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 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 281-293 next last
To: FreedomCalls

Or is it fair when one football team gains more yards and has fewer penalties, but scores fewer touchdowns and loses the game?


61 posted on 05/31/2006 3:47:00 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

I don't care what simple analagy they use, this is unconstitutional. If you want it changed there will have to be a constitutional amendment.


62 posted on 05/31/2006 3:47:22 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl
Art I Sec 10 - "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State . . . "

Has Congress consented to this Compact?

63 posted on 05/31/2006 3:48:01 PM PDT by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tomzz
One it's not clear to me that Gore won the popular vote in 00

I suspect Gore's team of DemocRats created thousands of fraudulent ballots for Gore. Florida state's election website published the vote count on line as they came in near real time. When about 90 - 92% of the total votes were received and counted by the Florida's election commission, the 4 largest counties release their votes to be counted, which at that time, Bush had a lead a little over 100,000 votes. It appeared that the D-rats, who ran the polling places, wanted to gauge how many more fraudulent votes that they had to manufacture to overcome Bush's lead.

It's no coincidence that Gore recounted those same counties.

For further indirect evidence that Bush easily won Florida in 2000, is by looking at the 2004 Bush's winning margin of 380,000+ votes... I haven't heard any plausible evidence that explains the difference in the Florida's vote count in just 4 years.

The Democrats haven't figured out how to cheat electronic voting yet. So for now, they'll demonize touch screen voting.

64 posted on 05/31/2006 3:48:01 PM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
Or is it fair when one football team gains more yards and has fewer penalties, but scores fewer touchdowns and loses the game?

Seahawks fans would definately answer 'no.'

65 posted on 05/31/2006 3:49:26 PM PDT by dfwgator (Florida Gators - 2006 NCAA Men's Basketball Champions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
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?

Good conclusion, but not a great argument. The big problem with the popular vote is that it would reward states that were willing to over-count their vote. If Rhode Island came up with 50 million votes for Hilary, then by golly we don't know how it happened, but she wins.

66 posted on 05/31/2006 3:49:52 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl
...without amending the U.S. Constitution ...

And there's the key to any and every democratic strategy.

America better wake the hell up to politics in the modern age. The name of the game is keep your opponents moves predictable by draconian interpretations of law while making your own moves unpredictable by ingnoring those precendents that restrict your ability to pursue your agenda.

See my tagline.

67 posted on 05/31/2006 3:49:54 PM PDT by papertyger (Evil preys on civility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl
"every year you live in california you lose two points off your i.q."
-truman capote
68 posted on 05/31/2006 3:50:12 PM PDT by JohnLongIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl
That is what they are hoping for...I think 2/3rds of the states need to pass the law...

No, this is a proposed compact between the states. It only has to be approved by each state. Each state has the right to allocate its electoral votes anyway it sees fit. The proposed compact can be entered into and withdrawn from by its member states.

"Besides California, legislation to create a compact was introduced this year in Colorado, Missouri, Illinois and Louisiana. Proponents are pushing to have similar bills in all 50 states next year."

This is an end run around the electoral college, which would require a constitutional amendment to change. This compact would give the bigger states more power to determine the outcome.

69 posted on 05/31/2006 3:50:25 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

This won't pass muster in front of the USSC, Imo.


70 posted on 05/31/2006 3:50:45 PM PDT by Pox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl
That is what they are hoping for...I think 2/3rds of the states need to pass the law....

Constitutional amendments need 3/4ths of the states. So they know that will never happen.

71 posted on 05/31/2006 3:51:19 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: don-o

Under a bill passed by the Assembly, California would join an interstate compact in which states would agree to cast their electoral votes not for the winner in their jurisdictions but for the winner nationwide. Proponents say that would force candidates to broaden their reach to major population centers such as California.

The bill is part of a 3-month-old movement driven by a Bay Area lawyer and a Stanford computer science professor. The same 888-word bill is pending in four other states and is expected to be introduced in every state by January, its sponsors say. The legislation would not take effect until enough states passed such laws to make up a majority of the Electoral College votes — a minimum of 13 states, depending on population.

"This is a bill that would allow California to be able to play a role in presidential elections," said Barry Fadem, the Lafayette, Calif., lawyer spearheading the drive. Now, because the state is largely ignored, he said, "A vote in California is not equal to a vote in Ohio, and everyone would concede that."


72 posted on 05/31/2006 3:51:24 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

It isnt an amendment...its an agreement with a bunch of other states to change their electoral vote rules.


73 posted on 05/31/2006 3:51:56 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl
With regard to national elections...this propopsal in California means bupkis.
That state's 55 Electoral votes almost always go to the Democrat candidate. California is hardly what one would call a "swing state".

Let them have their fun.

74 posted on 05/31/2006 3:52:21 PM PDT by Bloody Sam Roberts (I can't complain...but sometimes I still do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

What idiocy. The SCOTUS will bitch-slap this one. You cannot amend the Constitution in the state legislature.


75 posted on 05/31/2006 3:53:33 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lepton
Interesting points I hadn't thought of. Here in Canada, there's no separate election for the Prime Minister -- the PM is simply the leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament. When that's combined with the fact that we have 4 major parties in Parliament, the governing party seldom actually has a popular majority. We also have regional parties -- like the Bloc Quebecois -- which can have a lot of power in a minority government situation, like we now have.

Politicians will always try to game the system, regardless of what that system is.
76 posted on 05/31/2006 3:56:04 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl
A combination of crap and California whining.

Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:...

..... In 2004, California voters cast more than 10% of the total votes cast for President nationwide, and yet the state received just 2 visits by a Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate in the last month of the campaign. If the President were elected by a nationwide popular vote, Presidential candidates could not afford to ignore one-tenth of the electorate......."

In 2004, California was not in play, nor was it in '92, '96 and '00.

In fact considering the current voting block of Dumbocrats in the Bay area counties and Los Angeles county and the fact that California will solidly for now give Dumbocrats at least 1.1 million more votes than the Republican for President. Nothing is going to change. Dumbocrats won't visit because the state is a wrap and Republicans won't visit because it is a waste of resources.

All this bill does is what Dumbocrats do best, muddy the water.

77 posted on 05/31/2006 3:56:50 PM PDT by A message
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl
It's called the United States of America for a reason. The majority vote of all the people does not pick the President. The several states pick the President via the Electoral College. Communist totalitarians would like it to be otherwise so that they can rule over the other states from their population centers in the big cities. But the Constitution doesn't allow this, thank God.
78 posted on 05/31/2006 3:57:17 PM PDT by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A message

Trying pretty hard to even out the blue

79 posted on 05/31/2006 4:01:11 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Well said.......The very reason we have 3 separate branches of government is to ensure, as best as possible, a reliable means of government with checks and balances.

Further expounding on your statement: Can anyone believe these 'educated' elected officials actually believe this to be any more than "one state possessing sole power to amend the US Constitution."??

80 posted on 05/31/2006 4:01:19 PM PDT by RSmithOpt (Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 281-293 next 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