Posted on 09/22/2007 2:05:37 PM PDT by shrinkermd
...It’s panic time in Republican circles. The G.O.P. could go into next year’s election burdened by the twin demons of an unpopular war and an economic downturn. The party that took the White House in 2000 while losing the popular vote figures it may have to do it again.
The Presidential Election Reform Act is the name of a devious proposal that Republican operatives have dreamed up to siphon off 20 or more of the 55 electoral votes that the Democrats would get if, as expected, they win California in 2008.
That’s a lot of electoral votes, the equivalent of winning the state of Ohio. If this proposed change makes it onto the ballot and becomes law, those 20 or so electoral votes could well be enough to hand the White House to a Republican candidate who loses the popular vote nationwide.
...The proposal would rewrite the rules for the distribution of electoral votes in California. Under current law, all of California’s 55 electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote statewide. That “winner-take-all” system is the norm in the U.S.
Under the proposed change, electoral votes would be apportioned according to the winner of the popular vote in each of California’s Congressional districts. That would likely throw 20 or more electoral votes to the Republican candidate, even if the Democrat carries the state.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The Constitution says that electors are determined in a manner determined by the electors of the several states. In most states the state legislatured used to pick the electors.
In Florida 2000, the GOP legislature threatened to pick their own slate if the SCOFLAW court insisted on throwing the election to Gore.
Since each legislature passes ordinary laws to establish its election laws, in the 25 (?) states that have the initiative such as California, this can also be accomplished this way.
Congressman Billybob
Funny that jackasses like Bob Herbert didn’t call it a “devious proposal” when Colorado had a ballot issue in 2004 suggesting the same idea...jerks.
Which is what makes the Dems squealing like a stuck donkey on this so disingenuous. The same ones protesting this in CA have proposed CA awarding their EVs based on the national popular vote.
IMO, the CA republicans know this will never pass. It's just a shot across the bow of the "national vote" dems, to expose their hypocrisy.
Vote by acreage!
The late H. L. Hunt suggested voting by bank account. You have as many votes as dollars in your bank.
The RATS would never elect another loser with the vote of loser leeches!
Yes, it passed. It is a law that rewards MD’s E.V.s to the winner of the national popular vote (regardless of how MD voted I might add), but only goes into effect if enough states representing a majority of the E.C. pass the same law.
Tribe is full of crap. Initiative, referendum and recall were all added to California's Constitution back in the days of Ban Johnson. Johnson's reasoning was quite straight-forward:
Smacking down an unwilling state legislature with referendum, when they act in opposition to the people or with initiative, when they fail to act according to the will of the people is no different than recalling a failed governor. Remember Gray Davis?
You mean Hiram Johnson. Ban Johnson founded baseball's American League.
I don't know about this, but I would support a vote only counting if you are a net "producer" in society. If you are a welfare parasite, you shouldn't have the "right" to vote for taking other people's money from them and given to you.
ditto for NY.....the rats carry 75% of the five burroughs of NYC and Westchester...the rest of the state is close with many counties going Republican...
Your idea is good too, but mine would give me lots more votes..lol
Does that mean inititives and referenda could be used to ratify constitutional amendments?
No, in a 1920 Supreme Court decision, the Court ruled that a referendum could not be used to ratify a constitutional amendment. Article V’s specific language about legislatures or state ratifying conventions was sacred.
In the days before the New Deal, if you were indigent and were thrown on county assistance -- either cash payment or residence in a county poorhouse -- you had to sign the Pauper's Oath and surrender your right to vote until you left county welfare.
That practice ended during the Thirties.
What about Hawke v. Smith (1920)? In that case, the SCOTUS ruled that a proposed Constitutional amendment could not be ratified via a referendum. Article V refers to ratification being done by a State's Legislature or by a ratification convention in that State (the Congress chooses the Mode of Ratification). The Constitution says the process by which a State's Electors are chosen is to be determined by that State's Legislature.
Precedent suggests that this initiative is Unconstitutional. Then again, this could be decided by the SCOTUS. Which means Justice Kennedy could end up deciding if this initiative is Constitutional.
We're not talking about a mere law here but rather an exercise of Constitutional power. I doubt the Court would allow such powers to be either delegated or usurped. But who knows really, the Court seems pretty darn random to me sometimes. Perhaps we shall see.
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.