CA: Innovator Devises Way Around Electoral College (Veto this Arnold!)

NEW YORK TIMES ^ | September 22, 2006 | Rick Lyman

[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.

[goldstategop]

Yep. But if the nation votes the other way, will the Democrats' faith in respecting the will of people continue unabated? That is the question.

"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

[Sacajaweau]

Just remember that GORE did not carry HIS OWN STATE and THAT is what cost him the election....not Florida.

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!!

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

The governor has to decide by Sept. 30 whether to sign it ...

Did he?

[CMAC51]

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 new ways for Democrats to steal elections.

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.

[BlueMondaySkipper]

My, My, My. You're pretty arrogant aren't you. Why don't you put a bar of soap in your fat mouth and open a dictionary.

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.

[Not A Snowbird]

I would oppose this move, but out of principle; it would benefit my party.

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.

[RightWhale]

Those states with smaller populations won't go along.

[kabar]

"This bill would ratify a specified interstate compact that requires the chief election official of each signatory state to appoint the slate of presidential electors that was nominated in association with the presidential ticket that received the largest national popular vote total. This compact would only become effective if states cumulatively possessing a majority of the total electoral votes have ratified the compact."

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.

[kabar]

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?

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.

[goldfinch]

13 largest states can already determine the outcome of a presidential election on their own without monkeying around with the process, so I don't see what they have to gain by it from a collective standpoint.

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.

[dpwiener]

"This is not a "compact" in the Article I Section 10 sense, since it's not actually an agreement between states. Instead it's a procedure which doesn't go into effect until enough other states (representing at least 270 electoral votes) pass similar laws. That's perfectly legal and Constitutional."
There would still be an implied agreement between all the states giving up all their electorial votes to the popular vote.

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.

[bahblahbah]

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

[bahblahbah]

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".

[kabar]

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.

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.

FAQs

[swain_forkbeard]

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?

[RockinRight]

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

[RockinRight]

Furthermore, how do big cities tend to vote?? I would not be surprised to learn that the populations of big cities tend to vote more to the left than to the right. It seems that there is something about living in big cities that does something to people's collective IQ's.

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

[Chicos_Bail_Bonds]

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.

[freedumb2003]

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.

Those who cannot do, teach. The worst programmers I ever encountered were CompSci Professors.

[Southack]

"It increases the power of California voters. Thery are not the only ones belonging to the compact. The Dems are using this system to get Red states to join."

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.