California devises end-run around electoral college (Passed!)

CoCoTimes ^ | 5/28/06 | Jim Sanders

[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.

[Don_Ret_USAF]

Here in Colorado. After Gore lost. The Dem tried to push a bill throgh that would have split the electoral vote where the popular candidate would get 6 of the electoral and the loser 5 votes. It was SLAPPED DOWN BIG TIME.
The electroal college must stand as it is. As it is a check against heavy populated states. I would not vote in agreement to any change in the electoral college period.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Read the link there from kabar like he says look at 5.12.

[Seadog Bytes]

...ping to #1 ...and here is a little more from Google...

 

Washington Times

Republicans say Dems Electoral College reform bill wrong approach One Bakersfield Online,  United States - 10 hours ago ... Assembly Bill 2948, by Assemblyman Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana, ratifies an interstate agreement to cast California’s electoral votes for the presidential ... California Assembly Passes National Popular Vote Plan OpEdNews Bill to Bolster Election Clout Gains Los Angeles Times Electoral change gets a boost Los Angeles Daily News Monsters and Critics.com - Daily Breeze - all 38 related »

California devises end-run around electoral college
Contra Costa Times, CA - May 28, 2006
... Umberg's Assembly Bill 2948, proposing such a compact, passed the Assembly's elections and appropriations committees on party-line votes, with Republicans ...

In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 7 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.

New! Get the latest news on Assembly Bill 2948 with Google Alerts.

 

[ReignOfError]

Read Article I, Section 10. This is unconstitutional unless Congress approves it.

Congress doesn't have the power to dictate to the states how they may exercise their constitutional powers, including divvying up electoral votes. Such a compact among states would be illegal -- in the sense that it cannot be legally binding on any of the states that voluntarily enter into it -- unless Congress approves. But Congress lacks the power to void any individual state's actions under it.

Basically, the proposed "compact" amounts to an informal gentlemen's agreement that provides political cover to state legislatures because any state that goes it alone will be at a political disadvantage relative to others.

No one wants to be the one to go it alone, so they need the assurance that others will be right behind. It's not a binding compact anymore than the Contract with America was a binding contract. It's a political arrangement.

[FreedomCalls]

Corrected stats:

Game 1: New York 4, Pittsburgh 6
Game 2: New York 16, Pittsburgh 3
Game 3: New York 10, Pittsburgh 0
Game 4: New York 2, Pittsburgh 3
Game 5: New York 2, Pittsburgh 5
Game 6: New York 12, Pittsburgh 0
Game 1: New York 9, Pittsburgh 10

[kabar]

It may very well take the Supreme Court to make the final decision on this one. It is obvious that this group is lawyered up and the fact that state legislatures are voting on it indicate that there is a legal basis to their argument. As I stated previously, this is a serious effort and should be viewed as such.

[Smartass]

With the Democrats, murdering babies is number one.

 

[Smartass]

That does not apply to changing the electoral college?
Some dem politician read, blinked, and made his colleagues blink twice.
POOF, California law.

[KoRn]

"I would not vote in agreement to any change in the electoral college period."

I'm in total agreement. I was just wondering what they hope to accomplish by doing this. Sometimes they really prove how stupid they are I guess.

[nicmarlo]

They truly are an evil party.

[DakotaRed]

Just imagine their outrage if it is a Republican that wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college and he wins anyway.

The left always tries to have everything both ways, just so long as they win.

[monkeyshine]

More phone banks.

My problem with mail in ballots is the anonymity. I don't even like to fill in the Census form. When I vote, I want it to be private. Maybe that is why the response is (partially) low.

No elected government should know which people voted for them, and which voted for their opponent.

[monkeyshine]

What I mean by phone banks is that with mail voting candidates can canvass lots of home by phone, encouraging people to pick their candidate right there and mail it in. They can (and will) use scare tactics and other tactics over the phone to "get out the vote".

We have a 50(?) yard rule - no campaigning within X yards of a polling station. With phone banks calling people telling them how to fill out the application, it is a violation of that spirit.

[Smartass]

Any political party that condones the killing of over 50 million human fetuses, IS EVIL.   The Democrats are that party!   Imagine a Spotted Owl, or Turtle's eggs having priority over a human life. I can't.

 

[nicmarlo]

Imagine a Spotted Owl, or Turtle's eggs having priority over a human life.

I'd rather not; for me to imagine that, I'd have to be depraved. Yet I know that it's the truth.

[mrsmith]

I guess. The concept of a state throwing out it's vote results if people in other states votes differently... is extremely bizarre.

[jwalsh07]

Basically, the proposed "compact" amounts to an informal gentlemen's agreement that provides political cover to state legislatures because any state that goes it alone will be at a political disadvantage relative to others.

Not at all, a compact is a constitutional instrument that contractually obligates the parties. But Congress as constituted will never approve such a contract and the SCOTUS as currently constituted will agree with their power to do just that.

[jwalsh07]

No more bizarre than democrats lobbying to disenfranchise military votes in Florida.

[Tench_Coxe]

Well....anyone know the loophole that allows this not to stand if a Republican wins?

[supercat]

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.

And how would it be determined that such a thing had actually happened? What if, in a state that was party to the contract, it was challenged in court? Would the contract be in effect or not in effect in the other states?