Posted on 05/31/2006 3:09:09 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
Yep, you're right. Actual stats in post #165.
You have heard of Bush v. Gore haven't you?
The Supreme Court would throw this out the door once it trys to infect a national election.
If the Republican gets the majority of the popular vote (as has usually happened since 1968), then California's 54 votes automatically swing to the Republican candidate under this proposed scheme. No need to campaign for them--just win enough votes, and they're yours.
Changing the rules after the game won't fly. The idea here is that whomever wins the popular vote, gets a majority of the electoral vote, per a pact that states with 270 electoral votes sign on to. For it to work though, Ohio or Florida needs to sign on. Absent that, states with 270 electoral votes won't be there.
The Electoral College is selected by means determined by the State legislature. Until as late as 1820's some States selected their electors without regard to the "popular" vote. The intent of the Founders was to give the States a voice in selecting the Chief Executive, who then was answerable to the States, not to the "people," who still don't really vote for President.
This was part of a system once known as "federalism."
Indeed. Most of redstate America would never lay eyes on a presidential candidate in the flesh.
True, and this "Compact" would be just one 'rat-controlled Congress away from activation.
Let's also not forget that even if found Constitutional (something I strongly doubt), it would only remain in effect until the first time it gave an "incorrect" result (that is, a GOP victory where otherwise we would have lost). After that, every state involved would repeal it at the soonest opportunity.
Article I, section 10 prohibition of compacts between the states issue notwithstanding, there's nothing that would prohibit the State's from independently assuming such course of action.
Nevertheless, I'd find it extremely amusing if for some reason, say on account of bad weather, or an earthquake, or wildfire, or mudslides, or some atypical KaliforNiah phenomenon occurs and voter turnout is very poor. Despite the Democratic candidate winning the popular vote in KaliforNiah, most of the rest of the country has a fairly strong turnout (especially all the red states who decisively cast the popular vote for the Republican candidate). The net result is that the Republican candidate wins the popular vote by one vote. And as a result, and due to blue State legislation enacted, these blue states (despite all of them having cast the majority of popular votes for the Democratic candidate) are now compelled by the respective State election laws to cast all of their Electoral College votes for the very candidate that lost by popular vote in the various blue states.
I would find that extremely amusing.
It's very late here and I haven't taken time to read through all of the thread. If some poster can or has already explained why I'm wrong I will check through the thread tomorrow and read it.
"If the deal is broken, should the states be free to leave the union?"
Thats the thing, the deal is NOT broken...
Except in principle.
And this is where the civil war begins. Liberals like to exploit the benefit of the doubt. If the movement can claim that they indeed have not broken the electoral college compromise (which very few people know about, nor will recognize if it militates against their political interests) then they will exploit the benefit of that ignorance and doubt.
But first it will end up in the supreme court as an 'in principle' constitutional violation.
These events are all interconnected, illegal socialists crossing our borders in droves, the disembowelment of our electoral college, illegals soon being given every American right, its sick. The plan is probably since the illegals are more concentrated in the southwest, to use their superior numbers against us without having to take over each state to form a Mob rule tyranny. I will deposit the tinfoil in a undisclosed location after I am done.
This is a bad analogy.
I'd explain that voting for Class Leader is like states voting for their senators. You can also break the class into rows and have each row vote for a representative.
Now, if you told the class that each class would vote for the School Leader, and the School leader would be the person who won the vote in the most classes, would they be able to understand that?
-PJ
That's close, but that's really not addressing the Electoral College. You'd have to explain that the class would be voting for School Leader, but each class is divided into groups of boys, girls, teacher, blacks, whites, ethnic groups and each group gets to vote for School Leader. In this analogy its clear that several groups are voting several times, but that's besides the point. The point is that some classes will have more groups than other classes and is akin to some States having more people than other States. Now its pointed out that the music teacher, who has no students in class during the election, is guaranteed three votes (the teacher's vote, and a vote for boys, and girls), so does the principle, and the janitor, and a bunch of other individuals. This points out that even the least populated States have some say so in the election (compared to the classes with a large number of groups).
Then explain to the children that a smart student could campaign to all the individual teachers, and the hall monitors, the lunch ladies, principle, etc., or choose only to compaign to one or two classes with a large number of groups.
I bet the kids would get it.
Then I'd add that teachers don't get to vote, nor the custodians, nor the cafeteria workers, but some of them might vote anyway because some teachers want a favorite student to win or want an unpopular student to lose and so they will look the other way when non-students vote, because since you are a lowly student what can you really do about it, anyway?
-PJ
AB 2948 would commit California to a compact in which each participating state would cast all its electoral votes for the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide."
GUYS THIS IS AWESOME ... dont you get it?
Nobody will EVER waste time campaigning in Cali again!!
No point to it, might as well advertize nationally.
In 2004, under this plan, Cali would have gone to BUSH, and the whining about OHIO being a swing state, etc. -- irrelevent.
Since it's lunacy for any smaller state to follow Cali's lead... Cali will remain a sore thumb on this and will take itself out of the running for electoral politics.
Fine by me.
I like the idea about having the lunch ladies, and the hall monitors and janitors, and especially the gymn teacher trying to vote though. You could say that only students of the school could vote (all the studens could get laminated ID cards, and the cards need to verified against the list of students). But then these other people could show up with little shreds of paper, with "Skrool ID" scrawled on it in crayon (like some kindergartner may do), or have the principle show up and have a realy nice card laminated card, but it says she's in second grade and is only 4 years old. Now point out that these people are what are called illegal aliens and have a right to vote (just like everybody else). Also, I'd just for poops and grins, make sure I slipped into the voting logs, some student names that don't even go to school there (nobody knows who they are), or have moved away. Point out that these are dead people voting. I'd also make sure that you poll some of the children about who they want to vote for, but promise them free chocolate milk at lunch-time if they vote for somebody else. You could point out that this is somthing else, you're not sure what, but its something.
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.