Posted on 09/21/2006 11:26:10 PM PDT by calcowgirl
That fact draws blank stares from 99.99% of Americans.
BUMP
As if the people in California didn't have enough excuses not to vote here comes another one.
Actually, it's in process in several states.
From NationalPopularVote.com:
NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE LEGISLATIONCalifornia Assembly AB 2948—Assembly members Tom Umberg (D), John Laird (D), and Merv Dymally (D). (AB 2948) .
Colorado Senate SB 06-223—Senators Ken Gordon (D), John Evans(R), and Lew Entz (R) (SB 06-223)
Illinois House HB 5777—Representatives Robert S. Molaro (D) and Jim Durkin (R) (HB 5777)
Illinois Senate SB 2724—Senators Jacqueline Collins (D), Kirk W. Dillard (R and Du Page County Republican Party Chair), James T. Meeks (I), and others (SB 2724)
Louisiana House HB 927—Pre-Filed March 17, 2006. (HB 927)
Missouri House HB 2090—Representatives Robert Johnson (R) and Jeff Roorda (D) (HB 2090)
New York Assembly A11563 — Assembly Members Fred W. Thiele, Jr. (Republican, Independence, Working Families), Jim Bacalles (Republican, Conservative), Joe Errigo (Republican, Conservative), Andrew Raia (Republican, Conservative, Independence, Working Families), and Teresa Sayward (Republican, Independence, Conservative). (A11563)
Is it just me, or would this provision partly take away California's voting power? They're essentially "piling on" with whoever has the most votes across the country. Wouldn't California prefer to cast its own votes rather than jumping on the bandwagon with everyone else?
Additionally, if the article is correct, this provision would disconnect California electoral votes from California's individual voters, except to the degree that individual Californians contribute to the national popular vote.
Were I a Californian, I would be angry about this. It is a serious reduction of the power of the vote in that state. As a North Carolinian, however, I'm entirely in favor of California passing this measure. =]
True, but any attempt on the part of a state to change the method that is used to allocate its electoral votes would certainly face a lot of legal scrutiny under Federal laws like the Voting Rights Act. A system in which electoral votes are given to a candidate who loses an election -- even by a wide margin -- may not stand up to a legal challenge.
To illustrate how preposterous this could be, just consider this hypothetical example . . .
Suppose a future Republican presidential candidate was so pessimistic about his chances to win the state of California that the GOP didn't even bother going through the process of getting on the ballot in the state. If the Democratic candidate won the state by securing 100% of the popular vote (I'll ignore minor party candidates for the sake of this example) but the Republican candidate won the national popular vote, would California be forced (under its own stupid law) to cast its electoral votes for a candidate who wasn't even on its own ballot?
You might want to take your own advice there, calex59. LOL.
You're absolutely wrong about this. Al Gore received more actual votes than George W. Bush (by about a 1.5-million vote margin), but because of the number of votes that went to minor candidates he did not secure a majority. Gore received 48.4% of the vote in 2000, while Bush received 47.9% and the remaining 3.7% went to other candidates.
Jimmy Carter was the last Democrat to get a majority (i.e., more than 50%) of the popular vote in a presidential election -- and yes, that was 30 years ago (1976).
Sorry, but Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Spin it how you like, he still won more of the popular vote than Bush did. Nice try but it didn't work.
You have a reading-comprehension problem to go with your potty-mouth. A plurality is not a majority.
You are the one with a reading comprehension problem. If you win more votes than the other guy, you have won what is condidered a majority. In the case of CA's stupid bill that would give the electoral college to the winner of the popular vote, winning the most votes would be considered a majority. It doesn't say it has to be 50.1 percent or above, it says the majority of the popular vote. So if Gore received 48 % and Bush 47 %(which is close enough for government work) then Gore would have received the electoral college votes. Learn to read yourself it saves looking like a dumbass when you comment.
BTW, potty mouth? What, are you in the 6th grade or something?
Wow. You missed every last point, from the finest to the broadest detail.
The Democrats already always win California. That means they already get 100% of the electoral vote from California. Any apportioning to the national winner would give the GOP a chance to win California, without even campaigning there.
>> 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. <<
Yes, but we're talking CALIFORNIA, not Florida.
"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
Right. Meaning that in 2000, the state's votes would have gone Democratic either way.
No, you are missing the forest for the trees. Undermining the electoral college system by having the President selected by the popular vote is not a good thing, especially for Reps and their Red state base. We are not just talking about California. Please read what the National Popular Vote Plan is all about. There is a reason why the New York Times, Chicago Sun Times, Los Angeles Times, Sacramento Bee, and Minneapolis Star-Tribune endorse it.
The Democrats already always win California. That means they already get 100% of the electoral vote from California. Any apportioning to the national winner would give the GOP a chance to win California, without even campaigning there.
And they will continue to win California by increasing margins as it becomes more and more Hispanic. The Dems can focus more on California to increase turnout and the margin of victory, which could translate into a national victory in the popular vote. If red states like Colorado, Arizona, Louisiana, and Missouri sign on to these compacts, it will mean that their electoral votes will go to the Dems even if the Reps win the popular vote in the respective states. Gore won nationally by 500,000 votes, but he won California by 1.3 million.
The National Popular Vote movement is a way to circumvent the electoral college and have the President elected by the popular vote. The Dems tried to get Colorado to apportion its electoral votes similar to Maine or Nebraska. They would never want such a system for California. They want a winner take all apportionment there.
I am surprised that you don't understand the implications of what is being proposed not only for California but the rest of the country. It will make Dem states like California and New York much more powerful in terms of affecting the outcome of national elections. The Dems can concentrate on the most populous states to get out the vote and increase the margin of victory. If they have their way, the electoral college will become meaningless.
I am not ready to dismiss it. This is a very serioyus and real threat to our Constitution and the electoral college system.
I don't think that is what the California legislation says. It only has to do with how California allocates its electoral votes.
We can't let the socialist traitors win. They are worse than any Islamofascist.
Gotcha, loud and clear. Thanks.
Still, what do you think about the whole thing?
However, it was put in place to counter "blocks" of voters.....the so called popular vote that the Dems count on....... Women's Vote, Jewish Vote, Black Vote, Union Vote.
Our forefathers knew exactly what they were doing.
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.