especially two men running for high office.

What the left fails to realize is that most Republicans and secular Conservatives couldn't care less. I for one am happy that Lynne and Dick Cheney will be Grandparents and I'm sure they feel the same.

How did we get here? Here are a few thoughts...

Senator George Allen threw one mudball too many when he tried to portray Jim Webb as a pervert based on novels that he had written. At the time, Allen was ahead in the polls.

Pennsylvania voters answer a question that I raised during the campaign: Senator Santorum had become one of the meanest senators around. My quesion was "Senator, have you no sense of decency?" Santorum was soundly defeated.

The Nancy Pelosi Rally is still going. The market went up again yesterday, though looks to be mixed today. There were those who were predicting on Monday that if the Democrats took control of both houses, the stock market would drop. Larry Kudlow of CNBC claimed the market wanted Republican rule. Not for the short-term, anyway.

The Bradley Effect died on November 7, 2007 with the election of Deval Patrick. He more than 20% of the votes and it was in line with all polls.

The Washington Redskins tradition that has endured since 1936 ended this election. Ever since 1936, whenever the Redskins won, the party in power stayed in power.

Jennifer Gratz fought and won in the U. S. Supreme Court. She then went to the people and changed the Michigan constitution. The fight was over affirmative action in the Michigan Colleges. It is time to acknowledge that we are all equal. Deval Patrick proved that on Tuesday.

We had a number of controversial propositions on our ballot this election cycle. Californians are known to love governing by proposition.

We voted down parental notification for teenage abortions (again). We voted down the huge tax increase on tobacco. We voted down the alternative energy fuel tax (my opinion: good idea, bad way to do it). Unfortunately, we also voted against restrictions on eminent domain. I guess it was just too easy to check that "no" box.

There were other propositions with varying results, but these were the big ones. Not to worry -- there are probably people already collecting signatures for the next batch of propositions for the next ballot!

Ballot questions requiring parental notification before a minor gets an abortion went down in California and Oregon.

An initiative asking whether English is the official language of Areizona passed.

Legalization of marijuana initiatives failed in Colorado and Nevada.

Same sex\marriages were banned in Tennesee, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Virginia. Arizona is a toss-up. A domestic partnership initiative in Colorado also went down.

The stem cell question in Missouri, which was the topic of many stories in the wake of the Michael J. Fox commercial, passed.

It's an interesting view into the social thinking of Americans.

Update: The affirmative action initiative allowing preferences at state institutions was defeated.

The country decided the fate of the congress. But in Arizona we were also asked to decide on a number of ballot initiatives. As a matter of fact I was told that Arizona has among the most propositions of any state.

Many Republicans and Democrats told me that our propositions were confusing or annoying. Some of them (201 and 206, the smoking ones ) were so closely related that you had to use a microscope to see the difference. Others were just plain silly. Proposition 200 for example would have awarded a voter with one million dollars. Thank God voters decided against it. Even so Democrats won here in Arizona at some issues the local voter was pretty conservative. For example Arizona voters said yes to Protect Marriage Arizona which surprised me. Now marriage will be defined in our constitution as a marriage between one man and one women.

Bottom line there are to many propositions to name and to describe. I wonder if the average voter could keep track of them. I know that I found it definitely to time confusing to research all of them. I do know a lot of people who would like the voting experience like a Bank drive- through. This year was the year of all propositions and definitely to time consuming. What do you think? Did we had to many ballot Issues?

Abortion opponents took a big hit in South Dakota, where they'd hoped to pass a sweeping law banning the procedure. The ballot measure was seen as the first step in a march to overturn Roe v. Wade. But it was not to be. The proposal failed, 55 to 45 percent, and the pro-choice movement sees it as emblematic of a larger national trend:

"This means that there has been a rebellion against social, right-wing wedge politics that have been dominating this country," said Sarah Stoesz, chief of Planned Parenthood's operations in the Dakotas and Minnesota, key backers of the campaign to kill the measure.

"It is a very important victory for people who are open-minded and progressive in this country."

Supporters of the ban declined to comment at all tonight, no doubt licking their wounds and gearing up for a new fight.

I was writing a post similar to David's when he posted. The numbers he supplies are astounding but not completely unexpected.

The reason Evangelicals--or more specifically Conservative Christians--didn't support the GOP with their usual vigor was because Republicans ran scared and not as conservatives. It's a tightrope walk when running in states that don't have a strong conservative base and the candidates in those states have to take stands that the Christian Conservatives can't support.

The Christian vote is overrated in my opinion, but perhaps the election autopsy will prove me wrong.