Posted on 08/14/2008 3:46:44 PM PDT by SmithL
California legislators have approved legislation to circumvent the Electoral College.
But the measure could face a veto from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The bill by Senator Carole Migden, a San Francisco Democrat, would ratify an interstate agreement in which states award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
That would avoid a repeat of the 2000 election, when George Bush won the presidency but not the popular vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
There would go my theory that McCain can’t win California. ;-)
I hope Arnold S. Kennedy vetoes...
It’s national popular vote. I don’t know about this though.
I disagree. If this becomes the norm, then the Democrats will be able to win national elections by stealing votes in Democrat dominated cities throughout the nation. There will be no necessity for them to steal votes in conservative states. The Electoral College is, among other things, an anti-fraud device.
That’s all well and good....until it elects a Republican over the wishes of California voters. Then what, Hmmmmm?
You will have taken the wishes of your voters and put them in the trash, AKA disenfranchisement I believe is the word....this is clearly unconstitutional on its face.
Typical California stupidity.
Bad and stupid plan. CA needs to leave it alone.
I have no objection but the idea sounds kind of absurd. Didn’t NJ do the same thing? If these states go Democrat but the Republican wins nationally, the majority of voters in these states essentially have their votes canceled out. Doesn’t sounds right even though it probably would benefit the Republican candidate. How ironic would it be if McCain wins the national popular vote and the presidency based on electoral votes from CA? In a case where if CA’s votes had gone to Obama he would have been elected, then we’ll see how popular this law is then! I suspect the Dems will be screaming bloody murder.
And we’d enjoy watching that!
I agree. Remember, we are not a democracy, we are a representative republic. There is a profound difference and why this country still exists.
Yup. Exactly why the Dems want to get rid of it. The sheeple are beginning to figure out that everything they do and stand for is a fraud.
B I N G O.
clinton never won the popular vote.
Two other problems with eliminating the Electoral College:
1) What happens if the popular vote is so close that a recount is required? State recounts are bad enough. Imagine a national one!
2) Urbanites win out over rural voters. If candidates forego electoral votes for the popular vote, then the most efficient way to do this is limit their campaigns to the big market urban areas. States like California have the laws we do because of the values (or lack thereof) of the people living in LA and SF. Do we want the entire country run on the values of those who live in NY, LA, SF, and Miami?
Even if you set aside Democrat voter fraud, elections would still focus completely on the populations centers, totally excluding the interests of those in flyover country.
Something I think the Founding Fathers understood long before our cities had grown to their present sizes.
and the argument then was (surprise, surprise) that the presidency wasn't decided on the basis of the popular vote, but by the EC. No PROBLEM then.
But when they lose, get rid of the EC! They've been pushing that for 8 years! And if they change it and still lose, they'll want to change it again. Make book on it.
I believe if they do that, it will be strongly challenged in court. And I would support that action with money, all the way to the SCOTUS.
Every obstacle to direct public rule filtered through Democrap lawyers is systematically ridiculed in the MSM.
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.
So it ain't gonna happen!
Clinton got a plurality of the popular vote each time, but never got over 50%. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992 and 8% in 1996.
Clinton carried a number of states with less than 50% of the popular vote within individual states. So he got all of their electoral votes. Which was fine with the Dems. then because it helped elect a Democrat.
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.