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 ...
-PJ
Exactly right...
Throw in: 1) special before-school voting for "subsidized breakfast" students, 2) Saturday voting, we'll send a bus to pick you up, 3) Varsity, Band , and Cheerleaders vote on Tuesday; Math Club, Science Club, and Chess Club vote on Wednesday, and the situation becomes really clear.
-PJ
Gore had a clear-cut popular vote win in 2000. Certainly not a landslide, certainly not as decisive as W’s win in 2004, but Gore did win the popular vote.
I’m super serial!
Yeah if they think they're going to have success going after Bush, they'll be going after Cheney twice as hard. Remember how we ended up with Gerald Ford (he's ok) but more importantly Nelson Rockefeller as VP. And of course Jimmy Carter in a big hurry thereafter.
If the real intent was to make California relevant again, the simple solution would be for California to allocate electors the same way as Maine and Nebraska do-- two for the winner of the state, one for the winner of each congressional district.
While this method would hurt the DEMS in the short run by lessening the impact of multiple votes and other shenanigans in cesspools of corruption like San Francisco, Chicago or Philadelphia, it would enhance their chances in the long run by forcing them to run more moderate candidates with broader appeal.
We have enough tyranny from these people as it is.
Oh, no, a state can NEVER leave the Union. No matter if the Union lied or the SCOTUS simply changes the meaning of the Constitution, it's a contract that binds on you and your children, unlike any other contract you can sign, and doesn't bind the Federal Government to squat, unlike any other contract IT can sign. The Founders signed the lives of their progeny away, you see.
Oh, this can't be right. Non Sequitur told me interstate compacts aren't allowed.
'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.'
How exactly did they turn the tables? By managing to lose the election again which the Dems did? The Dem legislature in CA is as stupid as it goes, it may not pass the senate and Arnold would most likely veto it.
In a Gramscian move calling our Republic a Democracy and convincing people that they're the same thing was the beginning of things. There is no "semantics" in the non-violent political overthrow of a government, which is exactly what has been happening for years.
As long as nobody in the public eye recognizes the Republic that we are things won't change.
Who is Antonio Gramsci? You Better Learn!!!
Why There Is A Culture War
Gramsci and Tocqueville in America
Power, in Gramsci’s observation, is exercised by privileged groups or classes in two ways: through domination, force, or coercion; and through something called "hegemony," which means the ideological supremacy of a system of values that supports the class or group interests of the predominant classes or groups. Subordinate groups, he argued, are influenced to internalize the value systems and world views of the privileged groups and, thus, to consent to their own marginalization.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 3: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State..."
You might want to actually try reading the Constitution sometime. There are no pictures, but I'll be glad to help you with all the big words.
And if YOU read the article above, you might note that these states ARE entering into a compact, and Congress isn't involved. Oh, no, it's unConstitutional! So is the notion of excluding jury rights in suits at common law where the value in controversy is over twenty dollars, but then, you'd never know that from the U.S. Supreme Court, either. Thank goodness we have you around to kiss their 'interpreting-a-living-document-might-makes-right' fannies.
It was, and has been for many decades, a 7 game series
It does look like he laid out the whole game plan of the western left. The distinction between democracy and republic isn't something we think about a lot in Canada -- now I see why it matters.
Exactly. For my vote to count now, I only have to ensure there is no massive vote fraud in my own state. But if this compact goes through, dead people in Chicago will be cancelling out my vote. Who needs that?
Besides, I still say that the State Legislatures of Massachusetts, New York and California are going to abrogate this agreement the first time they are forced to cast a vote for a Republican. Such a move would be wildly popular with their constituents. They can see on which side their bread is buttered.
THIS:
How is the electoral college any different from the best-of-seven championship games in major leage baseball, basketball or hockey? Why don't we simply add the scores of each game? Is it fair that a team that scores more points in the tournament still loses the series because they happened to lose more games?
There's another big leftist fallacy here. Leftists think you can raise taxes on the rich or on the corporations or some other evil type, but these groups won't alter their behaviour because of the tax. They obviously think the same for the electoral college. Go back to the election of 2000. Do you think that if it had been a popular vote winner-take-all system, that both Bush and Gore might not have altered their campaign strategies? Ad purchases would have been VERY different, appearances, get out the vote efforts, etc.
Actually I did read it. Especially the part where the idea has been proposed. Not enacted, not voted on, just proposed. And if they try to place their proposal into action, especially where other states are involved, then they'll need Congressional approval before it can be enacted. Just like the Constitution says. Or hadn't you made it that far?
Unconstitutional.
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.