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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
To: Sub-Driver
2
posted on
08/31/2006 6:58:50 AM PDT
by
BenLurkin
("The entire remedy is with the people." - W. H. Harrison)
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.)
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.)
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 !!)
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.)
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
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 !!)
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)
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.)
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.)
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)
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)
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)
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
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 !!)
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.)
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 !!)
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?")
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)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson