Posted on 08/16/2007 5:53:55 AM PDT by xjcsa
So far it's only affected California, but that means it soon may be heading your way, for what begins in California often spreads across the land. Take, for example, auto emissions, clean air standards and talentless Hollywood "celebrities" In this case, it's a new strategy devised by the California Republican Party. Call it the Table Scraps strategy.
-snip-
What's wrong with this picture? Two things. It plays directly into the hands of the left-wing movement to ditch the Electoral College altogether, declaring the aggregate winner of the popular vote to be the president. This means that a handful of large cities--voting mostly Democrat--would decide the national outcome.
-snip-
The only idea out there worse than this one is embodied in California Senate Bill 37, dreamt up by Sen. Carol Migden, who is better known for having pleaded nolo contendere last week to a misdemeanor charge of reckless driving over a 30-mile stretch of Interstate 80. Her bill, if it became law, would mandate that all of California's electoral votes would be rewarded to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how Californians had voted. This would turn the Electoral College upside down, which is her purpose. It is a case of myopia, based on left-wing ire over the 2000 Bush-Gore race.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Not saying it is right or wrong, but I believe there are two states that already do this.
Maryland is a solid blue state whose state house approved a bill that would give its electorial votes to the popular vote winner.
This means in 2004, its votes despite the state voters, would have gone to Bush.
“Maryland is a solid blue state whose state house approved a bill that would give its electorial votes to the popular vote winner”
yes but i believe it does not take effect until the other states do the same.
I have a better idea
Return selection of Senators to the houses of each state, and the selection of the President and Vice President back to that senate.
Problem solved.
Not exactly—Nebraska and Maine give two EV (Senate) to the overall popular vote winner of the state, while the remaining votes are given to the candidate who wins each Congressional district.
If you really wanna get right down to it, the (any) State Legislature could just award the electoral votes to the DEMOCRAT candidate in perpetuity and it would be constitutional.........
Why? It is up to the states to determine how they will allocate their electoral votes. Nebraska and Maine don’t have a winner-take-all system.
That is exactly the plan being proposed in California. The overall winner gets the two “Senators” electors, each “Congressional” elector is individually elected.
The issue is the Constitution. As I understand the US Constitution, states get to determine how they allot their electoral votes. Maine is one state that does not give all of them to the popular vote winner in that state. (Isn’t Colorado another?) The constitution does not require that all electors belong to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state.
I believe one purpose of electors is to provide a degree of separation from the popular vote so that serious folk get to carefully consider the person being elevated to the presidency. If, for instance, it were to come out after the election, but before the electoral college meeting that the nominee had been a long-time double agent for some foreign power, then the electors could choose not to elevate that person to the office.
Another purpose was to prevent large population states from running roughshod over smaller population states by requiring that each state have a minimum of 3 electors no matter how much smaller their population was.
A setup where all of California's electoral votes went to the winner of the popular vote *nationwide* could be said to deny California's voters a proper degree of say over the allotment of the state's electoral votes.Prime example...2004.Bush won the popular vote by several million,correct? Why should all of California's 53 electoral votes have gone to Bush when Kerry won something like 55% of the popular vote in California.
In 2004, California gave all 55 electoral votes to John Kerry. If the proposed plan were to have been in effect (as it is in Maine and Nebraska), John Kerry would have only recieved 33 electoral votes (31 Congressional District Electors plus 2 overall Electors), while George Bush would have recieved 22 electoral votes.
On this proposal? Several states already do it. The proposal based on the national popular vote is ridiculous and may not survive a court fight, but the current proposal seems to be on sound footing.
Actually that's exactly what this proposal entails.
I got a better idea. Let the electrol college be solely determined by members of the Freerepublic.com. Membership will be frozen of course effective today.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
You are exactly right on both reasons for the electorial college.
If you try to link it to the popular vote, you might as well do away with it all together as you’ve defeated the purpose of the system.
This would be a consitutional battle to define what “each state” can or can’t do. Does it mean they get to do whatever they want with their vote, or does it mean they can only choose “between which person” to vote for?
I would think that the majority of the flyover states would vote to keep things as is, otherwise the candidates will only travel to a few states (NY, CA, etc.) when running for president. All the other smaller states would be spectators to the election.
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.