John McCain will not take California.
John McCain could win the national popular vote.
The electorial votes from California could give John McCain the win in a state he didn't carry.
What would happen the Democrates gave John the election with move?
Posted on 08/14/2008 3:46:44 PM PDT by SmithL
California legislators have approved legislation to circumvent the Electoral College.
But the measure could face a veto from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The bill by Senator Carole Migden, a San Francisco Democrat, would ratify an interstate agreement in which states award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
That would avoid a repeat of the 2000 election, when George Bush won the presidency but not the popular vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
There would go my theory that McCain can’t win California. ;-)
I hope Arnold S. Kennedy vetoes...
It’s national popular vote. I don’t know about this though.
I disagree. If this becomes the norm, then the Democrats will be able to win national elections by stealing votes in Democrat dominated cities throughout the nation. There will be no necessity for them to steal votes in conservative states. The Electoral College is, among other things, an anti-fraud device.
That’s all well and good....until it elects a Republican over the wishes of California voters. Then what, Hmmmmm?
You will have taken the wishes of your voters and put them in the trash, AKA disenfranchisement I believe is the word....this is clearly unconstitutional on its face.
Typical California stupidity.
Bad and stupid plan. CA needs to leave it alone.
I have no objection but the idea sounds kind of absurd. Didn’t NJ do the same thing? If these states go Democrat but the Republican wins nationally, the majority of voters in these states essentially have their votes canceled out. Doesn’t sounds right even though it probably would benefit the Republican candidate. How ironic would it be if McCain wins the national popular vote and the presidency based on electoral votes from CA? In a case where if CA’s votes had gone to Obama he would have been elected, then we’ll see how popular this law is then! I suspect the Dems will be screaming bloody murder.
And we’d enjoy watching that!
I agree. Remember, we are not a democracy, we are a representative republic. There is a profound difference and why this country still exists.
Yup. Exactly why the Dems want to get rid of it. The sheeple are beginning to figure out that everything they do and stand for is a fraud.
B I N G O.
clinton never won the popular vote.
Two other problems with eliminating the Electoral College:
1) What happens if the popular vote is so close that a recount is required? State recounts are bad enough. Imagine a national one!
2) Urbanites win out over rural voters. If candidates forego electoral votes for the popular vote, then the most efficient way to do this is limit their campaigns to the big market urban areas. States like California have the laws we do because of the values (or lack thereof) of the people living in LA and SF. Do we want the entire country run on the values of those who live in NY, LA, SF, and Miami?
Even if you set aside Democrat voter fraud, elections would still focus completely on the populations centers, totally excluding the interests of those in flyover country.
Something I think the Founding Fathers understood long before our cities had grown to their present sizes.
and the argument then was (surprise, surprise) that the presidency wasn't decided on the basis of the popular vote, but by the EC. No PROBLEM then.
But when they lose, get rid of the EC! They've been pushing that for 8 years! And if they change it and still lose, they'll want to change it again. Make book on it.
I believe if they do that, it will be strongly challenged in court. And I would support that action with money, all the way to the SCOTUS.
Every obstacle to direct public rule filtered through Democrap lawyers is systematically ridiculed in the MSM.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
So it ain't gonna happen!
Clinton got a plurality of the popular vote each time, but never got over 50%. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992 and 8% in 1996.
Clinton carried a number of states with less than 50% of the popular vote within individual states. So he got all of their electoral votes. Which was fine with the Dems. then because it helped elect a Democrat.
Migden needs to sober up and fast.
States are free to apportion their electoral votes any way their legislature decides, so this is legal. But it seems to me self-defeating to say to the voters of your own state that their majority vote doesn’t count versus the alleged majority vote of the country as a whole. That makes state sovereignty a dead letter - just rename the place The United People of America, because the states as such will have no say in choosing the chief executive of the federal government.
exactly. when they lose, it was due to voter disenfranchisement. when they win, there is no voter disenfranchisment, intimidation, vote rigging, machine failures etc.
Migden should focus on revising dui and hit and run laws for her own benefit.
Great explanation. It wouldn't be long before the excesses of the 'urban' centers (mentioned above) would cause a second revolution, which was, I think, something the founders had in the back of their minds when drafting the constitution.
I don't think that even the sheeple are stupid enough, along with the Supreme Court would let this happen.
Our Country is on the edge of a precipice however IMO.
Staggering elitism. So the votes of ~Californians~ would no longer matter in California. Would the people of California really stand by while their votes were ignored?
...and they whine about ‘disenfranchising’. This effectively disenfranchises all the voters in the state and assigns the EC votes as a “me too!” along with whatever the rest of the country does. Don’t they think their votes should count?
It should be worth noting to these people that there IS NO official, certified “Popular vote” number. It’s an uncertain number compiled by journalists to approximate the total popular vote, but it is a legal fiction. There is no such number.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I’m all in favor of this... In California.
John McCain will not take California.
John McCain could win the national popular vote.
The electorial votes from California could give John McCain the win in a state he didn't carry.
What would happen the Democrates gave John the election with move?
I think the precipice started giving way 10 years ago.
“Their foresight was amazing.”
It truly is, nearly perfect.
It is only going to take one time that a republican takes the blue states electoral votes and you will see these laws quickly vanish. This might be the perfect year for it? :)
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. I assume this whole brouhaha stems from the 2000 election with gore winning the popular vote. For some reason I remember california going for gore. So even if they had this law, would this not have changed nothing? Or are in fact beginning to fear a turn around in voting patterns there in the near future?
We'd bleed a little blue in the red states, but we'd make out like bandits in the rural areas of blue states.
So if this would have been in effect in 2000, California would have taken its electoral votes that went to Gore, and given them instead to Gore, since he won the popular vote? And this would have prevented the controversy? What am I missing?
What more is there to say?
I would rather see the electors actually electing the President as the Founding Fathers intended, instead of the current “beauty contest”.
Arnie’s 2006 veto message:
http://gov.ca.gov/pdf/press/ab_2948_veto.pdf
To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 2948 without my signature.
I believe strongly in democracy and in honoring the will of the people. While this bill honors the will of the majority of people voting for the office of President of the United States across the country, it disregards the will of a majority of Californians.
I appreciate the intent of this measure to make California more relevant in the presidential campaign, but I cannot support doing it by giving all our electoral votes to the candidate that a majority of Californians did not support.
This is counter to the tradition of our great nation which honor states rights and the unique pride and identity of each state.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
I like your plan. It makes sense to me.
Why would we bother to vote? Carol Migden is truly insane - she’s the moron who ran traffic off the road and was finally run down and arrested by the CHP, going east on I-80 past Fairfield, while claiming she was trying to get to Marin and that she was off her meds. She’s off her meds, all right.
That is correct.For the California plan to be legal,the Constitution would need an amendment allowing it to do so.Otherwise, whoever won the state gets its electoral votes(now the electors are not bound to vote for who they are pledged to vote for,but that’s another story....)
Absolutely nothing.
The Rats like this "elect by mob" idea because, after all, they are head of the mob.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.