Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California devises end-run around electoral college (Passed!)
CoCoTimes ^ | 5/28/06 | Jim Sanders

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 ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: ab2948; callegislation; electionpresident; electoralcollege; popularvote
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-293 last
To: JeffAtlanta

LOL - sorry about the ping, I searched to see if you had weighed in on this thread but didn't see any replies.


281 posted on 06/02/2006 5:05:41 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
It does not matter how many states pass such a law, to the extent that it affects the power of non-cooperating states in the selection of the President, it is an unconstitutional confederation (Article I, section 10).

Couldn't California and other states just put in their state law that it won't take effect until a certain number of other states do as well?

This wouldn't be a contract, compact or confederation as agreements with other states would be not be necessary.

282 posted on 06/02/2006 5:11:47 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Mark was here

A very interesting question. You are right it would be a broken promise, not that that has ever stopped politicians from doing what they want.


283 posted on 06/02/2006 5:22:01 PM PDT by pepperdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
My views are up above Jeff. The states can do whatever they want in apportioning electoral votes. What they can not do is enter into a compact with other states concerning federal elections absent congressional approval.

Article 1, Section 10 directly addresses compacts and SCOTUS case law would seem to agree that in matters of import to the republic Congress gets a veto on these kinds of compacts. Other compacts, a notable example being a bridge joining two states, have seen SCOTUS hold that the states do not need congressional approval.

So from a constitutional point of view it's pretty clear that the original intent was to give Congress the power to approve or disapprove such compacts when they are of sufficient import to the Republic.

284 posted on 06/02/2006 5:30:48 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: GSWarrior
"Either these politicians are completely ignorant, or they are banking that the voters are."

I don't see why this is necessarily an 'either/or' proposition:-)
285 posted on 06/02/2006 5:36:29 PM PDT by RedStateRocker (Nuke Mecca, deport all illegals, abolish the IRS, ATF and DEA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
The states can do whatever they want in apportioning electoral votes. What they can not do is enter into a compact with other states concerning federal elections absent congressional approval.

Do you feel that a system where California does not into a compact but rather just makes the implementation contingent on other states switching to the new system would pass constitutional muster?

California's law could just say something like "this law will not go into effect until a number of states representing the majority of electoral votes enact the same system".

286 posted on 06/02/2006 5:39:53 PM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Not sure where we disagree. Presumably, this Congress will not approve this Compact. The compactees(play on words) will then go the courts. The SCOTUS, as currently constituted, will reject their argument and the Compact will be null and void. If the states go forward with the compact, that will be unlawful.


287 posted on 06/02/2006 5:41:38 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

I think the courts call things like that a sham. At least they do when ID is involved. :-}


288 posted on 06/02/2006 5:42:39 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl
"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.

A very dishonest analogy. The person who gets the most votes wins the state's electoral votes, not the person who won the second most.

289 posted on 06/02/2006 5:58:28 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

I agree.


290 posted on 06/02/2006 8:03:50 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor (...and I'll have the roast duck with mango salsa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
Couldn't California and other states just put in their state law that it won't take effect until a certain number of other states do as well?

Case law says reciprocal legislation is a compact. See the link I posted.

291 posted on 06/02/2006 8:07:17 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor (...and I'll have the roast duck with mango salsa.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Think again. If Congress doesn't sign off on the compact, the compact is unlawful.

Then it's void. Neither you nor anyone else has shown any provision under which Congress can dictate to the states how they may allocate electoral votes. Calling it a compact is mere rhetoric. If a large number of states go along, the effect is the same, whether it's a binding compact or not.

292 posted on 06/02/2006 10:24:51 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: CSM

Ping for later read.


293 posted on 06/05/2006 4:52:01 AM PDT by CSM ("Most men's inappropriate thoughts end as soon as the girl talks..." - Dinsdale, 5/30/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-293 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson