Posted on 08/16/2007 5:53:55 AM PDT by xjcsa
So far it's only affected California, but that means it soon may be heading your way, for what begins in California often spreads across the land. Take, for example, auto emissions, clean air standards and talentless Hollywood "celebrities" In this case, it's a new strategy devised by the California Republican Party. Call it the Table Scraps strategy.
-snip-
What's wrong with this picture? Two things. It plays directly into the hands of the left-wing movement to ditch the Electoral College altogether, declaring the aggregate winner of the popular vote to be the president. This means that a handful of large cities--voting mostly Democrat--would decide the national outcome.
-snip-
The only idea out there worse than this one is embodied in California Senate Bill 37, dreamt up by Sen. Carol Migden, who is better known for having pleaded nolo contendere last week to a misdemeanor charge of reckless driving over a 30-mile stretch of Interstate 80. Her bill, if it became law, would mandate that all of California's electoral votes would be rewarded to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how Californians had voted. This would turn the Electoral College upside down, which is her purpose. It is a case of myopia, based on left-wing ire over the 2000 Bush-Gore race.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
The idea of awarding a state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes nationally is an awful idea. This California plan isn't bad though.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 10, 3rd paragraph:
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
It seems to me that any state law that a given state will award it's electoral votes to the winners of the national popular vote that is dependent on other states passing such a law comprises an agreement or compact with other states and thus requires Congressional approval.
Article I, Section 10, paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution:
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state,...
Thanks; that’s what I was trying to remember.
I see great minds think alike.
The fact that this proposal was submitted by Arnie's long time lawyer, and is backed by RINO Pete Wilson and a guy shilling for Giuliani, does not make this a "Republican proposal."
I haven't fully researched it, but I am highly skeptical of the long term consequences. One can kiss good-bye the possibility of *ever* putting Los Angeles or San Francisco congressional districts in the "R" column.
“The only idea out there worse than this one is embodied in California Senate Bill 37, dreamt up by Sen. Carol Migden, who is better known for having pleaded nolo contendere last week to a misdemeanor charge of reckless driving over a 30-mile stretch of Interstate 80. Her bill, if it became law, would mandate that all of California’s electoral votes would be rewarded to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how Californians had voted. This would turn the Electoral College upside down, which is her purpose. It is a case of myopia, based on left-wing ire over the 2000 Bush-Gore race.”
Yes, I vote that as the stupidest distortion of democracy ever devised.
It means the ‘winner’ in California depends on numbers and votes that *NO OFFICIAL IN CALIFORNIA HAS ANY LEGAL ABILITY TO VERIFY*.
Liberal loooney idea.
And yes, it is quite different to divide EC into cong districts. (But that is worrisome too as it is subject to gerry mander).
The proposal I was commenting on was the one where all of California's 53 electoral votes would go to the candidate who got the most popular votes *nationwide*.
What it does is make it a RINO proposal and therefore an unacceptable proposal. One we reject out of hand because of the lousy political credentials of the dipsticks pushing it.
Ever taken a class in logic?
I remain skeptical but haven’t come to any conclusions yet.
However, it seems that one has to have a losing mentality from the get-go to think it is automatically a good thing. Currently, there is at least a remote chance that a popular Republican candidate could get all of the electoral votes in California. Under the proposed new proposition, we could permanently kiss good-bye S.F. and L.A. which make up a huge proportion of the state.
I find it rather naive that you believe logic has much to do with politics. Especially California politics.
Ever studied the records of Arnie's long time lawyer, Pete Wilson and the guy shilling for Giuliani? By the time that proposal is ready to become law it will resemble a Democrat wet dream.
This California popular vote ‘referendum’ would be over-turned, properly, by the U.S. Supreme Court. The power to decided the allocation of Presidential and Vice-Presidential Electors was given exclusively to the State Legislature, period. A popular referendum is NOT an act of the State Legislature.
The power to appoint, select or hold elections for Electors belongs to the Legislature of the States - it remains one of the last State Powers that has not been gutted by the Federal Government or Amendment.
dvwjr
You are no doubt correct.
The President and Vice President were never selected by the Senate. It has always been through the Electoral College, at least under the Constitution. The Senate does select the Vice President if the Electoral College doesn't have a clear winner.
Perhaps you meant what the Electoral College was suppose to be. With it essentially nominating the candidates and the House of Representatives (voting by states) electing the President from those finalists.
If the legislature decides to abide by the referendum, or by it’s own laws allows a referendum to bind it to the decision, then it would be much harder to overturn.
Hasn’t anyone noticed that its only blue states that are doing this stupidity. Let me, they’re freakin’ morons!
But it is in-keeping with their tyrannical quest for power.
But it is in-keeping with their tyrannical quest for power.
All of that is true, but in my opinion the California proposal is *not* an "overthrowing" of the EC, unlike some of the other proposals out there.
Perhaps not directly. I’d have to study the CA proposal in greater depth.
But you know that the Left always “progresses” incrementally. They put this through, other states follow their lead, then they’re only a half step away from tossing the EC (as the author states, but buried in the article). Hillary is for tossing the EC. That should tell everyone something.
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.