Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Popular vote gets thumbs up in Calif. [a way of amending the Constitution through the backdoor....]
Yahoo ^

Posted on 08/31/2006 6:51:49 AM PDT by Sub-Driver

Popular vote gets thumbs up in Calif.

By ROBIN HINDERY, Associated Press Writer 14 minutes ago

The California Legislature passed a bill that would give California's 55 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the candidate who captured the state — but for now, the measure stands a slim chance of becoming reality.

That's because it could go into effect only if states with a combined total of 270 electoral votes — the number now required to win the presidency — agree to the same process.

Similar legislation is pending in Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana and Missouri — which have a combined 50 electoral votes. With California's 55, the legislation would still be less than halfway there.

The movement is a reaction to the 2000 presidential contest, when Democrat Al Gore won the nationwide popular vote but lost the presidency to George W. Bush, who won more Electoral College votes. Gore also won California that year.

Democrats control the California Legislature. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has yet to take a public position on the bill, passed Wednesday.

Supporters said the move would boost California's relevance in national elections. California is a key fundraising state for presidential candidates but is often not visited in general campaigning because it is safely Democratic.

"Candidates don't come to California," said Assemblyman Rick Keene of Chico, one of the few Republican supporters of the measure. "We are currently disenfranchised in the electoral process."

But many Republicans criticized the bill.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: ab2948; callegislation; electoralcollege; popularvote
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

1 posted on 08/31/2006 6:51:50 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

More nuttiness.


2 posted on 08/31/2006 6:58:50 AM PDT by BenLurkin ("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
but is often not visited in general campaigning because it is safely Democratic.

That sounds like more of a problem that electoral issues could ever be. As a candidate, why would I waste time on you if you will still send me money and vote for me anyway?
3 posted on 08/31/2006 6:58:57 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

This state (Ca) is so seriously f'd up!


4 posted on 08/31/2006 6:59:23 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Bring your press credentials to Qana, for the world's most convincing terrorist street theater.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Dirty little secret is that the citizen doesn't vote for the president. The citizen votes for a slate of electors that elect the president.

In theory, the state legislatures can determine how their electors are cast any way they want. It just so happens they use statewide popular vote in every state (except for Maine and Nebraska that use a modified system of this). They could just vote for the electors themselves (Florida came close to doing this in 2000). They only thing stopping them would be the likely voter backlash.


5 posted on 08/31/2006 7:00:42 AM PDT by PetroniDE (We Don't Live in Texas Anymore --- State Name is Now TAXES !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

This will be challenged, and end up in front of SCOTUS.


6 posted on 08/31/2006 7:01:08 AM PDT by Balding_Eagle (God has blessed Republicans with political enemies who are going senile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
"Candidates don't come to California," said Assemblyman Rick Keene of Chico, one of the few Republican supporters of the measure. "We are currently disenfranchised in the electoral process."

What a stupid RINO!

7 posted on 08/31/2006 7:01:52 AM PDT by Alex1977
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Bad policy, though at first glance there is nothing in the constitution that says California (and other states) couldn't do such a thing.


8 posted on 08/31/2006 7:02:36 AM PDT by PetroniDE (We Don't Live in Texas Anymore --- State Name is Now TAXES !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

How about dividing the state up into multiple states.

East, West, and North California. Three new stars in the flag.


9 posted on 08/31/2006 7:04:32 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PetroniDE
"Dirty little secret "
When I went to the 7th grade, we studied civics. The electoral college system was explained fully to us. The only people who call this a secret are the "rats" who do not believe in or study our current form of government. Are you a rat in GOP clothing?
10 posted on 08/31/2006 7:04:34 AM PDT by joe fonebone (Israel, taking out the world's trash since 1948.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

There's no reason why it should. State legislatures are entirely within their rights to determine how electoral votes will be rewarded, even if this is a really stupid idea.


11 posted on 08/31/2006 7:04:42 AM PDT by Sloth ('It Takes A Village' is problematic when you're raising your child in Sodom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Is there something in the drinking water or air that causes the people of California to come up with such retarded ideas?


12 posted on 08/31/2006 7:05:44 AM PDT by Dustbunny (The BIBLE - Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PetroniDE

Why bother voting in California if the state is going to award the Electoral votes the National candidate who has the most popular votes?

The people of California might just as well stay home because voting for President would just be a waste of time.



13 posted on 08/31/2006 7:06:00 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

I don't see why. Nothing unconstitutional about it.

And since California is safely Dem, any change to the way they choose electors will help the pubbies.

Candidates still won't visit Cali. They'll buy ads in LA and SF, but that's it.

If Cali really wants candidates to visit, they should do the following: If no candidate gets 60% of the state's votes, then the electors are split proportionally. If anyone gets 60% of the votes, he gets all electors.


14 posted on 08/31/2006 7:06:16 AM PDT by AmishDude (`[N]on-state actors' can project force around the world more easily than Canada". -- Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
If we lost the electoral system NY, CA and the most populous states would elect our presidents and those of us in the heartland would basically have no say in the matter. Candidates would just campaign in the big states and politicians would just pander to the states w/large populations.

The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they formed the electoral college and the Senate which represents every state pretty equally. Larger population states already have a larger say because they have more electoral votes but now they want a bigger say. If any of these measures passes I would hope someone would take it all the way to the SC, I don't think such a measure would stand.

15 posted on 08/31/2006 7:07:52 AM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
When I went to the 7th grade, we studied civics. The electoral college system was explained fully to us. The only people who call this a secret are the "rats" who do not believe in or study our current form of government. Are you a rat in GOP clothing?

Remember the 2000 election? I was surprised how many people did not know this. To those who didn't learn this in school, it is a "dirty little secret".

Don't like the idea, but if California wanted to do this bad enough, don't see how it can be stopped.

/sarcasm on. Doesn't matter. We will just steal the election again if necessary. /sarcasm off.

16 posted on 08/31/2006 7:09:08 AM PDT by PetroniDE (We Don't Live in Texas Anymore --- State Name is Now TAXES !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2
The people of California might just as well stay home because voting for President would just be a waste of time.

I, being from a much smaller and redder state, would be 100% fine with that. BTW, doesn't CA realize that All of their electorial votes would have gone to Bush in the 2004 election?

17 posted on 08/31/2006 7:10:28 AM PDT by American_Centurion (No, I don't trust the government to automatically do the right thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

You forget the other races on the ballot. If I lived in California and this happened, I would vote out the entire legislative body.


18 posted on 08/31/2006 7:10:40 AM PDT by PetroniDE (We Don't Live in Texas Anymore --- State Name is Now TAXES !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

this is a GREAT idea - as California will vote Democrat anyway............ only the Republicans could benefit!


19 posted on 08/31/2006 7:12:15 AM PDT by stocksthatgoup ("Is it real? Or is it Reuters?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

This is all about cutting the small states out of the formula.

Popular vote means the fraud and vote stealing need only be concentrated in a few CONTROLLED political machine areas.


20 posted on 08/31/2006 7:12:23 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

This law will be appealed when the state votes for a cnadate by a wide margin but it votes go to the other guy.
By using this law Bush who won the popular vote last time would have also been given the electrol votes from calif.
If this law had been in placed in 2004 then there would have been great whailing and nashing of teeth.

The electrol college is in place to ensure that each state has some influence on the outcome. Small states can be the difference. Popular vote only would mean that the cites control the outcomes and only issuse that interest them will count... it a liberal trojan horse...


21 posted on 08/31/2006 7:12:53 AM PDT by FlatLandBeer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American_Centurion

"doesn't CA realize that All of their electorial votes would have gone to Bush in the 2004 election?"

I'm sure they were thinking about the '2000' election when they came up with this.


22 posted on 08/31/2006 7:14:22 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: stocksthatgoup

I have a better idea. Give California back to Mexico.

No more Hollywood, no more 9th Circuit, no more San Francisco, no more rally monkey. Let them generate their own electricity and care for their own illegals. We will take Nuevo Leon in return.


23 posted on 08/31/2006 7:14:51 AM PDT by PetroniDE (We Don't Live in Texas Anymore --- State Name is Now TAXES !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tiki
I don't think such a measure would stand.

Why? On what Constitutional ground? How to divvy up its electors is a state matter. I don't think it is a good idea to let the federal government encroach here.
24 posted on 08/31/2006 7:16:28 AM PDT by HaveHadEnough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: PetroniDE

"You forget the other races on the ballot."

Well, since this deals with 'national' races, then the job of President would be the number one reason for them to do this.

I don' think the 'Senator' or 'Congressman' positions were really what they intended this for.

But, I could be wrong.


