Posted on 05/31/2006 3:09:09 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
Six years after Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency to Republican George W. Bush, there's a new move afoot in the California Legislature and other states to ensure that such things never happen again.
The linchpin is a proposed "interstate compact," designed to guarantee that presidents will be selected by popular vote, without amending the U.S. Constitution or eliminating the electoral college.
Assemblyman Tom Umberg, a Santa Ana Democrat who chairs the Assembly Election and Redistricting Committee, said the basic premise is understandable even to children.
"When you're in first grade, if the person who got the second-most votes became class leader, the kids would recognize that this is not a fair system," he said.
Umberg's Assembly Bill 2948, proposing such a compact, passed the Assembly's elections and appropriations committees on party-line votes, with Republicans opposed.
"We have a system that's worked effectively for more than 200 years," said Sal Russo, a GOP political consultant. "We probably should be very hesitant to change that."
John Koza, an official of National Popular Vote, which is pushing the proposal, said sentiment has not split along party lines in other states.
"I don't think anyone can convincingly put their finger on any partisan advantage," said Koza, a consulting professor at Stanford University.
Though Republicans disproportionately benefited from the electoral college in 2000, when Bush edged Gore despite getting 544,000 fewer votes, Democrats nearly turned the tables four years later.
(Excerpt) Read more at contracostatimes.com ...
This is a national movement. The Dems just need to pick off a few key states. Depending on the state, it may be possible for the voters or state legislatures to elect to join the compact.
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A State-Based Plan For Electing The President By National Popular Vote
What happens if a Republican wins the popular vote, will the California courts find a reason to overturn it (like popularly passed propositions)?
I thought Texas was the only State that had that right?
Classically, doesn't the World Series consist of (up to) seven games?
Sorry. The last line of the above was a stray from the post I was replying to.
Why doesn't Dumberg just seek a federal constitutional amendment, instead of trying to jury-rig this unenforceable approach? I'm not so sure that abolishing the Electoral College wouldn't pass (2/3 in each chamber of Congress + ratification by legislatures of 3/4 of states) in a few years.
"The people have supported the direct election of the president for over fifty years. In this book Dr. Koza suggests a way for states to come together and make it happen. ... I strongly support and applaud any good-faith effort to make the direct election of the president a reality and commend to you the intriguing approach offered in the ‘Agreement Among States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote” described in this book.’ ”
—John Buchanan (R–Alabama) "
Why would anyone from Alabama be behind this. That just boggles my mind. Its like making Southern States and small states and rural areas not even a factor in electing the President. Incredible
It is a serious movement by people who believe in direct election of the President and elimination of the electoral college. Since they don't believe they have enough support to change the system by amending the Constitution, they have come up with this method to do an end run. It could work.
Read Article I, Section 10. This is unconstitutional unless Congress approves it.
Maine and Nebraska allocate their electoral votes differently, so anything is possible. It is up to each state.
Ah, now I get it, LOL.
One of the joys we can look forward to with this kind of "trend" is that instead of "counting chads" in 4 voting districts in the state of Florida, we can look forward to counting chads in 3-4,000 districts around the country to decide close elections. Oh, and you big states: get ready to lose your clout. If you Electoral Vote is going to be split "proportionally", why come to your state? Why funnel dollars to buy your state's loyalty? Politicians will figure out they can get better bang for their buck vying for votes in winner-take-all toss-ups like Ohio, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and even (do you believe it) New Jersey. After all, how many years can the citizens of NJ live with rampant corruption before they finally decide to throw the bums out?
The advocates of this system offer the following rejoinder on the constitutionality of this proposal
EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A State-Based Plan For Electing The President By National Popular Vote
I think the California Legislature has too much time on it's hands.
I was following the thread, but had to go back a re-read this part once again. Theoretically, this would mean that 100% of the population of one state could vote for Candidate A, but because Candidate B wins the popular vote nationwide, the electors would be forced to discard the state popular view in favor of the national popular view, and vote Candidate B.
So going back to this idiot's first grade premise, since when does a candidate that is unanimously elected in a state, by the population of the state, not win the state's electors? This is absolutely insane.
Ne'er a truer word spoken. The CA legislature is the most dangerous commie governmental body in the country - worse than the congressional black caucus, worse than the MA state supreme court.
See my post#116.
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.