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

Skip to comments.

California Votes To Bypass Electoral College
National Journel ^ | 8/9/11 | Matt Loeb

Posted on 08/09/2011 4:02:37 PM PDT by Lmo56

Golden State legislature says it will give its states electoral votes to the national popular vote winner.

Providing a significant boost to an effort to end-around the Electoral College, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation on Monday that would award the Golden State’s 55 electoral votes to the presidential candidate garnering the most votes nationwide.

California, which has more electoral votes than any other state in the nation, is the eighth state to join the National Popular Vote compact, an effort to end the Electoral College's role in picking presidents.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: allredstates; california; elections; electoralcollege; national; nationalpopularvote; popular; vote
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last
Clearly unconstitutional - IMO ...

Check out Bush v. Gore and comments relating to 14th Amendment protection of votes ...

1 posted on 08/09/2011 4:02:48 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

I think California is going to regret this in 2012...


2 posted on 08/09/2011 4:05:21 PM PDT by tcrlaf (PREFRONTAL LOBOTOMISTS FOR OBAMA2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

Whoah there Nellie!.... they cannot do that!


3 posted on 08/09/2011 4:05:21 PM PDT by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

hehehe...hope it backfires on the dems. It would be GREAT to see California vote for Obama, but then hand the votes to a Bachman, or Palin, or Perry.


4 posted on 08/09/2011 4:05:33 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Liberty is not free. Never has been, never will be. (www.dragonsfuryseries.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

It is mob rule—we are not a Democracy for a reason. There are no minority rights in rule of the majority. It is the same as a lynching party.

Marxists want mob rule—”Feelings” trump intellect with these mental midgets.


5 posted on 08/09/2011 4:05:37 PM PDT by savagesusie (Virtue is a habit of the mind, consistent with nature and moderation and reason. Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

What does the constitution have anything to do with California?


6 posted on 08/09/2011 4:05:43 PM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
The electoral college was put in place s the lesser populated states had a true voice.

There was a time when California was a newbie and the electoral college gave them their voice. The lessons of history.

7 posted on 08/09/2011 4:06:16 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

I don’t see any problem. When Rick Perry wins the presidential election, my state will give him all 55 electoral votes, even though the state went for Obozo. Sounds good to me. CA’s never going to vote for a Republican anyway, so what the heck...


8 posted on 08/09/2011 4:06:36 PM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

Ummmm.... pardon me for the stupid question, but what is the difference between this and voting “Present”????


9 posted on 08/09/2011 4:06:36 PM PDT by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

The whole push is to give Big States the numbers to be the ones who set the Agenda.....that’s how it is going to be. Illegals vote with impunity now, but, with an Executive Order prior to the 2012 Election, we will have 30 million “new” Citizens voting Democrat.


10 posted on 08/09/2011 4:06:59 PM PDT by traditional1 ("Don't gotsta worry 'bout no mo'gage, don't gotsta worry 'bout no gas; Obama gonna take care o' me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
Clearly unconstitutional - IMO ...

Check out Bush v. Gore and comments relating to 14th Amendment protection of votes ...


While I wholeheartedly agree that this is unconstitutional, I will say that it may be the only chance the Republican Party has to pick up those electoral votes.

I think if anything, this will come back to haunt the Rats in 2012.
11 posted on 08/09/2011 4:08:08 PM PDT by copaliscrossing (Progressives are Socialists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

Nah, if an R wins it, they’ll have an emergency meeting and recind the “law”. That’s how they do things.


12 posted on 08/09/2011 4:09:07 PM PDT by Reagan69 (First they came for Sarah Palin and conservatives said nothing...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

“California blows off US Constitution” is how this should read.

How can they do this?


13 posted on 08/09/2011 4:11:07 PM PDT by bboop (Stealth Tutor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns

Thanks CA! We will be taking those electoral votes off your hands soon ...lol


14 posted on 08/09/2011 4:12:37 PM PDT by RED SOUTH (If you liked George W. Bush, you will LOVE Rick Perry! Follow me on twitter @redsouth72)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Reagan69
Nah, if an R wins it, they’ll have an emergency meeting and recind the “law”. That’s how they do things.

Yes, you can bet if it doesn't go the Rat's way, they will be the first in line to get the law struck down as unconstitutional.....lol
15 posted on 08/09/2011 4:12:47 PM PDT by copaliscrossing (Progressives are Socialists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Reagan69
Nah, if an R wins it, they’ll have an emergency meeting and recind the “law”. That’s how they do things.

Yeah, that's how they roll. Remember the thing about the Massachusetts Gov appointing their Senator?

16 posted on 08/09/2011 4:12:52 PM PDT by FormerLib (Sacrificing our land and our blood cannot buy protection from jihad.-Bishop Artemije of Kosovo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
The National Popular Vote compact is an asinine "reform".

