Posted on 09/21/2006 11:26:10 PM PDT by calcowgirl
"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
The Dems gave Hillary NY....but they misplaced her. They should have put her in a state which would change the tide.
Dumb politics in my book. NY and NYC in particular, is so Dem, a Dem Mickey Mouse could win a Senate seat. Ooops...Maybe that should be Minnie Mouse.
And Hillary should have run as VP with Kerry. They would have taken it. Kerry would become very ill (after two years)with the Marcy Park Flu....Guess who becomes President in that event.
She might have had the Presidency for 10 years total. Can you spell GREED!!
Did he?
Logic is not a strong suit for Liberals, so they often misread the meaning of political events. This is their emotional reaction to the 2000 election. This won't help them.
Republicans should make every effort to get California and New York to adopt this approach. It will eliminate their two major "lock" states for guaranteed electoral count. They can't win a presidential election without locking up New York and California. Consider what Bush's electoral margin would have been had California followed this practice in 2004? Can you spell mandate?
Republicans (conservatives)will never allow Florida or Texas to go this route so the Dems will be cutting their own throat. When your enemy is busy cutting off its own legs, get out of the way and don't let them hit you when they fall.
I don't know what the exact wording of California's measure is, but there is a huge legal difference between receiving the "majority" of the popular vote versus a "plurality" versus being the winner of the popular vote.
You are exactly wrong in your assertion. If the law says "majority", then it only applies if someone gets more than half of the total votes cast. If it say "plurality" than it only applies if that person gets more than their opponents, but less than half of the total votes cast. If it says " the popular vote winner", it would apply to whoever got the most votes.
Learn the difference.
While you're at it, try to grasp the concept that calling people names is not a substitute for a logical argument.
Absolutely true. On principle, it's a horrible idea. But California, outside of the major metro areas of LA and SF, are red. Bring it on, Professor.
Those states with smaller populations won't go along.
This means that they need states with a total of 270 electoral votes. If they can get the compact passed by NY [31 votes], California [55 votes], Illinois [21 votes], Missouri [11], Colorado [9 votes], AZ [10 votes], Louisiana [9 votes], and MN [10 votes}, it means that the proponents need only 124 votes from the remaining states to make it effective.
And consider what would have happened in 2000 for Gore if these compacts existed. Florida, if a participant, would have had its electoral votes go to Gore along with Arizona's, Colorado's, Missouri's and other states who are now contemplating entering these compacts. If you think that going to the popular vote to elect the President by circumventing the electoral college is a good thing, you are dreaming.
Republicans (conservatives)will never allow Florida or Texas to go this route so the Dems will be cutting their own throat. When your enemy is busy cutting off its own legs, get out of the way and don't let them hit you when they fall.
As long as the Dems can get states with a total of 270 electoral votes to join the compact, Florida and Texas won't matter. They just have to keep the popular votes close in those states and expand on their margins of victory in California, New York, Illinois, etc.
Yes, 13 largest states could already determine the outcome of elections...but not all of them lean Democrat...although most do. What they gain is the elimination of the advantage small states have in the Electoral College. Let me explain.
Each state gets 1 electoral vote for each Senator and each Representative they have in Congress. Every state, regardless of size has two Senators. The number of Representatives is determined by population, but each state, no matter how small has at least one. A number of states, Wyoming, for example, are small enough they have only one representative. My home state, Colorado, is large enough that it has seven Representatives, although it is still a small state.
Now look how that works in the Electoral College. Wyoming, which has 1/7th the population of Colorado, has 3 Electoral votes (2 for its Senators, and 1 for its Representative). Colorado has 9 Electoral Votes (2 for its Senators and 7 for its Representatives). So it ends up that Wyoming, with 1/7th the population of Colorado, ends up with 1/3rd the amount of Electoral votes. You can make the case that 'this is not fair'...but the Electoral College was designed to protect the small states, and it works exactly as designed.
