Posted on 08/08/2011 6:28:40 PM PDT by newzjunkey
California could eventually award its presidential Electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. It's one of several election-related bills Governor Jerry Brown signed today.
Right now, nearly every state awards its Electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins that particular state. California's 55 Electoral votes nearly always go to a Democrat these days, so candidates typically don't campaign here much. The National Popular Vote movement seeks to change that dynamic. With the governor's signature, California now joins eight other states that have pledged to award their Electoral votes to whoever gets the most votes nationwide. But that change will only take place if states with a combined 270 Electoral votes sign onto the effort. California's participation brings the movement about halfway there.
Meanwhile, the governor also signed a bill that would require election officials to count write-in votes if a voter's intent is clear - even if the voter didn't fully follow the ballot instructions.
• AB 84 by Assemblymember Paul Fong (D-Mountain View) – Elections: new citizens.
• AB 413 by Assemblymember Mariko Yamada (D-Davis) – Elections: all-mailed ballot elections.
• AB 459 by Assemblymember Jerry Hill (D-South San Francisco) – Electoral college: interstate compact.
• AB 461 by Assemblymember Susan Bonilla (D-Martinez) – Write-in candidates.
• AB 503 by Assemblymember Marty Block (D-San Diego) – Processing write-in votes.
• AB 1343 by Assemblymember Paul Fong (D-Mountain View) – Vote by mail: procedures: permanent vote by mail voters: failure to return ballot.
• AB 1357 by Assemblymember Sandre Swanson (D-Oakland) – Voter registration.
Popular vote troll will be along shortly to post long winded responses on the wonders of the popular vote.
Which will mean that the states with the higher population would control who’s president. And since they’d be red states, guess what? Four or five states will control the presidency. That’s why the electoral college was set up.
Does this mean that the Democrats will be demanding recounts in every single voting precinct nationwide after the votes are cast in the next presidential election -— in an effort to win the California electoral votes -— even if the national vote doesn’t seem all that close on election night?
I’m guessing it does. They’ll be counting chad and fudging votes in every voting site for months.
How would a voter’s write in vote be authenticated? I can see fraud in someone working at the poll writing on ballots a write in candidate.
Completely unconstitutional. States are specifically prohibited from making a compacts - especially concerning presidential elections. If this was Constitutional they could agree to assign their votes to the individual who gets the most votes in the states in the compact, thereby negating the votes from all the other states.
When a conservative candidate wins the national popular vote and California has to give their electoral votes to that candidate against the popular will of their own citizens (who will most likely vote liberal by a healthy margin), this bill will be repealed.
...so what happens when California goes 55/45 for a Dim, and nation goes 50.0001/49.9999 Repub? I can only imagine that all *heck* will break loose in Calif.
Permanent mail ballot voters aren't removed now unless they miss FOUR general elections, not TWO.
Voter registration may be available online.
New citizens will be able to register to vote for an election until the polls close for that election.
Now write-in votes don't have to follow the rules--something we saw in a San Diego mayoral election which amassed a major Dem's write-in campaign and focused on whether you had to mark the bubble or just write in the name. Many voters testified they wrote the name in so the three major candidates were on their ballot, not intending for printing the name to be considered a vote. Fortunately the Dem had made filling-in-the-bubble a large part of her campaign and it became her legal undoing. Her campaign was less about electing her than preventing a good Republican from replacing the incumbent corrupt RINO who came out on top. Notice the sponsor of one write-in bill was a San Diego Dem.
D wins national popular vote, D wins California: no change
D wins national popular vote, R wins California: not likely, but the California leftists would be happy
R wins national popular vote, R wins California: possible, but no change to result
R wins national popular vote, D wins California: much wailing and gnashing of teeth from California
R wins national popular vote, D wins California, California's votes push the Republican over 538 electoral votes: heads explode in California. State sues itself in federal court trying to overturn its own law.
If that happened and it caused Palin to be elected over Obama I think it would be quite possible to laugh myself to death. And gladly so I might add.
Just think. The conservative barely wins the national popular vote but is just shy of the electoral votes necessary to win. The race comes down to California which opposes the candidate by a healthy margin (55/45) but has to give their votes to the popular vote winner. Result: the conservative wins thanks to the Californian electoral votes and against the will of most Californians! Now THAT would be a hoot!
KarlInOhio: “R wins national popular vote, D wins California, California’s votes push the Republican over 538 electoral votes: heads explode in California. State sues itself in federal court trying to overturn its own law.”
You are no doubt right. The left only follows the law when it serves their goals. I have ZERO doubt they’d try to overturn their own law in this particular circumstance, and they’d probably do it on the grounds that it’s unconstitutional. As much as I love to see the left confronted by their own nonsense, I’d rather not see another national election go the SCOTUS.
The way it was written when they tried passing it here in Michigan the democrats made sure there was an opt out clause. Of things looked bad for the democrat 6 months from an election we could opt out and force the republican to win the hard way.
Don’t fool yourself into thinking the democrats have simply overlooked the possibility that a conservative could win.
If Brown cared about voters and bringing leverage back CA with presidential candidates, instead of locking-in Democrat advantage, he would push for proportional assignment of electoral votes.
All these election reforms favor Democrats and increase risk of voter fraud. There's not a single Voter ID bill among them. There's not a single thing that would make CA relevant again to presidential politics.
This won’t happen until states with 270 electoral votes have signed up. That won’t happen this term. It might happen by 2016 if things suddenly turn against the Republicans at the ballot box.
Nothing but a blaent attempt to by-pass the US Constitution and the electoral college.
LOL!
the U.S. Constitution
Article I, Section 10: Powers prohibited of States
Clause 3
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.
Oh i dont see any language in the constitution that prohibits states from forming interstate compacts. I dont see any language that mentions anything specific about presidential elextions here.
I’m willing to be educated though if you have some kind of precedent or constitutional language that i’m Missing?
i’m no fan of the NPV Movement. I think it will backfire on the constituents that demand it. But i dont see that it’s unconstitutional.
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.