25 posted on 08/31/2006 7:17:01 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: HaveHadEnough

What the Dems would really like to do in California, is wait until the votes have been counted, and then choose the method of allocating the state's electorial votes.


26 posted on 08/31/2006 7:25:18 AM PDT by raftguide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
This will be challenged, and end up in front of SCOTUS. Maybe. Roberts might not choose to here it. A plain reading of the Constitution doesn't show this to be in violation. This would have turned Bush's thin electoral vote majority, famously only the state of Ohio swithching would have put Kerry in the White House, into a electoral college landslide for Bush.
27 posted on 08/31/2006 7:25:40 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2

This would only apply to the president/vice-president. It can't be applied to other races since they are not national.


28 posted on 08/31/2006 7:29:03 AM PDT by PetroniDE (We Don't Live in Texas Anymore --- State Name is Now TAXES !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

While this is a really stupid idea (letting the popular majority vote in the country determine your state's electoral votes -- potentially to be the opposite of the will of the voters of your state), there is nothing unconstitutional about it.

If the state legislature were to pass legislation that used the results of the Super Bowl in the election year to determine the state's electoral votes, that would be fine by the Constitution. The Constitution clearly gives the states the right to determine their electors however the state legislature decides.

Still, it is a demonstrably STUPID idea to turn the decision over to the rest of the country.


29 posted on 08/31/2006 7:31:27 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raftguide
What the Dems would really like to do in California, is wait until the votes have been counted, and then choose the method of allocating the state's electorial votes.

What the dems would really like to do is "CAST oops, COUNT THE VOTES THEMSELVES".

30 posted on 08/31/2006 7:31:33 AM PDT by PetroniDE (We Don't Live in Texas Anymore --- State Name is Now TAXES !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: PetroniDE
This would only apply to the president/vice-president. It can't be applied to other races since they are not national.

More specifically, these are the only races in which the electoral college determines the outcome.

31 posted on 08/31/2006 7:32:18 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

I like that idea better --- GOP gets the AFC. Dems get the NFC.


32 posted on 08/31/2006 7:32:29 AM PDT by PetroniDE (We Don't Live in Texas Anymore --- State Name is Now TAXES !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PetroniDE

I have a better idea for the dems...give people like me a reason for voting for you again!!!


33 posted on 08/31/2006 7:34:53 AM PDT by sachem longrifle (proud member of the fond Du lac band of the Ojibwa people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PetroniDE

I'm pretty sure that's what I stated in post #25.

:)


34 posted on 08/31/2006 7:36:50 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PetroniDE
In theory, the state legislatures can determine how their electors are cast any way they want.

Not just in theory.

Article II, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President, chosen for the same Term, be elected as follows:
East 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: ...

35 posted on 08/31/2006 7:39:34 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PetroniDE
In theory, the state legislatures can determine how their electors are cast any way they want.

Not just in theory.

Article II, Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President, chosen for the same Term, be elected as follows:
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: ...

36 posted on 08/31/2006 7:39:55 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

It may appear to help Republicans, but it is very dangerous. I smell a rat.

They will trying to get the "battleground states" to adopt the same policy. Then, those states will be less important.

Secondly, it increases the effect of voter fraud. Currently, if there is fraud going on in Louisana, the most the fraud can do is help with Louisana's electoral votes. If Ohio is a critical state, but subversives efforts to create fraud there have not succeeded, then they have failed.

With the new system, the strong ethics of Ohioans wouldn't matter. All they have to do is pump votes into Louisiana and it would have a national effect.


37 posted on 08/31/2006 7:40:17 AM PDT by Barney Gumble (A liberal is someone too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel - Robert Frost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

The reason I used the word theory is that if any state legislature took the elector vote away from it's citizens as a matter of policy, said legislatures might as well start looking for a new job.


38 posted on 08/31/2006 7:42:58 AM PDT by PetroniDE (We Don't Live in Texas Anymore --- State Name is Now TAXES !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Bigh4u2; PetroniDE
I'm pretty sure that's what I stated in post #25.

Actually you stated that the race for President is the "number one reason" for doing this (thereby implying that there could be lesser reasons as well), and that you didn't think the other races were what they had in mind though you could be wrong about that.

What petro pointed out was that no other races could even be a consideration in this as no other races are decided by the Electoral college.

:-)

39 posted on 08/31/2006 7:43:35 AM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone

"...The electoral college system was explained fully to us."

