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

Skip to comments.

CA: Innovator Devises Way Around Electoral College (Veto this Arnold!)
NEW YORK TIMES ^ | September 22, 2006 | Rick Lyman

Posted on 09/21/2006 11:26:10 PM PDT by calcowgirl

In his early 20’s, John R. Koza and fellow graduate students invented a brutally complicated board game based on the Electoral College ...

Now, a 63-year-old eminence among computer scientists who teaches genetic programming at Stanford, Dr. Koza has decided to top off things with an end run on the Constitution. He has concocted a plan for states to skirt the Electoral College system legally to insure the election of whichever presidential candidate receives the most votes nationwide.

The first fruit of his effort, a bill approved by the California legislature that would allocate the state’s 55 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, sits on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk. The governor has to decide by Sept. 30 whether to sign it ...

The brainstorm behind Dr. Koza’s effort, led by a seven-month-old group, National Popular Vote, was to abandon that approach and focus on creating interstate compacts. Those are contracts that bind states over issues like nuclear waste and port authorities.

Dr. Koza’s compact, if approved by enough legislatures, would commit a state’s electors to vote for the candidate who wins the most national votes, even if the candidate loses in that state.

“The bottom line is that the system has outlived its usefulness,” said Assemblyman Thomas J. Umberg, the Anaheim Democrat who sponsored the bill here. “It’s past time that Americans should elect their president by direct vote of the people.”

Mr. Umberg and his staff met some of Mr. Schwarzenegger’s top staff members on Wednesday and came away encouraged about the prospects of the legislation. Although they received no commitment, it was clear that the governor, a Republican, was seriously considering the question and had not made up his mind about it, Mr. Umberg said.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: ab2948; callegislation; electoralcollege; electoralvote; electoralvotes; nationalpopularvote; popularvote; vetobait
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 next last
To: Smokin' Joe
This is not a democracy, but a Republic!

That fact draws blank stares from 99.99% of Americans.


BUMP

61 posted on 09/22/2006 5:51:16 AM PDT by capitalist229 (Get Democrats out of our pockets and Republicans out of our bedrooms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

As if the people in California didn't have enough excuses not to vote here comes another one.


62 posted on 09/22/2006 5:57:08 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calex59
Fortunately, this is only in CA...

Actually, it's in process in several states.

From NationalPopularVote.com:

NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE LEGISLATION

California Assembly AB 2948—Assembly members Tom Umberg (D), John Laird (D), and Merv Dymally (D). (AB 2948) .

Colorado Senate SB 06-223—Senators Ken Gordon (D), John Evans(R), and Lew Entz (R) (SB 06-223)

Illinois House HB 5777—Representatives Robert S. Molaro (D) and Jim Durkin (R) (HB 5777)

Illinois Senate SB 2724—Senators Jacqueline Collins (D), Kirk W. Dillard (R and Du Page County Republican Party Chair), James T. Meeks (I), and others (SB 2724)

Louisiana House HB 927—Pre-Filed March 17, 2006. (HB 927)

Missouri House HB 2090—Representatives Robert Johnson (R) and Jeff Roorda (D) (HB 2090)

New York Assembly A11563 — Assembly Members Fred W. Thiele, Jr. (Republican, Independence, Working Families), Jim Bacalles (Republican, Conservative), Joe Errigo (Republican, Conservative), Andrew Raia (Republican, Conservative, Independence, Working Families), and Teresa Sayward (Republican, Independence, Conservative). (A11563)


63 posted on 09/22/2006 6:11:44 AM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: dangus
...would allocate the state’s 55 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote...

Is it just me, or would this provision partly take away California's voting power? They're essentially "piling on" with whoever has the most votes across the country. Wouldn't California prefer to cast its own votes rather than jumping on the bandwagon with everyone else?

Additionally, if the article is correct, this provision would disconnect California electoral votes from California's individual voters, except to the degree that individual Californians contribute to the national popular vote.

Were I a Californian, I would be angry about this. It is a serious reduction of the power of the vote in that state. As a North Carolinian, however, I'm entirely in favor of California passing this measure. =]

64 posted on 09/22/2006 6:13:17 AM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ready4Freddy
The Constitution is silent on how a state allocates its electoral votes.

True, but any attempt on the part of a state to change the method that is used to allocate its electoral votes would certainly face a lot of legal scrutiny under Federal laws like the Voting Rights Act. A system in which electoral votes are given to a candidate who loses an election -- even by a wide margin -- may not stand up to a legal challenge.

To illustrate how preposterous this could be, just consider this hypothetical example . . .

Suppose a future Republican presidential candidate was so pessimistic about his chances to win the state of California that the GOP didn't even bother going through the process of getting on the ballot in the state. If the Democratic candidate won the state by securing 100% of the popular vote (I'll ignore minor party candidates for the sake of this example) but the Republican candidate won the national popular vote, would California be forced (under its own stupid law) to cast its electoral votes for a candidate who wasn't even on its own ballot?

65 posted on 09/22/2006 6:25:47 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: calex59; bruinbirdman
In the year 2000 the majority vote went to Gore. Head out of your ass please!

You might want to take your own advice there, calex59. LOL.

You're absolutely wrong about this. Al Gore received more actual votes than George W. Bush (by about a 1.5-million vote margin), but because of the number of votes that went to minor candidates he did not secure a majority. Gore received 48.4% of the vote in 2000, while Bush received 47.9% and the remaining 3.7% went to other candidates.

Jimmy Carter was the last Democrat to get a majority (i.e., more than 50%) of the popular vote in a presidential election -- and yes, that was 30 years ago (1976).

66 posted on 09/22/2006 6:32:36 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Sorry, but Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Spin it how you like, he still won more of the popular vote than Bush did. Nice try but it didn't work.


67 posted on 09/22/2006 6:46:32 AM PDT by calex59 (Hillary Clinton is dumber than a one eyed monkey with a brain tumor(credit to Harley69))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: calex59
In the year 2000 the majority vote went to Gore. Head out of your ass please!

You have a reading-comprehension problem to go with your potty-mouth. A plurality is not a majority.

68 posted on 09/22/2006 6:46:52 AM PDT by Henry Belden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Henry Belden
You have a reading-comprehension problem to go with your potty-mouth. A plurality is not a majority.

You are the one with a reading comprehension problem. If you win more votes than the other guy, you have won what is condidered a majority. In the case of CA's stupid bill that would give the electoral college to the winner of the popular vote, winning the most votes would be considered a majority. It doesn't say it has to be 50.1 percent or above, it says the majority of the popular vote. So if Gore received 48 % and Bush 47 %(which is close enough for government work) then Gore would have received the electoral college votes. Learn to read yourself it saves looking like a dumbass when you comment.

BTW, potty mouth? What, are you in the 6th grade or something?

69 posted on 09/22/2006 6:52:15 AM PDT by calex59 (Hillary Clinton is dumber than a one eyed monkey with a brain tumor(credit to Harley69))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Wow. You missed every last point, from the finest to the broadest detail.

The Democrats already always win California. That means they already get 100% of the electoral vote from California. Any apportioning to the national winner would give the GOP a chance to win California, without even campaigning there.


70 posted on 09/22/2006 7:05:03 AM PDT by dangus (Pope calls Islam violent; Millions of Moslems demonstrate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

>> No, in 2000 FL's electoral votes would have gone to Gore, the nationwide popular vote winner and Gore would be President today. That's why the Left is pushing this plan forward. They think a majority of Americans would vote for a Democrat. But what if a Republican gets a national majority? Their initial flush of enthusiasm then may turn into a move to dissolve the interstate compact. <<

Yes, but we're talking CALIFORNIA, not Florida.


71 posted on 09/22/2006 7:05:38 AM PDT by dangus (Pope calls Islam violent; Millions of Moslems demonstrate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Yes we are. Under the Democrats' legislation, the REPUBLICAN nation-wide popular vote winner would get ALL of California's electoral votes even if the state's voters chose the DEMOCRAT.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

72 posted on 09/22/2006 7:09:17 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Right. Meaning that in 2000, the state's votes would have gone Democratic either way.


73 posted on 09/22/2006 7:11:05 AM PDT by dangus (Pope calls Islam violent; Millions of Moslems demonstrate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Wow. You missed every last point, from the finest to the broadest detail.

No, you are missing the forest for the trees. Undermining the electoral college system by having the President selected by the popular vote is not a good thing, especially for Reps and their Red state base. We are not just talking about California. Please read what the National Popular Vote Plan is all about. There is a reason why the New York Times, Chicago Sun Times, Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee, and Minneapolis Star-Tribune endorse it.

The Democrats already always win California. That means they already get 100% of the electoral vote from California. Any apportioning to the national winner would give the GOP a chance to win California, without even campaigning there.

And they will continue to win California by increasing margins as it becomes more and more Hispanic. The Dems can focus more on California to increase turnout and the margin of victory, which could translate into a national victory in the popular vote. If red states like Colorado, Arizona, Louisiana, and Missouri sign on to these compacts, it will mean that their electoral votes will go to the Dems even if the Reps win the popular vote in the respective states. Gore won nationally by 500,000 votes, but he won California by 1.3 million.

The National Popular Vote movement is a way to circumvent the electoral college and have the President elected by the popular vote. The Dems tried to get Colorado to apportion its electoral votes similar to Maine or Nebraska. They would never want such a system for California. They want a winner take all apportionment there.

I am surprised that you don't understand the implications of what is being proposed not only for California but the rest of the country. It will make Dem states like California and New York much more powerful in terms of affecting the outcome of national elections. The Dems can concentrate on the most populous states to get out the vote and increase the margin of victory. If they have their way, the electoral college will become meaningless.

74 posted on 09/22/2006 7:22:48 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener
The originators of the plan believe it is constitutional and make some compelling arguments to that effect. Every Vote Equal

I am not ready to dismiss it. This is a very serioyus and real threat to our Constitution and the electoral college system.

75 posted on 09/22/2006 7:31:15 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: calex59
This would only go into effect if ALL states change the way they assign electoral votes.

I don't think that is what the California legislation says. It only has to do with how California allocates its electoral votes.

76 posted on 09/22/2006 7:34:14 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

We can't let the socialist traitors win. They are worse than any Islamofascist.


77 posted on 09/22/2006 7:35:24 AM PDT by Killborn (Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ready4Freddy

Gotcha, loud and clear. Thanks.

Still, what do you think about the whole thing?


78 posted on 09/22/2006 7:36:34 AM PDT by Killborn (Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Raider
Just remember: In 2000, HILLARY was the first to suggest that the Electoral College should be done away with.

However, it was put in place to counter "blocks" of voters.....the so called popular vote that the Dems count on....... Women's Vote, Jewish Vote, Black Vote, Union Vote.

Our forefathers knew exactly what they were doing.

79 posted on 09/22/2006 7:37:27 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dangus
National Popular Vote plan
80 posted on 09/22/2006 7:40:42 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-109 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