Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California devises end-run around electoral college (Passed!)
CoCoTimes ^ | 5/28/06 | Jim Sanders

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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: ab2948; callegislation; electionpresident; electoralcollege; popularvote
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 281-293 next last
To: Darkwolf377

Very astute observation.


121 posted on 05/31/2006 4:33:13 PM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here

Very good question. I should think the answer is yes. If the rats want another civil war, this is the way to do it. It's a deal-breaker.


122 posted on 05/31/2006 4:34:43 PM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

How many people went home, in Florida, because the networks called the election for Gore and said it was over when the Panhandle still had an hour to go?


123 posted on 05/31/2006 4:34:59 PM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

Yes.


124 posted on 05/31/2006 4:36:11 PM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Arizona Carolyn

Exactly, that is precisely the fallacy in saying that Gore "won" the Popular Vote. People's decisions were based on the rules that were in place at the time.


125 posted on 05/31/2006 4:37:41 PM PDT by dfwgator (Florida Gators - 2006 NCAA Men's Basketball Champions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65
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.

Not so insane. The states can award their electoral votes any way they want as long as its citizens agree to it. This is not something coming from a bunch of nuts. It is a very serious challenge to our electoral process supported by the NYT, Chicago Sun Times, Minneapolis Star Tribune, and others.

EVERY VOTE EQUAL: A State-Based Plan For Electing The President By National Popular Vote

126 posted on 05/31/2006 4:38:30 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: kabar

That doesn't address the problem. The fact that states can choose their own electors isn't in dispute. It's whether they can ENTER INTO A COMPACT that says they will choose electors in a certain way WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL, which the constitution requires for ANY interstate compact, per Article I, Section 10.


127 posted on 05/31/2006 4:39:03 PM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: groanup

True, yet you do not allow for evil intent...the dims for this popular vote are also against immigration reform, as well as against voter ID's...and they count on a dumbed down voter to not know why the Electoral College makes us a stronger union... the dims have a plan to subvert all that is good in america just to be in power...look at the elite in Mexico...yea that is the model we need


128 posted on 05/31/2006 4:39:40 PM PDT by Turborules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BeHoldAPaleHorse

No offense, but what have you been smoking? This is an obvious power grab just like the gang of fourteen pulled. If this catches on, there will be hell to pay. Small red states will have no voice at all, and rats will win every presidential election from here on out. When considering the proposal in connection with voter demographics, it would completely undermine electoral choice.


129 posted on 05/31/2006 4:40:09 PM PDT by Jezebelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

But... if they are in power and can impeach the President and Vice President -- WHO is president then?-- ding, ding -- Nancy Pelosi!


130 posted on 05/31/2006 4:40:24 PM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Guaranteed.....only a Clinton could have come up with this idea.....


131 posted on 05/31/2006 4:41:29 PM PDT by cincinnati65 (Lucky participant in 189 different Nigerian business deals......still waiting on payment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl
If California really wants the presidential candidates to spend more time there then they should give up this stupid idea and allow their electoral votes to be split like Nebraska. By the way if Nebraska (3 electoral votes) really wanted to be more relevant they would not allow their electoral votes to be split.
132 posted on 05/31/2006 4:43:46 PM PDT by Liberal_in_Austin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demlosers

What they are pushing is for vote by mail. This allows them to call people and tell them who to vote for. Just fill it in and give it to your mailman. I believe WA state has already started it.


133 posted on 05/31/2006 4:46:46 PM PDT by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: kabar
very interesting...

They don't address whether it is a federal civil right to have one's electors appointed if they win.

I can't see how the Civil Rights Acts could be met with any other construction, but judges are nothing if not creative.

134 posted on 05/31/2006 4:49:32 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
One it's not clear to me that Gore won the popular vote in 00 and, two, Kerry lost the popular vote very badly.

I don't believe that Gore won the "legal", "citzens only" popular vote in 2000. You toss out the couple million or so illegally cast votes of illegal-aliens and non-citizens, then Bush wins the popular vote by about a million to a million and a half votes!!! We can thank the Motor-Voter law of 1993 (or 1994) for making it easy for illegal-aliens and non-citizens to register and vote in our elections.

135 posted on 05/31/2006 4:51:20 PM PDT by AmericaOne (Borders, Language and Culture - You Don't Have These, You Don't Have A Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The States are supposed to be guaranteed a republican form of government. Looks like a deal-breaker to me.

It'll be cool when small red states refuse to sell food to the overpopulated liberal blue states. ;)

136 posted on 05/31/2006 4:52:53 PM PDT by meyer (A vote for amnesty is a vote against America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: monkeyshine

Our CITY has already started it -- we just had a recall and another important vote -- both by mail-in ballot, got a whopping 51% returned... people are even too lazy to fill it out, sign it and mail it back.


137 posted on 05/31/2006 4:53:56 PM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
Check out this especially section 5.12
138 posted on 05/31/2006 4:54:04 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl
"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.

Yeah well we don't let first graders vote in Presidential elections for just that reason -- they lack discernment.

139 posted on 05/31/2006 4:54:19 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl; All

I thought FEDERAL elections were just that - FEDERAL. How can a state change federal election laws ..??

This has me baffled.


140 posted on 05/31/2006 5:00:01 PM PDT by CyberAnt (Drive-by Media: Fake news, fake documents, fake polls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 281-293 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson