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

Skip to comments.

CA: Innovator Devises Way Around Electoral College (Veto this Arnold!)
NEW YORK TIMES ^ | September 22, 2006 | Rick Lyman

Posted on 09/21/2006 11:26:10 PM PDT by calcowgirl

In his early 20’s, John R. Koza and fellow graduate students invented a brutally complicated board game based on the Electoral College ...

Now, a 63-year-old eminence among computer scientists who teaches genetic programming at Stanford, Dr. Koza has decided to top off things with an end run on the Constitution. He has concocted a plan for states to skirt the Electoral College system legally to insure the election of whichever presidential candidate receives the most votes nationwide.

The first fruit of his effort, a bill approved by the California legislature that would allocate the state’s 55 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, sits on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk. The governor has to decide by Sept. 30 whether to sign it ...

The brainstorm behind Dr. Koza’s effort, led by a seven-month-old group, National Popular Vote, was to abandon that approach and focus on creating interstate compacts. Those are contracts that bind states over issues like nuclear waste and port authorities.

Dr. Koza’s compact, if approved by enough legislatures, would commit a state’s electors to vote for the candidate who wins the most national votes, even if the candidate loses in that state.

“The bottom line is that the system has outlived its usefulness,” said Assemblyman Thomas J. Umberg, the Anaheim Democrat who sponsored the bill here. “It’s past time that Americans should elect their president by direct vote of the people.”

Mr. Umberg and his staff met some of Mr. Schwarzenegger’s top staff members on Wednesday and came away encouraged about the prospects of the legislation. Although they received no commitment, it was clear that the governor, a Republican, was seriously considering the question and had not made up his mind about it, Mr. Umberg said.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: ab2948; callegislation; electoralcollege; nationalpopularvote; popularvote; vetobait
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-109 next last

1 posted on 09/21/2006 11:26:10 PM PDT by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

When's the Constitutional Amendment where we decided to become a Third World "Democracy"?

Oh yeah, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

Section III Article III their @$$.


2 posted on 09/21/2006 11:30:58 PM PDT by Killborn (Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Looks like Chavez has been to California.


3 posted on 09/21/2006 11:32:03 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
The brainstorm behind Dr. Koza’s effort, led by a seven-month-old group, National Popular Vote, was to abandon that approach and focus on creating interstate compacts new ways for Democrats to steal elections.
4 posted on 09/21/2006 11:34:55 PM PDT by GOP_Raider (Would you like to join the OFFICIAL Oakland Raiders ping list? Sure you would, send me freepmail.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Killborn

Since all of California's votes went to President Gore in 2000, the result would have been the same: President Bush winning despite losing the popular vote and every California elector. However, in 2004, the margin of victory for Bush would have been much larger, as he would have won not only Ohio, but California as well. The net effect of this would be three fold:

1. The Repubicans could ignore California in the general election.
2. The Republicans would never have to worry about an electoral college defeat, while the Democrats still would have to.
3. California would lose most of its clout.

I would oppose this move, but out of principle; it would benefit my party.


6 posted on 09/21/2006 11:39:06 PM PDT by dangus (Pope calls Islam violent; Millions of Moslems demonstrate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Sounds awful to me...


7 posted on 09/21/2006 11:39:13 PM PDT by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Killborn

No, it's perfectly legit. States can assign their electoral votes how they see fit. I believe a few states still permit an electoral district to award its vote to the winner of the majority of that district, even if the majority of the statewide vote goes the other way; there was some talk of Ross Perot picking up an electoral vote in Maine or Colorado, IIRC. It used to be quite common for states to divide their electoral vote, until they figured out that this divided their influence in presidential elections.


8 posted on 09/21/2006 11:42:18 PM PDT by dangus (Pope calls Islam violent; Millions of Moslems demonstrate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
“More important,’’ he said, “is changing the way presidential campaigns are conducted in this country. Now, the candidates spend almost all of their time in a handful of battleground states like Ohio and Florida and ignore the rest of the country. This would force candidates to campaign nationally for every vote.”

Sounds like "bull" to me. Who actually believes this stuff?? I would like to see a breakdown of where the greatest concentration of 50% of the U.S. population lives. I would suspect that it is in big cities, and if we started with the most populous big city, and worked our way down the list, I'll bet we wouldn't have to go too far until we had accounted for 50% of the U.S. population.

This means we would have the same problem that he describes above, only now condidates would campaign within a relatively small handful of large population centers, and ignore the rest of the country. Most states would probably never see a candidate, and even states like California would only see candidates campaigning in their big cities.

Furthermore, how do big cities tend to vote?? I would not be surprised to learn that the populations of big cities tend to vote more to the left than to the right. It seems that there is something about living in big cities that does something to people's collective IQ's.

This seems to be specifically designed to ensure more victories for liberals, and that Conservatives are shut out and marginalized. The fact that some RINO's are supporting it is meaningless window dressing. The "problems" described in the article could be made worse (unless your name is Al Gore). I hope that intelligent people stand up and put a stop to this.
9 posted on 09/21/2006 11:52:27 PM PDT by Zetman (I believe the children are the next generation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus

CAn state legislators alter the way Presidents are elected? I thought they can't.


10 posted on 09/21/2006 11:52:50 PM PDT by Killborn (Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Thanks for the info. I thought it was illegal. If it were, it would be unConstitutional, thus treasonous.

I don't like the idea of contravening the EC, though. Our FFs were brilliant.


11 posted on 09/21/2006 11:55:34 PM PDT by Killborn (Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Killborn
CAn state legislators alter the way Presidents are elected? I thought they can't.

That's the thing about this legislation--it doesn't alter the electoral college system as defined in the constitution. States hold their own elections for the Presidency and define how the electoral college votes are allocated. Almost all states do winner take all, except for Maine I think, which allocates the electoral college votes by congressional district.

12 posted on 09/22/2006 12:01:36 AM PDT by frankensnake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: frankensnake

Thank you.

Every time I hear "changing the EC" I cringe because I know exactly what's coming.


13 posted on 09/22/2006 12:05:22 AM PDT by Killborn (Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

"Dr. Koza’s compact, if approved by enough legislatures, would commit a state’s electors to vote for the candidate who wins the most national votes, even if the candidate loses in that state."

Article 1 Section 10
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

It's not going to happen, as you have to get congressional approval if there is compact between states. Regardless, if Schwarzenegger signs this, then I will quit the Republican party and become an anarchist.


14 posted on 09/22/2006 12:07:05 AM PDT by bahblahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bahblahbah

"if Schwarzenegger signs this, then I will quit the Republican party and become an anarchist."

If Arnold signs this, HE has quit the (R) party. Don't join him and this bill's author/supporters in anarchy...


15 posted on 09/22/2006 12:09:50 AM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: The Spirit Of Allegiance

No, he and his supporters will lead us to statism, not anarchy.


16 posted on 09/22/2006 12:10:58 AM PDT by bahblahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bahblahbah

agreed, but the anarchists pave the way....while Teddy is trying to pave Arnold's way.


17 posted on 09/22/2006 12:15:08 AM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

yeah, this system works just great in Canada.

a couple of big cities elect the government, everyone else sucks hind mammary.


18 posted on 09/22/2006 12:15:21 AM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dangus
The net effect of this would be three fold:

1. The Repubicans could ignore California in the general election.

2. The Republicans would never have to worry about an electoral college defeat, while the Democrats still would have to.

3. California would lose most of its clout.

I would oppose this move, but out of principle; it would benefit my party.

What you are missing is that the law would not take effect until states representing 270 electoral votes passed the same law.

What this does is get rid of the Electoral College without a Constitutional Amendment. The Electoral College, which was part of the large state/small state compromises, protects the small states from being overwhelmed by large states.

If you value the Constitution, come from a small state, or are a conservative, this measure is a danger to you...and IMO, it is a danger to our country.

19 posted on 09/22/2006 12:20:02 AM PDT by goldfinch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Dr. John R. Koza
Third Millennium Venture Capital Limited
Box 1123
Los Altos, California 94023 USA
FAX: 650-941-9430
URL at Stanford University: http://www.smi.stanford.edu/people/koza/
E-Mail at Stanford University: koza@stanford.edu


20 posted on 09/22/2006 12:20:10 AM PDT by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
The first fruit of his effort, a bill approved by the California legislature that would allocate the state’s 55 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, sits on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk. The governor has to decide by Sept. 30 whether to sign it ...

In the last election that would have thrown all of CA's electoral votes to Bush.

Although, if I were a Californian I wouldn't appreciate my vote being taken away and given to the residents in every other state.

21 posted on 09/22/2006 12:22:28 AM PDT by highlander_UW (I don't know what my future holds, but I know Who holds my future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

These commie rat bastards will continue to subvert the Constitution until it becomes meaningless; or until the rest of us stop them.


22 posted on 09/22/2006 12:22:55 AM PDT by Lancer_N3502A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

There is so much to comment upon....sheesh...where to start?

"He has concocted a plan for states to skirt the Electoral College system legally to insure the election of whichever presidential candidate receives the most votes nationwide."

Starts off wrong to begin with. It is not "legal" for states to enter into compacts with each other without the consent of Congress. This isn't going to happen anytime soon. Next, "skirting" the Constitution is not legal to begin with. You either follow it or you don't...no grey area here.

"“The bottom line is that the system has outlived its usefulness,” said Assemblyman Thomas J. Umberg, the Anaheim Democrat who sponsored the bill here. “It’s past time that Americans should elect their president by direct vote of the people.”"

Yeah, that direct election sure worked for Senators huh? One of the worst things done was allow for direct election of Senators. This took the last link to state's power away. Congress was meant to be kept in check by a House elected by the people and a Senate elected by State legislators. This meant that States had some say in the federal government as well as the people. It was a perfect system. Then direct election and WHAM....states became the lackeys of the feds...."no more highway money until you bend over and grab your ankles in front of the federal gods." It went from the United States of America to the United State of America.

Now they want to take away the power of the small states and the less populace states and give it to the urbanites and a few enclaves of liberals who tend to congregate like rats. This man should be hung for treasonous ideals.


23 posted on 09/22/2006 12:29:25 AM PDT by MissouriConservative (People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid - Kierkegaard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
Here be the end of the United States, a name that is unfortunately lost on people these days.

The Centralized Democracy of America doesn't quite have that ring to it.
24 posted on 09/22/2006 12:29:58 AM PDT by Crazieman (The Democratic Party: Culture of Treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack

"Sign that bill into law!"

Yeah, California signing that bill would definitely work in the Republicans' favor. I'm on board.


25 posted on 09/22/2006 12:34:03 AM PDT by Blackyce (President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Blackyce

"I'm on board"

At least as far as Cali is concerned.


26 posted on 09/22/2006 12:35:40 AM PDT by Blackyce (President Jacques Chirac: "As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dangus

I hope you are right.


27 posted on 09/22/2006 12:42:47 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Southack
it will take years before California liberals figure out that the new law would have given their electoral votes to President Bush in 2004.

How long has it been since a democrat presidential candidate got a majority of the vote? 30 years?

yitbos

28 posted on 09/22/2006 12:45:46 AM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds. " - Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bruinbirdman

President Carter won with 50.01% in 1976.

...against President Ford!

29 posted on 09/22/2006 12:50:18 AM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bahblahbah
It's not going to happen, as you have to get congressional approval if there is compact between states.

This is not a "compact" in the Article I Section 10 sense, since it's not actually an agreement between states. Instead it's a procedure which doesn't go into effect until enough other states (representing at least 270 electoral votes) pass similar laws. That's perfectly legal and Constitutional.

There are powerful political reasons why this is a futile measure. Most small states and most competitive states are not going to approve similar laws because it would undercut the advantages they now hold in the electoral college. Only large states like California, which are already non-competitive, are going to endorse this proposal because there's no downside -- their electoral votes are already irrelevant in the Presidential calculus.

