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

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

[decal]

Also in 1876 and 1888.

[no dems]

Does anyone think the courts will let this stand?

But, hey, this could do nothing but help the Pubbies. In 2004, GW would have gotten California's Electoral Votes.

[Roy Tucker]

This is stupid because it allows the rest of the country to determine how California's electoral votes will be allocated not the voters of California.

How stupid is the California State Senate?

[Space Dawg]

So let's see...

- The popular vote of California goes to the Democrat. The popular vote of the nation goes to the GOP.

- Since the democrat won CA, the slate of electors previously selected by the California Democratic Party would be allowed to vote for President in the Electoral College.

My question is this: Since the electors are usually the most loyal, the most privileged members of their party, what motivation would they have to vote for the GOP? Would the individual electors be bound by law to vote for the opposing candidate?

What would happen if an elector (or two or all of them) decided to violate that law to vote for the democrat, especially if that vote switch would put the democrat in office as President?

This proposal has danger written all over it no matter which party would benefit.

[calcowgirl]

From the Senate Analysis of the AB 2948:

             This bill ratifies an interstate compact whereby the state  
          agrees to award its electoral votes to the presidential  
          ticket that received the most popular votes nationwide if  
          certain conditions are met.  Specifically, this bill  
          ratifies the agreement among the States to Elect the  
          President by National Popular Vote (Agreement), an  
          interstate compact that contains the following provisions:

          1. Any state of the United States and the District of  
             Columbia may become a member of the compact.

          2. Each member of the compact must conduct a statewide  
             popular election for President and Vice President.

(snip)

             Legislation in other states  .  California is one of five  
          states with legislation pending to ratify the Agreement.   
          Legislation is also pending in Louisiana, Illinois,  
          Missouri, and Colorado.  On April 17, 2006, the Colorado  
          State Senate passed the bill to ratify the Agreement.   
          However, none of those state legislatures are still in  
          session this year therefore, if this bill passes,  
          California would be the first state to enact the Agreement.  
           Additionally, legislators in Arizona, Vermont, and New  
          York have announced they will introduce the Agreement in  
          their respective legislative bodies.

           Previous legislation .  AB 45 (Maze, 2005) provided for  
          California's electoral votes to be divided proportionately  
          among presidential tickets based on each ticket's share of  
          the popular vote in the state.  AB 45 failed passage in the  
          Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee.  AB 2  
          (Benoit, 2005) allocated California's presidential electors  
          based on the winner of each  congressional district,  
          instead of the winner of the statewide vote.  AB 2 was  
          never heard in committee.  AB 2003 (Longville, 2004)  
          provided that voters shall vote directly for presidential  
          electors, rather than voting for candidates for President  
          and Vice President at the general election.  AB 2003 was  
          held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee's suspense  
          file.  AB 45 (Strickland, 2001) allocated presidential  
          electors based on the winner of each congressional  
          district, instead of the winner of the statewide vote.  AB  
          45 failed passage in the Assembly Elections and  
          Redistricting Committee.

[bordergal]

I think we need to give our California legislators more time off (and much much less pay).

How about cutting back to about three months per year?
That should help limit the amount of mischief they can do.

[Roy Tucker]

You are right. In the long-term this would be an end-arround the Electoral College to allow the national popular vote to determine the winner. You can bet if this catches on there will be a tremendous increase in vote fraud.

[TheZMan]

[Solemar]

"Also in 1876 and 1888."

Oop! Missed those.

Bush's fault [/s]

[Redbob]

"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."

Indeed, that would have gotten Dubya another 55 electoral votes last election.
If they rose from their drug-induced stupors long enough, the voters of California would reject this plan on that basis alone.

[Hannibal Hamlin]

John Adams warned us two centuries ago of the dangers of mob rule. He was and still is right.

[NorCalRepub]

ah....you wouldn't want to do that....we feed 40% of the nation....are 14% of the GDP.....plus hell, we are even design all the nuclear weapons....can we take them with us too??????

[4rcane]

as mentioned above, this allow other states to determine CA's 55 votes. So if Kerry won Ohio. Bush will still take CA and win, even though CA went to Kerry

[M Kehoe]

Reading this stuff makes me believe that no one in the Kalifornia legislature has read the U.S. Constitution.

5.56mm

[MissouriConservative]

I do hereby call for the repeal of the 17th amendment!!! If California can do this, then I can demand repeal of the God awful amendment.

Join me in calling for it to go the way of the dinosaur.

[AmeriBrit]

If I understand this correctly then under this system we don't get to choose who will be our next president.

Is that right?

Isn't that unconstitutional?

[CindyDawg]

Maybe we could do a little...ah what do you call it? Gerry something. :')

[Dilbert San Diego]

I don't think that this is workable. Because, the electoral votes of a state are cast by electors, by actual people. The people who are chosen as electors are party activists who get to vote for president as a show of appreciation for hard work for their party. Would Democratic electors from California really vote for a Republican? I;m not sure if electors are required to vote a certain way.

[goldfinch]

A few points about this plan....

The Electoral College was the result of a compromise to keep the small states from being overwhelmed by the large states. This plan is a way to bypass the Electoral College without needing to amend the Constitution. If this is such a great idea, why be sneaky about it? Why not just amend the Constitution?

The reason, of course, is because the process for amending the Constitution is MUCH tougher and requires MUCH broader agreement than does passing a vote in enough state legislatures to get to 270 electoral votes.

To amend the Constitution, a measure needs to be passed by a 2/3 majority of the House and the Senate AND then it must be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

To get 270 Electoral votes, you only have to pass this plan in the 12 largest states. Yep. One dozen states.

If you don't dwell in one of those states, you might want to think twice about if this is a good idea or not...

Oh....and 4 of the 5 states where this plan has either passed or is in process have Democrat controlled legislatures.

This plan is a sow's ear masquerading as a silk purse. Do not be fooled.

[AmeriBrit]

I hope your right.