Posted on 08/31/2006 6:51:49 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Popular vote gets thumbs up in Calif.
By ROBIN HINDERY, Associated Press Writer 14 minutes ago
The California Legislature passed a bill that would give California's 55 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the candidate who captured the state — but for now, the measure stands a slim chance of becoming reality.
That's because it could go into effect only if states with a combined total of 270 electoral votes — the number now required to win the presidency — agree to the same process.
Similar legislation is pending in Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana and Missouri — which have a combined 50 electoral votes. With California's 55, the legislation would still be less than halfway there.
The movement is a reaction to the 2000 presidential contest, when Democrat Al Gore won the nationwide popular vote but lost the presidency to George W. Bush, who won more Electoral College votes. Gore also won California that year.
Democrats control the California Legislature. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has yet to take a public position on the bill, passed Wednesday.
Supporters said the move would boost California's relevance in national elections. California is a key fundraising state for presidential candidates but is often not visited in general campaigning because it is safely Democratic.
"Candidates don't come to California," said Assemblyman Rick Keene of Chico, one of the few Republican supporters of the measure. "We are currently disenfranchised in the electoral process."
But many Republicans criticized the bill.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Let's all not get too snippy now.
Where is that lady with the picture "I Am With Stupid"
ROFLOL.
I think I like you.........
My lack of a 'sarcasm' tag on the last part was inadvertent.
But I could be wrong./s
Besides. I did include a 'smiley face' in my reply!
:0)
Mob rule! They will live to regret doing this. The people who live in areas other than LA have been disenfranchised.
I think you missed this part of my reply ":)"
lol!
The demoncraps are really stupid!
Good point about the fraud. Can't forget the fraud.
Furthermore, if we recall correctly, in all the other States we would still be voting for Electors, not Presidential candidates. As a result, California's bill would have the effect of denying the Electors of other States their opportunity to cast their votes: by predetermining their votes. Example: Let us suppose in Maine, that I cast my vote for Robert Pinkham, who is running as an Elector supporting Mitt Romney for President. California claims that the popular votes for Mr. Pinkham are immediately votes for Mr. Romney. However, by doing this, they can not determine what Mr. Pinkham might actually do on the date of the Electoral College. Let us say on that date, that instead Mr. Pinkham determines he will be an unfaithful elector and cast his vote for Patrick Buchanan. Now, California has improperly appointed electors... I'm sure that a further extension of this argument is apparent.
And even furthermore, lest California to have courts reject these arguments... then simply other States should correctly, and constitutionally refuse to deliver any official notification of popular vote totals to the State of California, and further consider using a non-popular vote method to determine its electors... somehow the leftists were able to get that judgment overturned... then all it takes is for one or more States to eliminate popular voting for Presidential candiates and go to a strict voting for Electors (perhaps using a multiple vote system!).
Why?
Here's what the Constitution says about it:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
I think it's a stupid idea, but they are perfectly welcome to do it. Notice that this change in the manner they choose their electors doesn't take effect unless other states do it as well. Personally, I think there is enough sanity in the country not to want to essentially abandon the electoral college, which is what this law intends.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Will Arnie veto it?
I agree that the California legislature can bind their electors to cast their votes for the winner of the popular vote. The Constitution clearly gives states that right.
Where the problem comes in is that this law will not go into effect until other states, representing a majority of Electoral votes, pass the same law. The Constitution forbids states to enter into compacts not approved by the federal government. The national organizations pushing for these kinds of laws calls for a compact between states...and uses the word 'compact'.
This is an end run around the Constitution and it should make people very afraid...
Not just in theory.
The article states that California's measure stands a slim chance of becoming reality because it "could go into effect only if states with a combined total of 270 electoral votes — the number now required to win the presidency — agree to the same process."
Doesn't that limit California's ability to determine how their electoral votes are cast?
Couldn't you just imagine how the left would have gone even nuttier than they are if they had passed this before 2004?
The mind boggles.
Mass suicide!
This is a Constitutional matter it isn't a state matter, it affects the country as a whole and no state should be able to make an end run around the Constitution. I strongly believe in state's rights but this is a National and Constitutional matter. If they want to change it then it must be changed in the correct manner, ie, nationally. E Pluribus Unam.
To my dismay.
You said:Personally, I think there is enough sanity in the country not to want to essentially abandon the electoral college, which is what this law intends.
I generally have a lot of faith in the voters, but in this case they are unwittingly going to throw the existing system out.
WE'RE DOOMED!, DOOMED, I TELL YOU!
Not really, but things are going to change in ways we can't predict, and I don't like it.
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.