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 ...
LOL - sorry about the ping, I searched to see if you had weighed in on this thread but didn't see any replies.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
I think the courts call things like that a sham. At least they do when ID is involved. :-}
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.
I agree.
Case law says reciprocal legislation is a compact. See the link I posted.
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.
Ping for later read.
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.