Posted on 08/22/2006 8:16:28 PM PDT by calcowgirl
SACRAMENTO - California would cast its 55 Electoral College votes for the winner of the national popular vote under a bill designed to change the way the president is elected and increase the state's influence in national elections.
The bill, approved Tuesday by the Senate, would help draw candidates to the nation's most populous state for intensive campaigning, said Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, who carried the bill in the Senate.
California is a crucial stopover on presidential candidates' fundraising tours but often is otherwise ignored because it is considered to be safely Democratic.
The bill's supporters want candidates to pay more attention to California, rather than devoting most of their energies to a handful of swing states.
"More than a third of the country never sees ... many campaign visits from candidates," Bowen said.
The bill, which goes back to the Assembly for a final vote, would make California part of an interstate compact. The multistate agreement is part of a national campaign started in February by National Popular Vote, a nonprofit based in the Silicon Valley city of Los Altos that seeks to change the way the nation picks a president.
"The founding fathers didn't get everything right," Bowen said, calling the Electoral College "a dinosaur."
Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, called the proposal "brazenly unconstitutional."
He and Republican state Senators Dennis Hollingsworth of La Mesa and Jeff Denham of Merced said the founding fathers settled on compromise that does not include a direct popular vote for president. They said the effort to tie electoral votes to the popular vote violates that portion of the Constitution.
"We don't have a democracy; we have a constitutional republic," Hollingsworth said.
If it eventually becomes law, the legislation would take effect only if states with a combined 270 electoral votes - the number now required to win the presidency - also agreed to decide the election by popular vote. Similar legislation is pending in Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana and Missouri.
California currently awards its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the state popular vote, as do most other states. While a plurality of the state's voters are registered as Democrats, giving all California's electoral votes to the popular winner could swing the state to a Republican.
The movement is a reaction to the 2000 presidential contest, when Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency to George W. Bush, who won more Electoral College votes. Gore also won California that year.
In 2004, major presidential or vice presidential candidates visited California just twice in the campaign's last month, even though the state's voters cast more than 10 percent of the nation's votes for president, according to a legislative analysis of the bill.
Bowen, who is running for secretary of state, said voters in California and other afterthought states have less interest in elections than those in key states such as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida.
The bill passed along party lines, 23-14. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill, spokesman Darrel Ng said.
---
On the Net:
Read AB2948 at http://www.assembly.ca.gov
But under their plan, CA, NY, IL, and MA would greatly increase their voter fraud to inflate the popular vote. Who knows what their popular vote would have been in 2004 if this plan had been in effect? Under current rules of the the Electoral College, there isn't any benefit to running up the score in blowout states. Under this plan or a direct popular vote, there is.
and won't make it more likely that anyone will campaign there.
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.
That's correct! That's how this system would work. Of course your vote would go into the national total, but so would my vote and my vote here in Texas would influence who your electors would select just as much as yours would there in California. Cool, huh?
That was the first thought that popped into my mind, but I'm paranoid. :)
And voter fraud in Philadelphia, Chicago or St. Louis will affect EVERYONE'S electoral votes, not just the voters in those states.
"Republican" Tom Campbell is one of the major Californians pushing this.
He is part of a "nationwide movement."
Here are a couple websites from these folks:
http://www.every-vote-equal.com/
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/
Boy, the Dems really hold a grudge, don't they?
Hidden clause: "Unless a Republican wins the popular vote".
In other words we no longer need to vote for president in California.
Can you imagine?
Wailing and gnashing of teeth doesn't even come close.
If it eventually becomes law, the legislation would take effect only if states with a combined 270 electoral votes - the number now required to win the presidency - also agreed to decide the election by popular vote. Similar legislation is pending in Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana and Missouri.Well it is a compact between states. According to the bills being passed in several states, this system would go into effect if states accounting for 270 electoral votes pass this legislation. This amounts to a compact between states, and the US Constitution requires that any compact between states or between a state and a foreign government must be approved by Congress. I don't see anywhere that Congress passed any resolution on this matter, so it violates Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution.
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.
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.
US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, second paragraph:
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.It's not really a compact is it? It's just the manner the legislature is directing the electors to vote. They could just as easily direct them to vote based on the outcome of a dart game.
McClintock is all wet.
And I pay for this?
Think I am gonna go bath my cat. Too much bad news today.
I agree was a big mistake. Cause we can`t trust the Rats and, because I`m not sure about the rest of you, my vote should be the only one that counts.
There's the fly in the ointment for them.
In 2000, just before the election, the pundits were predicting that Bush would win the popular vote and Gore the electoral. I remember watching some reporter interview Gore, asking him about that possibility. Gore said that if that happened, that George W. Bush should accept the loss because after all, we are a nation of laws.
They're disgusting hypocrites, and if they're successful in this campaign to do away with the electoral college, they will come to regret it one day when the Republican wins the popular vote and the 'rat the electoral college. And they would scream bloody murder too.
So yesterday! A piece of paper written by rich white slave holders. The Progressives march on!(/LAZY Lib crap)
If it eventually becomes law, the legislation would take effect only if states with a combined 270 electoral votes - the number now required to win the presidency - also agreed to decide the election by popular vote. Similar legislation is pending in Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana and Missouri.
This is contingent on what other state legislatures do. That makes it a compact which is a violation of Article I, Section 10.
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.