What the Electoral College does, is make the small states, which tend to vote Republican, more important in a Presidential Election. That is why large, liberal states like California want to get rid of it.
Sorry, but "implied" agreements don't count. A compact or agreement between states is when two states sign a contract between them binding themselves to a common course of action. All this says is that a particular state's law won't go into effect until other states do the same. A state could change its mind at any time, and the other states would have no recourse.
The Constitution prevents states from making separate binding deals between themselves without the approval of Congress. A statement that "we'll do this if you do this, trust us, but if we change our minds, tough shit" doesn't qualify.
I have no doubt that this is Constitutional and would stand up to Supreme Court review. I think it's also a lousy idea, and that the political dynamics involved will prevent it from reaching the 270-electoral-vote threshold. But it could theoretically happen.
You are wrong. How can they condition their laws to only be in effect unless a certain ammount of other states pass simular laws? States can't just make conditional laws based on other states passing simular laws. That is still considered a compact and is unconstitutional without congression approval.
They even call it an interstate compact on their website.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/index.php?option=npvcontent&task=page&page_id=4
You are wrong, read the law.
http://electionfraudnews.com/LegDoc/CABill.pdf
It's not exactly "Where's Waldo" to find the words "interstate compact".
Read chapters 5,6, 7, and 8 of the Every Vote Equal book and see how they address constitutional issues and compacts. Legally, I think they can make a strong case. This cannot be dismissed easily by saying it is unconstitutional. The states have a right to allocate their electoral votes anyway they want.
Yes, generally speaking "States can assign their electoral votes how they see fit.", as you stated. But there are still trwo big problems here.
First, there are multiple civil rights issues. There are Federal laws covering elections run by States. It's why a State cannot simply disenfranchise, say, all it's female voters, or apply onerous conditions to the voting process.
Next, since there is no such thing as a 'national popular vote', one would have to tabulated and verified. What authority would do this? How would it be done? I know the States certify the Presidential election results (send them to Congress), but what they certify and send is the electoral results, I beleeve, not popular vote totals. What exactly would require Alabama to send to California or some other inter-state agency its certified popular vote results? Or what would stop Alabama from inflating those results dramatically (not changing the Electoral totals reported to Congress), if Alabama desired?
I almost support this for California...because
A-it will give the GOP a good shot at 55 extra EV's
B-it will show how STOOOPID the left is when people notice that the very legislation they pushed is causing them to lose elections
Most big cities are heavily Democrat, almost all. If you take then entire county in which they're located you get a few that lean right when you include the suburbs outside the city within the county: -Cincinnati -Houston -Dallas -San Diego
Sorry, you are wrong...let's look at the definitions
Gore did win the most votes in Florida. He did not win a majority, however. By definition he won a plurality.
ma·jor·i·ty (m-jôr-t, -jr-)
n. pl. ma·jor·i·ties
1. The greater number or part; a number more than half of the total.
Gore did not win a number of more than half (or 50% + 1)
plu·ral·i·ty (pl-rl-t)
n. pl. plu·ral·i·ties
1. The state or fact of being plural.
2. A large number or amount; a multitude.
3. Ecclesiastical
a. Pluralism.
b. The offices or benefices held by a pluralist.
4.
a. In a contest of more than two choices, the number of votes cast for the winning choice if this number is not more than one half of the total votes cast.
b. The number by which the vote of the winning choice in such a contest exceeds that of the closest opponent.
5. The larger or greater part.
Gore won a plurality, not a majority. I'm sorry, but words have meanings for a reason.
Those who cannot do, teach. The worst programmers I ever encountered were CompSci Professors.
I'm entirely against this illegal interstate compact.
Had the article mentioned that California's law was conditional on other states doing the same, I would have been against it from the start.
The article made it sound as though California alone was going to unilaterally give its EC votes to the national popular vote winner. Of course I'd be for that.
But no, Red States have zero interest in reciprocating such left-wing madness.
Let California be crazy, sure. Join in, no way.
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.