Same here, we learned it in grade school. I never thought it was a problem. Our forefathers knew where they were coming from, and created the best form of government a country could possibly have.....I say, "don't mess with the constitution."


40 posted on 08/31/2006 7:45:19 AM PDT by Auntie Toots (The GOP is still the best we've got))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember; Bigh4u2
The language was very confusing and I pushed the wrong buttons on the keyboard.

Let's all not get too snippy now.

Where is that lady with the picture "I Am With Stupid"

ROFLOL.

41 posted on 08/31/2006 7:47:07 AM PDT by PetroniDE (We Don't Live in Texas Anymore --- State Name is Now TAXES !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: joe fonebone
Remember, here is your typical educated voter.


42 posted on 08/31/2006 7:49:45 AM PDT by PetroniDE (We Don't Live in Texas Anymore --- State Name is Now TAXES !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PetroniDE

I think I like you.........


43 posted on 08/31/2006 7:51:12 AM PDT by joe fonebone (Israel, taking out the world's trash since 1948.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

My lack of a 'sarcasm' tag on the last part was inadvertent.

But I could be wrong./s

Besides. I did include a 'smiley face' in my reply!

:0)


44 posted on 08/31/2006 7:58:48 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Mob rule! They will live to regret doing this. The people who live in areas other than LA have been disenfranchised.


45 posted on 08/31/2006 7:59:35 AM PDT by pepperdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PetroniDE

I think you missed this part of my reply ":)"

lol!



46 posted on 08/31/2006 8:00:15 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: stocksthatgoup

The demoncraps are really stupid!


47 posted on 08/31/2006 8:01:11 AM PDT by Alex1977
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Barney Gumble

Good point about the fraud. Can't forget the fraud.


48 posted on 08/31/2006 8:39:32 AM PDT by AmishDude (`[N]on-state actors' can project force around the world more easily than Canada". -- Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Easily discarded in federal court. States aren't lines on a map, they are collections of citizens. Although the Constitution allows State legislatures to decide how to determine their electors, they only have legislative jurisdiction over their own citizens, that is the State itself. They cannot by default demand the other States provide counts of popular votes to the California legislature to determine California's assignment of electors. Recall also that States may choose other methods of determining electors, and that these need not be by popular vote. The legislatures of certain states I believe actually are not required to follow the popular vote, in a number of circumstances similar to what occurred in Florida. Do we all forget that the legislature of Florida almost managed to determine electors by vote of the legislature before the Florida (Burrito) Supreme Court stuck its nose in? California can write as much silly legislation as they like, as long as it only involves the State of California. I'm sure this angle is the simplest to use to defeat such moonbat nonsense. California must make the choice for California. It cannot require the other 49 States to do the job for them.

Furthermore, if we recall correctly, in all the other States we would still be voting for Electors, not Presidential candidates. As a result, California's bill would have the effect of denying the Electors of other States their opportunity to cast their votes: by predetermining their votes. Example: Let us suppose in Maine, that I cast my vote for Robert Pinkham, who is running as an Elector supporting Mitt Romney for President. California claims that the popular votes for Mr. Pinkham are immediately votes for Mr. Romney. However, by doing this, they can not determine what Mr. Pinkham might actually do on the date of the Electoral College. Let us say on that date, that instead Mr. Pinkham determines he will be an unfaithful elector and cast his vote for Patrick Buchanan. Now, California has improperly appointed electors... I'm sure that a further extension of this argument is apparent.

And even furthermore, lest California to have courts reject these arguments... then simply other States should correctly, and constitutionally refuse to deliver any official notification of popular vote totals to the State of California, and further consider using a non-popular vote method to determine its electors... somehow the leftists were able to get that judgment overturned... then all it takes is for one or more States to eliminate popular voting for Presidential candiates and go to a strict voting for Electors (perhaps using a multiple vote system!).

49 posted on 08/31/2006 8:57:16 AM PDT by sturmde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
This will be challenged, and end up in front of SCOTUS.

Why?

Here's what the Constitution says about it:

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.

I think it's a stupid idea, but they are perfectly welcome to do it. Notice that this change in the manner they choose their electors doesn't take effect unless other states do it as well. Personally, I think there is enough sanity in the country not to want to essentially abandon the electoral college, which is what this law intends.

50 posted on 08/31/2006 9:52:10 AM PDT by zeugma (I reject your reality and substitute my own in its place. (http://www.zprc.org/))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson