Trying pretty hard to even out the blue
Posted on 05/31/2006 3:09:09 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
Or is it fair when one football team gains more yards and has fewer penalties, but scores fewer touchdowns and loses the game?
I don't care what simple analagy they use, this is unconstitutional. If you want it changed there will have to be a constitutional amendment.
Has Congress consented to this Compact?
I suspect Gore's team of DemocRats created thousands of fraudulent ballots for Gore. Florida state's election website published the vote count on line as they came in near real time. When about 90 - 92% of the total votes were received and counted by the Florida's election commission, the 4 largest counties release their votes to be counted, which at that time, Bush had a lead a little over 100,000 votes. It appeared that the D-rats, who ran the polling places, wanted to gauge how many more fraudulent votes that they had to manufacture to overcome Bush's lead.
It's no coincidence that Gore recounted those same counties.
For further indirect evidence that Bush easily won Florida in 2000, is by looking at the 2004 Bush's winning margin of 380,000+ votes... I haven't heard any plausible evidence that explains the difference in the Florida's vote count in just 4 years.
The Democrats haven't figured out how to cheat electronic voting yet. So for now, they'll demonize touch screen voting.
Seahawks fans would definately answer 'no.'
Good conclusion, but not a great argument. The big problem with the popular vote is that it would reward states that were willing to over-count their vote. If Rhode Island came up with 50 million votes for Hilary, then by golly we don't know how it happened, but she wins.
And there's the key to any and every democratic strategy.
America better wake the hell up to politics in the modern age. The name of the game is keep your opponents moves predictable by draconian interpretations of law while making your own moves unpredictable by ingnoring those precendents that restrict your ability to pursue your agenda.
See my tagline.
No, this is a proposed compact between the states. It only has to be approved by each state. Each state has the right to allocate its electoral votes anyway it sees fit. The proposed compact can be entered into and withdrawn from by its member states.
"Besides California, legislation to create a compact was introduced this year in Colorado, Missouri, Illinois and Louisiana. Proponents are pushing to have similar bills in all 50 states next year."
This is an end run around the electoral college, which would require a constitutional amendment to change. This compact would give the bigger states more power to determine the outcome.
This won't pass muster in front of the USSC, Imo.
Constitutional amendments need 3/4ths of the states. So they know that will never happen.
Under a bill passed by the Assembly, California would join an interstate compact in which states would agree to cast their electoral votes not for the winner in their jurisdictions but for the winner nationwide. Proponents say that would force candidates to broaden their reach to major population centers such as California.
The bill is part of a 3-month-old movement driven by a Bay Area lawyer and a Stanford computer science professor. The same 888-word bill is pending in four other states and is expected to be introduced in every state by January, its sponsors say. The legislation would not take effect until enough states passed such laws to make up a majority of the Electoral College votes — a minimum of 13 states, depending on population.
"This is a bill that would allow California to be able to play a role in presidential elections," said Barry Fadem, the Lafayette, Calif., lawyer spearheading the drive. Now, because the state is largely ignored, he said, "A vote in California is not equal to a vote in Ohio, and everyone would concede that."
It isnt an amendment...its an agreement with a bunch of other states to change their electoral vote rules.
Let them have their fun.
What idiocy. The SCOTUS will bitch-slap this one. You cannot amend the Constitution in the state legislature.
Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:...
..... In 2004, California voters cast more than 10% of the total votes cast for President nationwide, and yet the state received just 2 visits by a Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate in the last month of the campaign. If the President were elected by a nationwide popular vote, Presidential candidates could not afford to ignore one-tenth of the electorate......."
In 2004, California was not in play, nor was it in '92, '96 and '00.
In fact considering the current voting block of Dumbocrats in the Bay area counties and Los Angeles county and the fact that California will solidly for now give Dumbocrats at least 1.1 million more votes than the Republican for President. Nothing is going to change. Dumbocrats won't visit because the state is a wrap and Republicans won't visit because it is a waste of resources.
All this bill does is what Dumbocrats do best, muddy the water.
Trying pretty hard to even out the blue
Further expounding on your statement: Can anyone believe these 'educated' elected officials actually believe this to be any more than "one state possessing sole power to amend the US Constitution."??
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.