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

Skip to comments.

Table Scraps: Republican losers vs. the Electoral College.
Opinion Journal ^ | Thursday, August 16, 2007 | Peter Hannaford

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 ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: california; calinitiatives; electoralcollege; hiltachk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 next last
To: Tzimisce
It’s a bad idea.

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.

41 posted on 08/16/2007 7:40:28 AM PDT by xjcsa (Hillary Clinton is nothing more than Karl Marx with huge calves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa
I do seem to remember there being some kind of problem with states making agreements with each other in this regard (i.e. it only takes effect if certain other states pass it), but I can't put my finger on it right now.

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.

42 posted on 08/16/2007 7:45:10 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa
I do seem to remember there being some kind of problem with states making agreements with each other in this regard (i.e. it only takes effect if certain other states pass it), but I can't put my finger on it right now.

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,...

43 posted on 08/16/2007 7:46:30 AM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius

Thanks; that’s what I was trying to remember.


44 posted on 08/16/2007 8:50:11 AM PDT by xjcsa (Hillary Clinton is nothing more than Karl Marx with huge calves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius; RonF

I see great minds think alike.


45 posted on 08/16/2007 8:51:56 AM PDT by xjcsa (Hillary Clinton is nothing more than Karl Marx with huge calves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa; SierraWasp; Carry_Okie; Amerigomag; NormsRevenge; ElkGroveDan; kellynla; Czar; ...
the current, very different, Republican proposal?

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.

46 posted on 08/16/2007 9:39:33 AM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

“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).


47 posted on 08/16/2007 10:18:24 AM PDT by WOSG ( Don't tell me what you are against, tell me what you are FOR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa
On this proposal? Several states already do it. The proposal based on the national popular vote is ridiculous and may not survive a court fight, but the current proposal seems to be on sound footing.

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*.

48 posted on 08/16/2007 11:21:13 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (If martyrdom is so cool,why does Osama Obama go to such great lengths to avoid it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; xjcsa; SierraWasp; Carry_Okie; Amerigomag; NormsRevenge; ElkGroveDan; kellynla
"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.'"

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.

49 posted on 08/16/2007 12:03:48 PM PDT by Czar ( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Czar
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?

50 posted on 08/16/2007 12:12:59 PM PDT by xjcsa (Hillary Clinton is nothing more than Karl Marx with huge calves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Czar

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.


51 posted on 08/16/2007 12:31:41 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa; calcowgirl; SierraWasp
"Ever taken a class in logic?"

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.

52 posted on 08/16/2007 12:36:51 PM PDT by Czar ( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; Kerretarded; xjcsa; RonF; Anitius Severinus Boethius

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


53 posted on 08/16/2007 1:04:28 PM PDT by dvwjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dvwjr
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.

You are no doubt correct.

54 posted on 08/16/2007 1:05:37 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
Return selection of Senators to the houses of each state, and the selection of the President and Vice President back to that senate.

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.

55 posted on 08/16/2007 1:12:51 PM PDT by usapatriot28
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dvwjr

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.


56 posted on 08/16/2007 1:24:25 PM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

Hasn’t anyone noticed that its only blue states that are doing this stupidity. Let me, they’re freakin’ morons!


57 posted on 08/16/2007 1:27:32 PM PDT by Pietro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa
The Electoral College protects and gives voice to the minority voter (the loser). Period. For Leftists to overthrow the EC is to betray those they supposedly support.

But it is in-keeping with their tyrannical quest for power.

58 posted on 08/16/2007 1:29:30 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ghost of Philip Marlowe
The Electoral College protects and gives voice to the minority voter (the loser). Period. For Leftists to overthrow the EC is to betray those they supposedly support.

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.

59 posted on 08/16/2007 1:30:48 PM PDT by xjcsa (Hillary Clinton is nothing more than Karl Marx with huge calves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

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.


60 posted on 08/16/2007 1:33:14 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-64 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