Posted on 07/17/2011 11:24:59 AM PDT by thecodont
It's a complaint that arises every four years, then quickly fades: the disproportionate power a small number of states have over the presidential contest.
California lawmakers want to do something about it - in fact, they've tried for years, but were blocked by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. So just as they did in 2006 and 2008, legislators this week approved a proposal to make California relevant.
Here's how it works: California's electoral votes are awarded in a winner-take-all manner. If a presidential candidate wins the majority of popular votes in California, he or she gets all the state's 55 electoral votes. This legislation, already adopted in eight other states, would award the electoral votes of participating states to the candidate who wins the nation's popular vote.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/15/BAST1KAHH6.DTL#ixzz1SO4vkHdA
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
If the SF Comical thinks it is a good idea, then I am against it. Every time they want to F*&K with the electoral college it is not for the greater good, but for their greater benefit. Hell no.
The constitutional sidestep that probably isn’t constitutional.
And so they dilute their own power. Be my guest!
And when they tell us, “Here how it works” we should all remember how all that other $#!t they have crammed down our throats is working so damn well as we fly off the proverbial cliff.
California lawmakers... tried for years, but were blocked by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger... Here's how it works: California's electoral votes are awarded in a winner-take-all manner. If a presidential candidate wins the majority of popular votes in California, he or she gets all the state's 55 electoral votes. This legislation, already adopted in eight other states, would award the electoral votes of participating states to the candidate who wins the nation's popular vote.IOW, this "news" story doesn't make sense -- award the electoral votes based on the pop vote for the country, or for just CA? If the latter, should have listened to Ahnold, you Demwit asswipes. We will guarantee that Calfornia's electoral votes will never again go to a Demwit for Prez.
Just a power grab for the lefties ,, what this does is give leverage to the rat strongholds over the rest of the country where they can manufacture votes such as Philly where 110% of the people vote... and New Orleans , Chicago , Detroit , Miami , New York , Mass etc. etc.
If I recall, the states can determine how to apportion their votes. No federal requirements at all.
Would the CA voter be happy with their electoral votes going to Palin to push her over the top?
That said, the Constitution allows a state to award their electoral votes on ANY basis they see fit as long as it is not contrary to some other part of the Constitution. HOWEVER, if an election is held in that state to determine the Electors...every citizen in that state has a right, ensured by the Constitution, that their vote counts equally with all other votes cast.
My opening scenario shows why this will not pass Constitutional Muster...at least in a sane world.
MD [where I live] passed this law which will not take effect unless enough states [totalling 270 electoral votes] do the same.
It is an INSANE proposition - and if the GOP wins the next election, the citizens of MD will go berserk. MD will NO DOUBT go for the DEM candidate, BUT they will THEN realize that [had this law been in effect] their electoral votes woulda gone to the GOP ...
I am NOT a fan of the current system [winner-take-all, except for ME and NE].
The FAIREST way to ensure that all votes count [down to the lowest levels of citizenry] is to award the electoral votes by district in each state. Win the district - win the one electoral vote assigned to it.
There are [of course] two electoral votes left over [assigned to the Senate seats]. These would be awarded to the winner in the overall state vote - as a “bonus”.
Therefore, in 2008, instead of Obama winning 10-0 in MD, he would won something like 7-3.
I notice from the article that Ohio (2004 election) is still a sore point for the Democrats. Ohio, so far, hasn’t introduced such a bill.
This law (if passed) would only last until such time that California’s EV’s were awarded to a Republican, who then wins the Presidency because of this law.
Give every county in the country 1 vote. Win the county, get a point. Most points win. This way a city like Philly doesn’t determine the pennsylvania vote.
Plus if you are a county and want to cheat, you don’t disenfranchise the rest of the state.
It can and has been mathematically proven that this idiotic scheme actually LOWERS the voting power of the voters who participate in this scheme. How?
Think of a baseball series of 3 games. Analogize the games to states, and runs to voters.
Currently, if you win 2 games by 1 run and lose the third by 3 runs, you win the series. The first two games mattered.
With their proposal, if you win 2 games by 1 run and lose the third game by 3 runs, you LOSE the series. The first two games (states) did not matter.
So all this sounds like it’s good for the third game (state), and bad for the first two games (states), and therefore their voters. The math gets a bit hairy here, but the result is that because each game (state) has a chance of being one of those that doesn’t matter, the total voting power of each run (voter) in ALL of the games (states) is lessened.
Of course the people driving this mendacity understand this. The GOAL is to lessen each individual voter’s power. That means MORE power for the rulers.
I’ve really simplified this and therefore it’s not real precise. Anyone interested in the nitty gritty should look at MIT Physicist Alan Natapoff’s work on voting power.
PS There are some (allegedly) math based counter arguments. The ones I’ve read have been pathetic at a minimum, but probably sufficient to bamboozle those who don’t understand math that well...
See my Post #11 ...
Why don’t they just go all the way and only allow one party on the ballot?
There is a reason why the founding fathers created a republic and not a democracy. A pure democracy is mob rule. Two wolfs and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
This is a power grab pure and simple.
Hmmm. So, in 2004, CA would have gone to Bush? LOL! There would have been riots in the streets....
Let's say a state has 57 electoral votes.
Two electoral votes are awarded winner take all for the entire state.
