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 ...
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...
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
This would only apply to the president/vice-president. It can't be applied to other races since they are not national.
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.
What the dems would really like to do is "CAST oops, COUNT THE VOTES THEMSELVES".
More specifically, these are the only races in which the electoral college determines the outcome.
I like that idea better --- GOP gets the AFC. Dems get the NFC.
I have a better idea for the dems...give people like me a reason for voting for you again!!!
I'm pretty sure that's what I stated in post #25.
:)
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: ...
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: ...
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.
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.
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.
:-)
"...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."
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.