Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 05/03/2026 12:15:09 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The chair of the California Democratic Party has had enough of the possibility that Republicans could lock out Democrats in this year’s governor’s race — and wants to change the the voting system to prevent that in the future.
Rusty Hicks is one of the first prominent Democrats this year to embrace a wholescale change to how the state holds its primaries, where currently the top two candidates regardless of political party advance to the general election.
“The current system we have does not work,” Hicks told the Guardian. “It needs to be revised or repealed.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Take it up with the new Republican governor.
I saw this coming months ago when there were articles that stated that the Republicans might come in first and second in the ‘jungle primary’. Governor calls legislature into emergency session, and the law is passed.
The same would happen should the interstate compact to bypass the Electoral College were to find a Republican winning the popular vote. Deep blue states would simply change the law.
CRYBABIES
The demo-commies made that sandwich, now they should have to choke it down regardless. An Alinski rule: Hold them to their own laws and standards. And force them to smile while doing so.
I don’t see why democrats should complain now...this is how they have made Kalifornia into a permanent one party state.
Too late. Voting starts on Tuesday. You gotta love these people: the wicked scheme of the jingle primary works like a charm. The one time maybe it doesn’t work… it’s gotta go!
Actually, this primary system was the idea of a "moderate" GOP state senator Abel Maldonado...He thought that this system would help "moderate" Republicans to win statewide elections...
It came about because in 2009, Democratic leaders of the state Senate desperately needed one more vote to pass a controversial budget and turned to moderate Republican Sen. Abel Maldonado to provide it. However, Maldonado — with the support of then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — insisted that his vote hinged on placing the top-two primary before voters. Democrats eventually agreed and Proposition 14, creating the top-two system, appeared on the June 2010 primary ballot with Maldonado and Schwarzenegger contending that it would give moderates and pragmatists in both parties better chances of winning legislative and congressional seats. The leaders of every political party opposed the measure but voters passed it handily.
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2022/06/has-californias-top-two-primary-system-worked/
Both Republican and Democratic parties opposed this primary system...But, voters approved it...I voted no on the proposition...I would vote yes to get rid of this system...This top 2 system is silly...I prefer the old system...I think only Republicans should vote in GOP primary...Not independents and Democrats...
In other words, the system worked GREAT as long as it shut out ALL republicans, but once it fails to do that it must go.
The Civil Rights division should be down there with scores of armed agents. This is no different from southern Jim Crow states stopping blacks from having representation.
1st) Intrastate compacts require consent of Congress (Art.1, §10) which I don't recall ever being given for that. 2nd) It's constitutional dubious that the original intent of the Compact Clause was intended to stretch far enough to allow that as that should require a Constitutional Amendment. You have to accomplish the 1st before you can even go to court to argue the Constitution allows such.
I have no doubt that an interstate compact without the approval of Congress is not Constitutional. I’m not a lawyer, but I can read and parse the meanings of words.
But, the fly in the ointment is that state legislatures can direct their Electoral College votes any way they wish. There is no Constitutional requirement that legislatures follow the will of their state’s voters. The states in the compact have passed laws directing their legislatures to award the state’s EVs to the winner of the national election, but if and only if states with 270 EVs have approved such a law.
I can be sure that if a dem were to win the EC vote but lose the national popular vote to a Republican, one or more of the dem states would simply repeal the law awarding the state’s EC votes to the winner of the popular vote. Results come in November and they have until January to call an emergency meeting of the legislature to repeal the law...and you know they’d do it.
I never occurs to the Dems that producing platforms based on issues that American Citizens want, and that are pro-American and pro our heritage, institutions, and our American way of life could be a better way to win elections that cheating on elections (including flooding the Country with criminal aliens, ridiculous gerrymandering, and controlling what our kids learn in school).
Deceit.
The Dems', Marxists', progressives middle name.
It works. It just isn't working the way you want it to work.
They're "over you", all right...just not in the manner you imagine.
No poor man ever hired you at his company.
Who is the woman in that photo? She looks a bit like Julia Louis-Dreyfus (net worth ~ 250 mil), but I can’t tell for certain.
With Swalwell out the odds a Dem isn’t in the top 2 are low, and if it a the legislature will put on a November ballot question retroactively fixing it, which will easily pass. Ain’t gonna be no Republican governor.
Just have your demoncrap run legislators pass a new Bill (law) that only a demoncrap can be the Governor! Republicans can’t stop it.
Yes, at least up to some point. After all popular vote within the state >> electoral vote was not the original way; popularly voted state reps voting for the electoral votes was.
However, Art. IV, §4 "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government." It's hard to argue letting voters outside the state decide the state's electoral vote is "republican!" And the Framers clearly despised "pure democracy."
And it certainly doesn't comport with the original intent of providing an electoral college [as its proponents readily admit] and thus would be arguably providing another mechanism for constitutional amendments, outside the bounds of Article V and without the supermajorities it requires. Constitution is big on checks and balances and this bypasses important ones. Any justice to the right of KJB would throw it out.
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.