If we ever approached the 270 electoral vote threshold at which this would take effect, people would start looking very closely at the partisan makeup of the states involved. If going over the threshold would benefit Democrats, then Republican states wouldn't sign on and vice versa. So that 270 electoral vote threshold is a much higher barrier than is immediately obvious.

Think of the following analogy: Suppose California endorsed a Constitutional Amendment to make the number of Senators proportional to a state's population, instead of the present fixed number of two per state. Obviously that would benefit California and other big states. But what are its chances of going into effect? Zero. Because the small states which would be hurt would never ratify it.

Even though this isn't a Constitutional Amendment, it can't achieve it's goal unless the small states and toss-up states go along with it. If large states were to put it into effect, they'd be at an even bigger disadvantage than they are now. So it either won't happen or it will backfire.

30 posted on 09/22/2006 12:52:02 AM PDT by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

The electoral college was designed to prevent the more densely populated areas from controlling the entire country. The last thing we need is for New York and L.A., et.al to determine who our leaders will be!


31 posted on 09/22/2006 1:05:30 AM PDT by bjcintennessee (Don't Sweat the Small Stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener
You're absolutely right that the main reason this won't happen is that large states would be worse off now.

Despite that though, it is still unconstitutional without congressional approval.

"This is not a "compact" in the Article I Section 10 sense, since it's not actually an agreement between states. Instead it's a procedure which doesn't go into effect until enough other states (representing at least 270 electoral votes) pass similar laws. That's perfectly legal and Constitutional."

There would still be an implied agreement between all the states giving up all their electorial votes to the popular vote. The way a state who has passed a "similar law" would divide up their electors would be directly conditioned to how many electors participate in this scheme with a "simular law". They might be able to get away with it if it wasn't conditioned to how other states divide up their electors.

32 posted on 09/22/2006 1:43:00 AM PDT by bahblahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener
Even though this isn't a Constitutional Amendment, it can't achieve it's goal unless the small states and toss-up states go along with it. If large states were to put it into effect, they'd be at an even bigger disadvantage than they are now. So it either won't happen or it will backfire.

The small states cannot stop this. All it takes is for the 13 largest states to pass laws like this. Then, assuming it is constitutional, it would go into effect, without a single small state approving it.

In contrast, it takes the approval of 34 (or is it 38) states to pass a Constitutional Amendment. The large state liberals know they cannot get enough small states to agree to pass a Constitutional amendment to remove the Electoral College. That is why they are trying to get their way though the 'backdoor'. And if they can go 'backdoor' for this, can they do so on other things? How long until 13 big states are making all the decisions for this nations?

33 posted on 09/22/2006 1:59:19 AM PDT by goldfinch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MissouriConservative

Well said!

This is not a democracy, but a Republic!


34 posted on 09/22/2006 2:20:53 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
U.S. Constitution
Article I
Section 10
Paragraph 3:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

35 posted on 09/22/2006 2:31:35 AM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Killborn

Me and you both; this scares the ever living hell out of me.


36 posted on 09/22/2006 2:41:11 AM PDT by Howlin (Declassify the Joe Wilson "Report!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Southack

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/npv/


37 posted on 09/22/2006 2:44:01 AM PDT by Howlin (Declassify the Joe Wilson "Report!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
I want the Governor to sign it. The Democrats will repeal it if California's electoral votes go to a Republican nationwide winner instead of the Democratic presidential candidate statewide winner. The Left can be too smart for their own good. Now let's hoist them on their scheme to make Electoral College votes go the popular vote winner in a national election.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

38 posted on 09/22/2006 2:45:34 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metesky

This is basically all anybody needs to know about this:




Hillary Calls For End To Electoral College

ALBANY, New York, Nov. 20, 2000



(AP) Senator-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton began a victory tour of upstate New York Friday by calling for elimination of the Electoral College.

At an airport news conference, the first lady said she would support legislation seeking a constitutional amendment providing for the direct election of the president.

At the moment, Americans are waiting to see who wins Florida's 25 electoral votes and thus becomes the next president. Vice President Al Gore leads Republican George W. Bush in the popular vote nationwide.

"We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago," Clinton said. "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president."

The first lady also said that because of the closeness of this year's presidential election, "I hope no one is ever in doubt again about whether their vote counts."

Clinton was accompanied by Green Island Democrat Rep. Michael R. McNulty, who has co-sponsored electoral college legislation introduced by Illinois Republican Rep. Ray LaHood. LaHood has introduced his bill in each of the last two congressional sessions, but aside from a 1997 hearing granted as a favor by House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., it has not advanced.

McNulty thinks the measure will gain momentum if Gore wins the popular vote but loses the electoral tally.


39 posted on 09/22/2006 2:46:26 AM PDT by Howlin (Declassify the Joe Wilson "Report!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dangus
No, in 2000 FL's electoral votes would have gone to Gore, the nationwide popular vote winner and Gore would be President today. That's why the Left is pushing this plan forward. They think a majority of Americans would vote for a Democrat. But what if a Republican gets a national majority? Their initial flush of enthusiasm then may turn into a move to dissolve the interstate compact.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

40 posted on 09/22/2006 2:51:25 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Remember in the weeks before the 2000 election when the Dems thought they would lose the popular vote and win in the Electoral College, Gore, Hillary, the NYT and El Globo amongst others, were all singing the praises of the wisdom of the Founders. It was only when they lost that they discovered how "anachronistic" the EC was.

Clowns without scruples, they turned on a dime to their new position.

41 posted on 09/22/2006 3:01:25 AM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

So, they want to turn our republic into a democracy?

Don't tell me -- they vote Democrat.


42 posted on 09/22/2006 3:03:52 AM PDT by BlessedBeGod (Benedict XVI = Terminator IV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metesky

Yes, I sure do remember that!

Never let it said they have PRINCIPLES!


43 posted on 09/22/2006 3:13:10 AM PDT by Howlin (Declassify the Joe Wilson "Report!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: goldfinch
"What you are missing is that the law would not take effect until states representing 270 electoral votes passed the same law."

See post 14. It's unConstitutional.

44 posted on 09/22/2006 3:19:54 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

The bottom line is that this would require a constitutional amendment. The professor is obviously a marxist.


45 posted on 09/22/2006 3:25:44 AM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (The Leftist Marxist-Islamist Alliance: joining forces to destroy civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
He has concocted a plan for states to skirt the Electoral College system legally to insure the election of whichever presidential candidate receives the most votes nationwide. The first fruit of his effort, a bill approved by the California legislature that would allocate the state’s 55 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, sits on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk. The governor has to decide by Sept. 30 whether to sign it ...

Not only is it not legal, it's also unConstitutional.

46 posted on 09/22/2006 3:31:22 AM PDT by Jim Noble (You know something is happening here but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

If millions of third worlders (Mexico, Cosa Rica, Ecuador, Guatamala, etc) flood the Southwest US, and vote overwhelmingly for their "pet" candidate, one who happens to be a danger to America, our national electoral process would be in great jeopardy.

THAT's why the Founding Father's ELECTORAL COLLEGE was so brilliant in its concept and implementation.

It is designed to prevent exactly the thing which I see happening with the ongoing invasion of ONE ethnic culture to ONE geographic area of the USA.


47 posted on 09/22/2006 3:52:54 AM PDT by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldfinch
All it takes is for the 13 largest states to pass laws like this.

The 13 largest states can already determine the outcome of a presidential election on their own without monkeying around with the process, so I don't see what they have to gain by it from a collective standpoint.

48 posted on 09/22/2006 4:10:28 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Maine & Nebraska are the states that can split their electoral votes.


49 posted on 09/22/2006 4:15:07 AM PDT by Ready4Freddy (Sophomore dies in kiln explosion? Oh My God! I just talked to her last week...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Killborn
The Constitution is silent on how a state allocates its electoral votes.

If it were, it would be unConstitutional, thus treasonous

50 posted on 09/22/2006 4:16:07 AM PDT by Ready4Freddy (Sophomore dies in kiln explosion? Oh My God! I just talked to her last week...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-109 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