CA: Senate backs plan to give electoral votes to popular vote winner

AP - San Luis Obispo Tribune ^ | Aug. 22, 2006 | DON THOMPSON

[calcowgirl]

Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, called the proposal "brazenly unconstitutional."

[decal]

"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 GOP should be all for this - they have little chance of getting CA's electoral votes as it is now, so they have virtually nothing to lose.

They shouldn't go for it anywhere else, though, except maybe Massachusetts and DC.

[EagleUSA]

"brazenly unconstitutional."
----
Of course it is -- it was dreamed up by the libs who hate the idea of any form of vote restriction on the popular count. They would trash the electoral college if they could...and let the big trashed liberal cities determine the demise of American liberties and freedoms.

[Mo1]

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.

Besides being unconstitutional

Do the Dems in CA realize that CA would then went to Bush in 2004 ... because he did win the popular vote

[neodad]

I agree. If this is in response to the 00 election, Bush still wins. In 04, Bush wins CA.

[FreedomCalls]

This only hurts the Democrats -- taking away their solid Dem advantage -- and won't make it more likely that anyone will campaign there. In a tight race one might want to try to tip the balance towards gaining all of the votes under the currect winner-takes-all system, but if all one could ever do would be to add one or two based on a percentage (i.e. winning 30 to 25 instead of 28 to 27 -- a gain of only 4 electoral votes), why would anyone waste their time campaigning there?

[CindyDawg]

They are probably working on that too.

[neodad]

Beat me by a minute

[free_at_jsl.com]

If they want to be fair, then they should divide the electoral votes along the same boundaries as the popular vote instead of having a "winner take all" system. This "popular vote" scheme is a sham.

[georgiarat]

The mistake was ever allowing popular vote in the first place. The founding fathers knew that allowing popular vote invited bidding by use of the public funds would corrupt the process as it has. Popular vote also allows those to vote who have no idea of the political consequences to determine leadership as has occurred. The dumb determine the winners and vote for those who give them the most. The democratic party understands this very well.

[BreitbartSentMe]

So, if this loony proposition pases in enough states for the 270 electoral votes, would that mean that a handful of states could band together and decide on other areas of the constitution to 'ignore'???

[FreedomCalls]

Besides being unconstitutional

How is it unconstitutional? The states can allocate their electoral votes any way they choose. They can award them based on the outcome of a cock-fight if they wish.

[Cinnamon]

Dems grasping for straws .. again! next thing you know they'll legislate that the loser actually gets the votes!

[winner3000]

So in 2004 Bush would have won California's 55 electoral votes regardless! Had Kerry barely won Ohio, thanks to California's new law, Bush would still have beaten Kerry, for the presidency only thanks to California's new law!

[FDNYRHEROES]

Let The POLITICAL PANDERING begin in earnest...

D#mn those CA-soakers.

[free_at_jsl.com]

The more I think about this, the less sense it makes. Is California giving away it's electoral votes to everyone else? What about the rights of the voters in California? What if the rest of the nation were tied? Could this system allow Californian's to break the tie?

[Ben Mugged]

In other words we no longer need to vote for president in California. The national popular vote winner gets all of our 55 regardless of how the voters voted.

[NonValueAdded]

Wouldn't that be a hoot if the rest of the country shifted right and although the lib candidate won California, the ev's went to the conservative? There wouldn't be enough waaaaambulances in the world to handle the result.

[X-Servative]

You guys are missing the point. This bill would give California more political power. It would encourage more Californians to get out and vote, which could give the national popular vote to the loser (ie a Democrat), even though they could lose the electoral college. If this catches fire in other states, we could move toward a direct election, which would give significantly more power to populous states like CA and NY.