CA: Legislature sends popular vote bill to governor's desk

AP on Bakersfield Californian ^ | 8/30/06 | Robin Hindery - ap

[NormsRevenge]

The Legislature passed a bill Wednesday that would change the way California's 55 electoral votes are awarded during presidential elections, giving them to the winner of the national popular vote rather than the candidate who captured the state.

Supporters said the move will boost California's relevance in national elections, while Republicans called the bill a "backdoor" way of bypassing the Constitution.

The bill by Assemblyman Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana, would add California to a multistate agreement that is part of a national campaign started in February by National Popular Vote. The Los Altos-based nonprofit seeks to change the way the country picks a president.

It passed the Assembly on a largely party-line vote of 44-25 and goes to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has yet to take a position on the bill.

Even if the governor signs it, the bill will take effect only if states with a combined total of 270 electoral votes - the number now required to win the presidency - also agree to decide the election by popular vote. Similar legislation is pending in Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana and Missouri.

California is a key fundraising state for presidential candidates but often is absent from the general campaign itinerary because it is considered safely Democratic.

"Candidates don't come to California," said Assemblyman Rick Keene, R-Chico. "We are currently disenfranchised in the electoral process."

Keene was one of the few Republicans to voice support for the measure, saying it was a preferable alternative to the current system, which "simply doesn't work."

The bill's supporters say one of its effects will be to add California to the list of crucial stopover states by putting its high number of electoral votes behind the candidate who wins the popular vote. Such a move could put the left-leaning state in the Republican camp.

But many Republicans opposed the measure, saying it tries to circumvent the Constitution.

"This is a way of amending the Constitution through the backdoor," said Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine.

Critics also argued that even if presidential candidates did campaign more intensively in California, they likely would focus on heavily populated urban areas such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, at the expense of other parts of the state.

Supporters contend that the Electoral College, despite its long history, is not necessarily the best system. They say the bill is constitutional.

"The beauty of our Democratic system is that we can make changes," said Assemblyman David Jones, D-Sacramento.

"The founding fathers and the Constitution provide for just this sort of thing," Umberg added.

The popular vote movement is a reaction to the 2000 presidential contest, when Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency to George W. Bush, who won more Electoral College votes. Gore also won California that year.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

This also means that as a Republican, not voting even in a state that is solid Republican can make a difference.

[digger48]

they mention 2000, but in 2004, Bush would have then carried CA since he truly had the national majority.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

If you can't steal elections, rig 'em...

[Waco]

And if the leader in the Nat'l vote is GOP? Well it'll be recount, recount, recount, recount, etc. Kali will be able to demand a recount of a State's vote other than Kali? The Mayor of Chicago will oversee the recount? See? Yer getting smarter already.

[Honestfreedom]

Yup they are the biggest fools in history to do this. At this point California is guaranteed Democrat. Now even if Democrats win California they could lose the state if a Republican wins the national popular vote.

[JLS]

This is great. This would give the GOP a chance to win a state it has had little chance to win in recent years.

The loser of the popular vote winning the electoral vote happens what about once a century?

Also the posssibilities are:

1. Dims win CA, but GOP wins national popular vote and GOP gets CA electors.

2. Dims win CA and national popular vote and get CA electors.

3. GOP wins CA and national popular vote and get CA electors.

4. GOP wins CA, but Dims win national popular vote and Dims get CA electors.

Which of this is the least likely thing to happen?

This could be great for the GOP. BTW, did CA decide to proportionally allocate its electors? This could offset any loss of electoral votes by the GOP due to the CO change if they did.

[D-fendr]

This is harmful to the nation.

Just look at Canada.

[Charlemagne on the Fox]

Who is the biggest idiot in this article--the Republican who says the current system "just isn't working" or the writer who capitalizes "democratic" in the phrase "the beauty of our Democratic [sic] system . . ."?

[JLS]

This is harmful to the nation.

Just look at Canada.

I agree. My guess is that if this bill becomes law, the GOP would win the 2008 national vote and get the CA electors and then it would be repealed. In the last election Ohio certainly would not have mattered. Nor the stealing of Wis. and PA. My question about CO remains.

[kennedy]

"The founding fathers and the Constitution provide for just this sort of thing," Umberg added.

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State...."

United States Constitution, Article 1 Section 10

[California Patriot]

This is an unconstitutional outrage.

[dr huer]

Tis no good. Ballot box stuffing would become a national industry. Fraud on one side of the continent would be everybodies business. How many national recounts will be permitted?

[EagleUSA]

If you can't steal elections, rig 'em...
-----
Exactly what the libs are trying to do to our state...they want the big Mexican, central-city (slum) vote to get a majority. That is why they want this obvious piece of crooked legislation. Just like their tax grabs....these fools need to be squashed big --- VOTE THESE MAGGOTS DOWN!!

[goldfinch]

The Electoral College was part of the large state/small state compromise. It prevents large states from dominating Presidential Elections. Since most of the small states are Red States, this is not helpful to Republicans...or conservatives.

Look beyond the idea that Republicans could pick up California's Electoral Votes and ask yourself a few questions. If the Electoral College is such a bad idea, why not amend the Constitution to do away with it? Could it be that it would take a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate AND ratification by 48 states to amend the Constitution. Doing it this way, only requires the 12 largest states agree.

And one last question...if this is such a good thing...why are the Democrats overwhelmingly in favor while most Republicans are opposed?

This is a sow's ear disguised as a silk purse. Do not be fooled.

[upchuck]

If this becomes law, will the Ninth Circus declare it unconstitutional?

[goldstategop]

States have the absolute power to allocate electoral votes as they see fit. They can abolish popular election of the electors and assign their selection to legislators... there is NO constitutional right to vote for President and Vice President in our country.

(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )

[caresistance]

We have a winner.... good analysis of Democrat motives! Still patently unconstitutional attempt.

[goldfinch]

States have the absolute power to allocate electoral votes as they see fit. They can abolish popular election of the electors and assign their selection to legislators... there is NO constitutional right to vote for President and Vice President in our country.

Whatever did I write that gave you the idea that I thought we voted directly for Presidential candidates? What I said is that the project to bypass the Electoral College is a very bad idea for Republicans and conservatives. Do you have an opinion on what I said?

I do not doubt that a state can bind their electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote. It is questionable if they can form a contract with other states to say the law will only kick in after it has been passed by enough states to have a majority of the Electoral College votes.

This is a backdoor amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court would eventually get the last word on it.

[Rembrandt]

This is the "Hillary/Final Solution", correct?