Posted on 05/19/2011 6:11:55 PM PDT by SmithL
Lawmakers have taken a step to make California more relevant in presidential politics, voting to give the state's electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.
The state Assembly passed AB459 on Thursday on a 43-18 vote, sending it to the state Senate. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
...voting to give the state's electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular voteThis makes California competitive for Republicans for the first time in ages. Thank you, Demwits in the Cali legislature!
They’ve probably made sure to include an opt out clause like they did when they proposed it here in Michigan. When it looks like a GOP win they can opt out and make him win on electoral votes. If it looks like the democrat will win the popular vote they can opt in and give it to him.
Fortunately its dead here for now.
I don’t see how a state can over-ride a process that is deifined by the federal constitution for a federal election.
But hey who pays attention to that dusty old document any more. It’s hard to understand.
Nationally, the electoral college still would convene. What I fear is that California delegates and all other delegates from states that have chosen this approach, would then "vote their conscience" setting up a whole new constitutional crisis.
This could one day be disastrous.
It makes it so that if California lets illegals vote, by not protecting their ballot boxes, they can overwhelm the popular vote. It won’t help unless they trick enough small states into joining though. Can’t imagine a small state going for this.
No, it doesn’t make sense. Their state could go overwhelmingly Rat (as it has done since 1988) and a Republican would be awarded their EC votes.
Wouldn’t it be hilarious listening to the liberal heads explode on election night if Sarah won California.
If I recall correctly, this is a conspiracy by the left started by a college professor in 2001, where once they have more than half the electoral college votes in states that have passed similar legislation, it is all over. CA brings them much closer, and they have been close to passing in NY. This flies under the radar, the MSM totally ignores this, as if they don’t know it is going on. It is an obvious end around of the constitution and the amendment process.
Stop trying to usurp an urban myth with the truth. The MSM said Al Gore won the popular vote and that settles it. Stop trying to inject truth into the lie!
The constitution says that each state shall determine how its electors are chosen.
As of now, each state chooses its electors based on the popular vote within the state.
So this isn’t really overriding what the constitution says. The legislatures of each state are still deciding how the electors will be chosen.
However, the legality of an interstate agreement on choosing electors is questionable. The courts would get involved if enough states pass this law and want to act on it in a presidential election.
Understanding and interpreting the constitution always comes back to the courts. That’s why elections are important, since the president chooses judges in the lower federal courts and the Supreme Court.
If you get enough liberals in Congress, combined with a liberal president, liberal judges will be appointed who will decide that this scheme is completely legal, even though many of us think it’s not legal to have states agree with other states on how to allocate electoral votes.
The NATIONAL popular vote? Well, that’s just stupid. Of course, this is Kalifornia-stan.
That's what they want and this move moves us toward that foolish vision.
Hiltlery has been after this for years - beware. Anyone who does NOT vote this time aruond is a traitor...
Does anyone remember asking to change the electorial college. This is one of the things our crooked Congress does secretly. Let’s get rid of Congress.
Completely agree. This could only benefit the Republican. What a bunch of idiots.
This will last until the first time Kalifornia is forced, by this law, to give its Electoral votes to a Republican; then a change will be made.
You are quite right - Article I section 2 just says the state legislature decides how to choose the electors.
I guess, strictly speaking, the legislature could specify that electors must be members of the Democratic party, for example?
“I don’t understand why California would do this. Their EVs will almost always go to a Democrat. This makes it possible for a Republican to win them all. It makes no sense, since California is completely dominated by Democrats.”
Cause Democrat and leftist issues are more likely to win in a popular vote presidential election.
Because in a popular vote presidential election presidents don’t need to pay attention to the more rural, they can instead focus on issues that are more uniquely appealing to urban populations. Issues that tend to be large more repressive goverment.
By joining the ranks of States looking to overturn the electoral cottage California makes it more likely other states will join her and eventually this leftist dream will become a piratical reality.
The only good news is its not necessarily a permanent development, sooner or later a state is going to realize how its not being represented and break ranks. The left are hoping by the time that happens the population will be so shocked by the development that they would be willing to pass a Constitutional amendment abolishing the collage.
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.