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 ...
which must be why dims are so fond of this idea
One it's not clear to me that Gore won the popular vote in 00 and, two, Kerry lost the popular vote very badly.
So what happens when the nationwide popular vote is only separated by a few thousand votes, then you have to recount every single ballot in the whole county, as opposed to only recounting the ballots in one state.
A blatant attempt to subvert the voices of the red states, because, as we all know, the smart people live in the blue states. (Do I really need a sarc. tag?)
they can't figure out punching holes in chads. why would they understand this either?
If you ever have a need to find a stupid poitician one place to start looking is the California legislature.
This move would actually benefit the GOP far more than the Democrats. It effectively puts California into play with a high probability of going red, whereas right now it's a sure-bet blue state.
And you cannot assume that if the electorate knew that the election was based on the popular vote, that Gore would have won it anyway. How many people didn't bother to vote precisely because they knew which way their state was going to go even before the election. How many Texans stayed home because they knew Bush would take the state, that otherwise would have voted for him, had it been a popular vote?
Picking away at the basis of the country. One little thing here, one little thing there.
Not to mention a glaring ignorance of American History (though again, no surprise there).
The President REPRESENTS THE STATES not the people! It is normal that he be elected by the number and weight of each state.
People don't elect the President, States do . . . .
We must remind California Democrats that their vote for President means NOTHING!
You're kidding...
"When you're in first grade, if you have to eat your vegetables before you get the ice cream, the kids would recognize that this is not a fair system,".
Doesn't seem likely to me. A more interesting proposal would be to have all but two of the electoral votes for each state determined by congressional districts, with the remaining two cast as the individual state legislatures opt to define. It would also be likely to reduce the need for recounts to merely a few districts instead of whole states. Such a proposal would probably benefit at least 38 states, and would thus stand a much greater chance of passage than California's proposal.
Doesn't the Electoral College system help ensure that the President represents the whole country? If the voters in a few heavily populated states could determine the outcome (because they would determine the popular vote) wouldn't Presidential candidates pander to urbanized areas and ignore rural states?
Agreed. Yours was a thoughtfully worded post, and as such entitles you to bash where bashing is due...the commies who happen to be running them legislature right now.
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.