Their strategy is coming into clearer focus.
Democrats Recruiting at Illegal Immigrant Protests
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 whole mail-in ballot thing, here, was brought about by Rick Murphy who owns several local radio stations and ran against Trent Franks in 2004.
Yeah, when I read that I was just thinking, "imagine the screaming from California's liberals the first time that all of California's electoral votes get thrown to a *Republican* even though the majority of Californians voted for the *Democrat*...
Assume for a moment that the school is electing a student council and that there just happens to be ten percent more first-graders than any other grade. Pure democracy might then result in a student council for the school made up entirely of first-graders.
Even first-graders would realize that such "pure democracy" can work against the protection of minorities. I can't say the same for the morons in Sacramento.
True. It should be noted, though, that the compact will have no effect in states where the majority of people voted for the national popular-vote winner. It would only have meaningful effect in states where a majority of people voted for the other candidate. And in that case, the message would be that "We don't care who the people in our state want for President--we want to let other states elect the President."
Indeed, viewed from that perspective, it would seem questionable whether such a compact violates the requirements that states have a republican form of government.
Total effing hypocrites. Liars. Frauds.
And that, in and of itself, would be a good reason to oppose it. Basically, the compact says that in the event the popular and electoral vote winners are not the same, the election will be decided by the Supreme Court. Can any reasonable person think that's a good idea? Bush already gets chided for being "selected not elected" despite the absense of any basis for Gore to be declared the winner. Having the Supreme Court have to decide an unclear case would likely cause civil war.
A compact is not synonymous with a contract. There was a little dust-up over the difference in the terms from 1861 to 1865 (actually, from about 1820 to 1865, but there was only blood shed in the last part). You might have heard of it; it made all the papers.
But even if your definitions are unchallenged, the most that means is that this so-called compact isn't one. That doesn't change the fact that neither Congress nor SCOTUS has any power to void any individual state action in the matter. They can declare it non-binding, but they can't strike it down.
Does this mean big cities (with the most people) will pick the President for the entire country? I guess people who live in small towns and rural areas are not going to be as significant as those living in big cities.
In other words, allowing ballot envelopes go through the hands of many unsupervised people, any of whom can check party registration records and "lose" ballots belonging to the opposing party?
Or making it easier for people to vote dozens of times without risking being seen at polling places more than once?
Or encouraging people to vote early but irrevocably, thereby giving politicians a free pass to do whatever they want in the run-up to the election without fear of reprisals?
Or do they means something else?
Their strategy is coming into clearer focus.
More accurately, where a majority of people voted for any other candidate. It's overwhelmingly likely to be the "other" major-party candidate, since no third-party candidate has carried a state since 1968.
That's a pretty interesting argument. If enough states signed on, you could have a decent argument that states that belonged to the compact and whose voters opted for the losing candidate effectively didn't have their votes counted at all. That could be challenged on one person, one vote grounds, or under equal protection. But it would be difficult for SCOTUS or Congress to use that kind of argument to overcome the basic fact of states' power to allocate their own electors.
"And in that case, the message would be that "We don't care who the people in our state want for President--we want to let other states elect the President."
Absent a specific constitutional prohibition, the state's representatives, provided that they were duly and fairly elected, are empowered to make that call. Whether it's the statewide vote, the national vote, or the pick of the tic-tac-toe playing chicken at the county fair. If the voters don't like it, they can elect people to change it. Democracy only guarantees the people's choice, not the smart choice.
Indeed, viewed from that perspective, it would seem questionable whether such a compact violates the requirements that states have a republican form of government.
On what grounds? Unless there was force or fraud, the candidates were duly elected, and the voters had the opportunity to revisit their decision every other year, at least. Anything the government does, another slate of candidates can undo. Something doesn't become undemocratic or unrepublican because you disagree.
I suspect it will be challenged well before the election takes place.
All sorts of shenanigans.
bfl
This will never pass the Constitutional challenge.
This country is NOT a direct democracy!!!
There will still be an electoral college. It is just how states mandate electors will vote.
You sure it wasn't 4 games to 3?
Very insightful post. A lot of food for thought.
I just did some more thinking. Suppose Mr. Popular wins the national popular vote, but Mr. California wins the California vote. The intention of this legislation is that Mr. Popular should win the national election, and thus it would seem that California should want to cast its electors for Mr. Popular regardless of how many or how few states adopt similar policies.
Why, then, cast things in terms of a "pact" which must be signed onto by enough states to swing the election before taking effect?
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.