Skip to comments.
A popular idea for making California's votes count
San Francisco Chronicle / sfgate.com ^
| Saturday, July 16, 2011
| Marisa Lagos,Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Columnists
Posted on 07/17/2011 11:24:59 AM PDT by thecodont
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-122 next last
To: CIB-173RDABN
Is there any relationship at all between this electoral vote/popular vote proposal and the current CA redistricting plan?
To: thecodont
The fact that the Soros family are big supporters is more than enough reason for me to oppose it.
22
posted on
07/17/2011 11:55:16 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
To: Lmo56
I think one very important rule should be at the center of any plan to apportion delegates to the Electoral College:
The delegates elected cannot in any way, shape or form be elected by voters outside of the state.
The concept of awarding a state's electors based on the national popular vote specifically and deliberately violates that rule.
23
posted on
07/17/2011 11:56:04 AM PDT
by
Cyber Liberty
(Oh, well, any excuse to buy a new gun is good enough for me.)
To: Cyber Liberty
Actually, the electors are free to vote for anyone they want, no restrictions.
Voters are only selecting the electors, and cannot tell them how to vote (although they may try to get a pledge from them to vote for a certain candidate, nothing legally binds the electors to keep that pledge).
Then the “wise elder statesmen”, the electors, are supposed to choose someone to be president.
To: thecodont
You have to admire the ingenuity of the left in coming up with ways to trash the Constitution- they get nothing, if not kudos for imagination!
25
posted on
07/17/2011 11:59:16 AM PDT
by
13Sisters76
("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
To: Cyber Liberty; Lmo56
The concept of awarding a state's electors based on the national popular vote specifically and deliberately violates that rule. But this fits in so well with the Left's plans to nationalize other things that used to belong to the states.
To: SunkenCiv
Last year, Massachusetts did the same thing. I have no doubt this will come back and haunt them.
Mass. gov. signs national popular vote bill
Massachusetts' Electoral College votes would go to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote, under a bill signed into law Wednesday by Gov. Deval Patrick.
27
posted on
07/17/2011 12:02:42 PM PDT
by
Palter
(Celebrate diversity .22, .223, .25, 9mm, .32 .357, 10mm, .44, .45, .500)
To: Palter
The legislation would not go into effect, however, unless those participating states together hold a majority of the Electoral College votes. With the governor's signature, Massachusetts becomes the sixth state to join the compact. Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii and Washington state have already approved the measure. The six states together control 27 percent of the 270 electoral votes needed to trigger the law.
28
posted on
07/17/2011 12:03:32 PM PDT
by
Palter
(Celebrate diversity .22, .223, .25, 9mm, .32 .357, 10mm, .44, .45, .500)
To: thecodont
what of my wife’s and my votes?
they never count in a post-baby boomer,
socialist californicate.
29
posted on
07/17/2011 12:04:51 PM PDT
by
ken21
(liberal + rino progressive media hate palin, bachman, cain...)
To: Palter
The legislation would not go into effect, however, unless those participating states together hold a majority of the Electoral College votes.
Think about that for a minute and consider that the states furthest down the road on such legislation are democrat leaning states.
30
posted on
07/17/2011 12:08:38 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
To: Palter
“Bite ‘em in the butt” applies here I think. It could be they’re moving toward getting rid of their own party’s chances at the Presidency for a reason. :’)
31
posted on
07/17/2011 12:29:25 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(Yes, as a matter of fact, it is that time again -- https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: cripplecreek
“When they were pushing it here in Michigan they made sure to include an opt out clause (just in case a republican was the likely winner) The fact is that it opens up all kinds of opportunities for mischief.”
It does the precise opposite. No democrat will ever need to campaign in California, because the other states will decide the outcome. The opt out clause will guarantee that it doesn’t come back to hurt the Dims, but a republican would never win.
32
posted on
07/17/2011 12:31:47 PM PDT
by
BenKenobi
(Honkeys for Herman!)
To: Lmo56
“The FAIREST way to ensure that all votes count [down to the lowest levels of citizenry] is to award the electoral votes by district in each state. Win the district - win the one electoral vote assigned to it.”
Seems like a good idea. My state is a winner take all state. I especially don’t like the idea of states having open primaries also being winner take all states.
33
posted on
07/17/2011 12:35:17 PM PDT
by
llandres
(Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!)
To: cripplecreek
If you're referring to Article 4, Section 4 ...
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
I agree with you.
34
posted on
07/17/2011 12:39:29 PM PDT
by
Gumption
To: llandres
The only changes I’d make at this time is closed primaries and convince all states to have their primary on the same day.
Candidates who do poorly in early primary states often drop out before primaries in states where they might do better.
35
posted on
07/17/2011 12:44:45 PM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
To: thecodont
But this fits in so well with the Left's plans to nationalize other things that used to belong to the states. That's so true it goes without saying....
36
posted on
07/17/2011 12:45:15 PM PDT
by
Cyber Liberty
(Oh, well, any excuse to buy a new gun is good enough for me.)
To: CondorFlight
Actually, the electors are free to vote for anyone they want, no restrictions. That's why electors aren't just picked up off the street...they are always party hacks of the first order. And for once, I think that's a good idea.
37
posted on
07/17/2011 12:47:31 PM PDT
by
Cyber Liberty
(Oh, well, any excuse to buy a new gun is good enough for me.)
To: thecodont
The California communists liberals are trying to further destroy this State.
To: cripplecreek
“Plus we have some counties with under 5000 people and others with over a million.”
That’s my point. Why should all those counties with 5,000 people be disenfranchised why Philly gets 105% of the vote.
This eliminates it.
39
posted on
07/17/2011 12:50:18 PM PDT
by
EQAndyBuzz
(As long as the MSM covers for Obama, he will be above the law.)
To: thecodont
So in a nationally close election every graveyard in Chicago, every election official's trunk in Washington state and every half blind election judge in Florida will be turning in Democrat ballots as quickly as they can produce them in the first couple weeks of November.
Limit vote fraud to as small of region as possible, so (as others have stated) have two at large electors in a state plus one for the winner in each Congressional district. The Chicago undead-American voters can only affect Illinois's two at large electors and a few districts near their graveyards rather than all 538 electoral votes.
40
posted on
07/17/2011 12:52:46 PM PDT
by
KarlInOhio
(The Dems demanding shared sacrifice are like Aztec priests doing it while cutting out my heart.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-122 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson