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

Skip to comments.

Bill Roundup: California Joins “National Popular Vote” Movement
California Capitol Network (via KPBS) ^ | August 8, 2011 | Ben Adler

Posted on 08/08/2011 6:28:40 PM PDT by newzjunkey

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: cripplecreek
Popular vote troll will be along shortly to post long winded responses on the wonders of the popular vote.

Didn't Fred Thompson start pushing this nonsense? I think that was about the time ole Fred became almost completely irrelevant.

21 posted on 08/08/2011 7:39:22 PM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Only fair way:

Award electoral votes by who wins each congressional district. Then give 2 to whoever wins a majority or plurality of each states vote.


22 posted on 08/08/2011 7:54:02 PM PDT by SonofReagan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Samurai_Jack

All interstate compacts that impact on federal powers must have approval of the US Congress.


23 posted on 08/08/2011 7:55:28 PM PDT by SonofReagan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SonofReagan

California is ripe for voter fraud, and this will just make it worse.


24 posted on 08/08/2011 9:16:27 PM PDT by Grey Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Samurai_Jack
Oh i dont see any language in the constitution that prohibits states from forming interstate compacts.???

You mean "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State . . .

Article II Section 1: Each State (individually) shall appoint . . . Electors.

NPV essentially establishes a compact among states (specifically prohibited) to nullify the electoral votes (constitutionally established) of non-participating states.

It would be easy to nullify this at the state level: one state decides to forgo a popular vote, and let the state legislature appoint the electors directly.

25 posted on 08/09/2011 5:19:01 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SonofReagan

All interstate compacts that impact on federal powers must have approval of the US Congress.

Yeah so you have barney frank and debbie washerman shultz in the congress. How hard can this be?


26 posted on 08/09/2011 5:01:44 PM PDT by Samurai_Jack (ride out and confront the evil!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot

Okay so you get the ‘consent of congress’ which in this day and age the congress seems to consent to just about any damn thing. And there’s nothing in this article to specify how the states should appoint electors. Which is the reason why the electors are currently appointed by the SPV... the State Popular Vote. Instead of by appointment of the State Senate.

So given that you have to combine a few different assumptions from various constitutional clauses to prohibit this activity, i find it a stretch to offer the NPV as unconstitutional. And I would find it hard to believe even from a ‘constitutional scholar’ given that one Barry Soreto, now in the whitehouse, is considered to be a ‘constitutional scholar’. And we all know what he uses the constitution for in the Loo.

I do believe that the states that pass this horrible law, will ultimately repeal it in haste once it Gores their Ox. However, I feel i should defend their right to do it based on my position of the sovereignty of the states.


27 posted on 08/09/2011 5:16:08 PM PDT by Samurai_Jack (ride out and confront the evil!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Samurai_Jack

Well, as long as Repubs have the majority it won’t pass. the real question is does this kind of “interstate compact” impact on federal powers?


28 posted on 08/09/2011 6:33:04 PM PDT by SonofReagan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SonofReagan
The first time that a state's votes are cast for a candidate that isn't the expressed choice of the state's voters, suit will be brought and the federal courts will blow this sneaky liberal scheme out of the water.

It's called "equal protection under the law".

29 posted on 08/09/2011 6:50:20 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: okie01

does it matter?

as long as illegal immigrants are more motivated to vote than our citizens...we will never see justice


30 posted on 08/10/2011 12:24:49 PM PDT by js02 (the great con)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: js02
does it matter?

as long as illegal immigrants are more motivated to vote than our citizens...we will never see justice

Hell, yes, it matters.

The Supreme Court -- as currently constituted -- would decide this one correctly and immediately.

And since when do you think that illegal immigrants are "more motivated" to vote than Americans are? More motivated than you? Surely not.

Ethnic minorities historically vote in lower proportions than the rest of the country. Illegal ethnic minorities moreso.

Especially since positive photo ID is becoming more and more required at the polling place.

Excuse me, but it sounds like you're giving up. And we can't afford to do that.

31 posted on 08/10/2011 5:12:55 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 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