The other votes are awarded to the winner in each congressional district.
So, if the Dems win 40 districts and the state, they get 42 electoral votes, and the GOP gets 15.
Is there any relationship at all between this electoral vote/popular vote proposal and the current CA redistricting plan?
The fact that the Soros family are big supporters is more than enough reason for me to oppose it.
The concept of awarding a state's electors based on the national popular vote specifically and deliberately violates that rule.
Actually, the electors are free to vote for anyone they want, no restrictions.
Voters are only selecting the electors, and cannot tell them how to vote (although they may try to get a pledge from them to vote for a certain candidate, nothing legally binds the electors to keep that pledge).
Then the “wise elder statesmen”, the electors, are supposed to choose someone to be president.
You have to admire the ingenuity of the left in coming up with ways to trash the Constitution- they get nothing, if not kudos for imagination!
But this fits in so well with the Left's plans to nationalize other things that used to belong to the states.
Mass. gov. signs national popular vote bill
Massachusetts' Electoral College votes would go to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote, under a bill signed into law Wednesday by Gov. Deval Patrick.
With the governor's signature, Massachusetts becomes the sixth state to join the compact. Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii and Washington state have already approved the measure. The six states together control 27 percent of the 270 electoral votes needed to trigger the law.
what of my wife’s and my votes?
they never count in a post-baby boomer,
socialist californicate.
“Bite ‘em in the butt” applies here I think. It could be they’re moving toward getting rid of their own party’s chances at the Presidency for a reason. :’)
“When they were pushing it here in Michigan they made sure to include an opt out clause (just in case a republican was the likely winner) The fact is that it opens up all kinds of opportunities for mischief.”
It does the precise opposite. No democrat will ever need to campaign in California, because the other states will decide the outcome. The opt out clause will guarantee that it doesn’t come back to hurt the Dims, but a republican would never win.
“The FAIREST way to ensure that all votes count [down to the lowest levels of citizenry] is to award the electoral votes by district in each state. Win the district - win the one electoral vote assigned to it.”
Seems like a good idea. My state is a winner take all state. I especially don’t like the idea of states having open primaries also being winner take all states.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,
I agree with you.
The only changes I’d make at this time is closed primaries and convince all states to have their primary on the same day.
Candidates who do poorly in early primary states often drop out before primaries in states where they might do better.
That's so true it goes without saying....
That's why electors aren't just picked up off the street...they are always party hacks of the first order. And for once, I think that's a good idea.
“Plus we have some counties with under 5000 people and others with over a million.”
That’s my point. Why should all those counties with 5,000 people be disenfranchised why Philly gets 105% of the vote.
This eliminates it.
Limit vote fraud to as small of region as possible, so (as others have stated) have two at large electors in a state plus one for the winner in each Congressional district. The Chicago undead-American voters can only affect Illinois's two at large electors and a few districts near their graveyards rather than all 538 electoral votes.
And if those “little states” were all represented by blacks and illegals, Kalifornia would be just FINE with it!!!!
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...
Such an agreement between states needs to be approved by Congress.
Before the election it looked like Ohio would be about as close as Florida in 2000. After the election the 118,775 vote difference (the MSM like to quote 60,000 switches rather than nearly 120,000 difference) was beyond the Dems' creative counting plans so the teams of lawyers ready to come in just didn't show up. A 2% win by Bush was too much to change through post-election trickery.
The only changes I’d make at this time is closed primaries and convince all states to have their primary on the same day.I would hate that. I think the grueling process of a 6+ month primary season allows us to really understand the character of the candidates. I doubt very much that Ronald Reagan (for example) would have ever received the nomination if the primary were a one-day "winner take all" event.
This legislation, already adopted in eight other states, would award the electoral votes of participating states to the candidate who wins the nation's popular vote.Since it's easier for a Republican to win the nationwide popular vote than it is for him to win the California vote, wouldn't this just make it more likely that the California Electoral votes would go to the Republican?
The popular vote issue came up in 2000 of course with Gore winning what votes had been counted by a very narrow margin. This is where the main motivation is coming from. The left feels the 2000 election was stolen by Bush and they will never let go of it. It was correctly pointed out here on FR that a very large number of votes in numerous states were left uncounted where the remaining number of votes would not have changed the way a state would have gone. If those had been counted Bush could have won the national popular vote but you never hear that from the frothing left.
Ayup. True dat.
This whole "popular vote movement" was always around, but it became official Democrat policy when Bush beat Gore. Keeping people focused on why we have the Electoral College vote system is the only remedy. It's not because we delegate our votes to our "betters." It's to make the Presidency a 50-state election. Nobody would ever bother trying to get votes in Caspar, Wyoming when the big coastal cities are where the votes are. The country would be even more bitterly divided than it is now.
At the time I pointed out to some Gorebot clown complaining about the Florida recount (This was before December 2000) that if he liked the Florida fiasco, he's just LOVE it if the recount was going on in all 50 states. Being a state-by-state affair erects firewalls between the states, so crap like the Florida recount stays in Florida.
And not thinks?
Here’s a prediction..as Obama’s poll numbers continue to implode, early next year you’re goign to see some think pieces that the only way Obama can win is by the elcetoral college, because he’s gonna loose the popular vote..then watch ALL these people do a 180...
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.