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 ...
More nuttiness.
This state (Ca) is so seriously f'd up!
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.
This will be challenged, and end up in front of SCOTUS.
What a stupid RINO!
Bad policy, though at first glance there is nothing in the constitution that says California (and other states) couldn't do such a thing.
How about dividing the state up into multiple states.
East, West, and North California. Three new stars in the flag.
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.
Is there something in the drinking water or air that causes the people of California to come up with such retarded ideas?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
You forget the other races on the ballot. If I lived in California and this happened, I would vote out the entire legislative body.
this is a GREAT idea - as California will vote Democrat anyway............ only the Republicans could benefit!
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.
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.