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

Skip to comments.

California Assembly approves electoral vote change
AP via SFGate ^ | 5/19/11

Posted on 05/19/2011 6:11:55 PM PDT by SmithL

Lawmakers have taken a step to make California more relevant in presidential politics, voting to give the state's electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.

The state Assembly passed AB459 on Thursday on a 43-18 vote, sending it to the state Senate. . . .

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: ab459; california; electoralcollege; electoralvote; electoralvotes; goldenstate; idiocy; lunacy; mobrule; nationalpopularvote
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-148 next last
To: SmithL

My cesspool of a state did the same thing not long ago, although there may be a caveat that a certain number of states have to approve the same law for it to take effect.

Do they really think it it impossible for a Republican to win the popular vote yet lose the electoral college? The first time that happens you will see hysterical liberals (are there any other kind?) rushing into court the day after to have these very laws retroactively declared void.

Imagine the entertainment that will provide us, in print and on video!


21 posted on 05/19/2011 6:26:36 PM PDT by LostInBayport (When there are more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it, the cart stops moving...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Thanks CA Dems!! You are all stupid stupid stupid!


22 posted on 05/19/2011 6:28:10 PM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Could you imagine the uproar if the 2000 vote was reversed and the pub won the popular vote by a slim margin but lost the electoral vote and suddenly Cali tips the whole thing to the pub because of this?


23 posted on 05/19/2011 6:28:59 PM PDT by xp38
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
This is a straight forward effort by socialists to undermine the electoral process and rig elections.

Close, actually it is a step toward making the Electoral College (constitution) immaterial.

With the courts already going beyond their intended limits, both houses of congress elected by popular vote, and socialists in charge of the democrat (and possibly republican) party - what would you expect?

24 posted on 05/19/2011 6:28:59 PM PDT by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LostInBayport

You might want to take a close look at the bill. The way it was written here in Michigan allows us to opt out with no reason (when it looks like democrats will lose)

Fortunately its DOA here in Michigan for now.


25 posted on 05/19/2011 6:34:10 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LostInBayport

“although there may be a caveat that a certain number of states have to approve the same law for it to take effect.”

The exact number which is equivalent to the number needed to elect the president. The liberals aren’t stupid.

Think of it as locking down a state so that you no longer need to spend any money defending it. When states are in play, you have to direct your money to defend it, even if it’s CA.

Now? Liberals don’t have to spend a dime in CA, because whatever they run nationally will be the only thing that counts.


26 posted on 05/19/2011 6:36:55 PM PDT by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: scooby321

I think you are right. Of course, this is a typical liberal attack on federalism and the constitution, but in this case it would benefit conservatives occasionally. If not for the early call of Florida, for example, G. W. Bush would have won the popular vote, and thus would have carried CA, making it not close at all.


27 posted on 05/19/2011 6:38:15 PM PDT by LS ("Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually." (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; All
This is not technically a Dem vs. Republican thing, or liberal vs. conservative, at least not directly.

This will indeed make parts of California more relevant. It will behoove candidates to campaign in the large cities where most of the votes are located.

If enough states pass this, and electoral votes go the way of the dinosaurs, then the most efficient way to win an election will be to get the majority of votes from high population centers, i.e. cities.

This will enfranchise urbanites and disenfranchise rural folks. So indirectly it will tend to favor liberals over conservatives, and therefore Democrats over Republicans.

The California Senate may be clueless about how to manage a budget, but they know exactly what they are doing when it comes to electioneering.

BTW, we already know how difficult/controversial statewide recounts are. What happens if we ever have a nationwide recount?

28 posted on 05/19/2011 6:41:24 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The only way to reverrse this is to eliminate public education!

They have been preaching democracy for 40 years and their efforts are now being rewarded!

This country is history, i’m glad i don’t have that many years left to live.


29 posted on 05/19/2011 6:42:51 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigIf
This is a straight forward effort by socialists to undermine the electoral process and rig elections.

Absolutely correct. The communists/Democrat machine is setting this up by buying votes to win using fraudulent means. This is why they are going to rely heavily on the black and illegal Mexicans to pad the vote. Then by using the food stamp and entitlements to buy more votes they are certain to have the popular vote. The unions are controlled by the communists leaders and will go for the Democrat. Communists are cleaver that way and don't forget the chad count. Perfect opportunity to overthrow any election.

30 posted on 05/19/2011 6:43:13 PM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LS

I still do not understand why they say Gore won the popular vote. Recounts done by the media over and over gain show Bush won not by a large number of votes but he did get more votes than Gore so wouldn’t Bush have the popular vote?


31 posted on 05/19/2011 6:44:02 PM PDT by funfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SmithL; Carry_Okie

This will make California utterly irrelevant in presidential politics.

Why campaign here if the rest of the country decides where our votes go?

I do not believe this to be constitutional anyway; how can voters not from California be allowed to select our electorial votes?


32 posted on 05/19/2011 6:45:00 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The strategy will be to suppress the vote in targeted demographics and locations.


33 posted on 05/19/2011 6:45:44 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Pelosi: Obamacare indulgences for sale.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
This country is history, I’m glad i don’t have that many years left to live.

I'm beginning to think the same thing!

34 posted on 05/19/2011 6:46:38 PM PDT by ducttape45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RightFighter

Because it makes it easier for them to get the total needed to cause the other states who have passed the law to activate.


35 posted on 05/19/2011 6:50:07 PM PDT by Ingtar (Together we go broke (from a Pookie18 post))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

People need to take a long hard look at it before they just declare it a non issue. I used to have the text of the proposal here in Michigan saved.

The way it was written would have allowed us to opt in or out at will which would be determined by the electors. I guarantee a close look in other states would show similar opt out clauses.

Obviously it was written that way to make sure a republican would be forced to win electoral votes unless a democrat won the popular vote.


36 posted on 05/19/2011 6:51:31 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dalereed
This country is history, i’m glad i don’t have that many years left to live.Or the idiot could be correct and end of the world is Saturday...
37 posted on 05/19/2011 6:55:00 PM PDT by Ingtar (Together we go broke (from a Pookie18 post))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

“Or the idiot could be correct and end of the world is Saturday...”

Good enough, ive had a good life and have done 10 times more than most people and enjoyed every bit of it.


38 posted on 05/19/2011 7:05:53 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Vision
"Maryland did this a few years ago and the ignorant citizens have no idea what they lost."

WTH?

I live in Maryland and don't know of this. What are you talking about?

39 posted on 05/19/2011 7:09:37 PM PDT by SnuffaBolshevik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

One thing that people often overlook when discussing this issue is the definition of “popular vote”. Each State has its own laws and procedures for counting votes. In those States where the vote isn’t close, it can also be imprecise. After all, why count and recount and squabble over provisional and absentee ballots when the outcome will not be affected? So who is it that has the ability and authority to certify a national “popular vote”, what procedures will they use, and how might someone challenge their ruling? This is a giant can of worms that the U.S. Constitution simply does not consider. Why open it?


40 posted on 05/19/2011 7:12:10 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-148 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