The Electoral College prevents voter fraud, and empowers governments at the most local level. Recall 2000, where the Palm Beach County canvassing board became the most powerful political entity in the country.

The Congressional District Method would make great sense for a state as large as California. It would result in Presidential candidates actually spending time and money in California, rather than just raising money in California.

17 posted on 08/09/2011 4:13:57 PM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
Whoah there Nellie!.... they cannot do that!

7 states [including mine - MD] have done this. They are banking on the states' plenary right to select the method of choosing their electors as per the Constitution.

BUT, SCOTUS has ruled that [once a stae has granted it's citizens the right to vote for it's electors], 14th Amendment Equal Protection applies. That is, the state CANNOT value the vote of one voter over another.

What the NPV essentially does is this - the state grants the right of it's citizens to vote for it's electors and the winner of the majority vote will be awarded the electors. EXCEPT that [if the NPV in the OTHER 49 states plus the MINORITY within this state goes the other way] the state will strip the winner of the majority vote within the state of the electors and award them to the winner of the NPV.

Certainly SOUNDS like the state is valuing one voter's vote over another ...

18 posted on 08/09/2011 4:15:51 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

If liberal states want votes based on population proportions, why do we need a Senate for??!!!! CA should give up their Senators and just rely on Congress reps to represent them in Wash DC.


19 posted on 08/09/2011 4:16:13 PM PDT by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

How is this unconstitutional? I though a State can decide how it appoints its electors. Whether it determines it based on its citizens’ votes, the nation’s citizens’ votes, a coin flip or the alignment of the planets (it is California) is for it to decide. Since it seems to be the lib states mainly doing this, let ‘em.


20 posted on 08/09/2011 4:17:39 PM PDT by tnlibertarian (Don't mend SS, end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
21 posted on 08/09/2011 4:18:25 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: magellan

TOTALLY agree with district method - with remaining 2 votes going to winner of popular vote within the state.

It is the fairest method ...


22 posted on 08/09/2011 4:18:48 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

Don’t assume the democrats have simply overlooked the possibility that a republican can win.

When they tried it in Michigan they wrote an opt out clause into the bill that would allow them to opt out 6 months before an election.

Basically, if it looked like a republican might win, they could force him to collect electoral votes the old fashioned way.


23 posted on 08/09/2011 4:20:58 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Safrguns
Whoah there Nellie!.... they cannot do that!

Jerry Brown fiddles while the California economy burns.

24 posted on 08/09/2011 4:22:34 PM PDT by Calusa (The pump don't work cause the vandals took the handles. Quoth Bob Dylan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

I’m not sure that I see the Constitutional difficulty. The Constitution never indicates how the electors should be chosen, other than that the states have the right to choose them. Article II Section 1 says “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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

The 14th Amendment mentions electors, but only in the context of when they are chosen by popular vote within a state. The electors can be nominated by the governor, names picked out of a hat, whatever — as long as the correct number of electors are chosen.

Not trying to be argumentative, I just really don’t see where the Constitutional issue is. The electors will, by necessity, be faithless, but that’s not actually unconstitutional, as far as I can tell.


25 posted on 08/09/2011 4:23:31 PM PDT by Terabitten ("Don't retreat. RELOAD!!" -Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fee

They are just trying to ruin the Constitution and US government.

We should go back to the state legislatures picking the Senators....Repeal the 17th Amendment.

That was also a Communist/Marxist move to destroy the separation of powers....so they could get total central control. It took them awhile....FDR helped a ton with the Court....and look at the communist bambi whom he placed on the Court and Congress allowed them to be confirmed. Sickening.

We have been set up.


26 posted on 08/09/2011 4:23:47 PM PDT by savagesusie (Virtue is a habit of the mind, consistent with nature and moderation and reason. Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
The constitution states “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...” but it says nothing about how those electors are to be appointed. If a state wants to appoint its electors on the basis of how other people vote then it would seem that they have that authority. No one every said that authority couldn't be frittered away.
27 posted on 08/09/2011 4:25:05 PM PDT by texanred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tnlibertarian
How is this unconstitutional?

Google and read Bush v. Gore ...

State has the exclusive, unalterable, and uninterferable right to select method of choosing electors.

BUT, if it chooses to allow it's citizens to select it's electors, then the state CANNOT infringe on the voters' 14 Amendment Equal Protection rights by valuing one voter's vote over another.

In this case, the state would value the votes of the OTHER 49 states plus the minority within the state, if the NPV goes the other way ...

28 posted on 08/09/2011 4:25:16 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Calusa

Bet I can guess what that pervert Brown is fiddling with....


29 posted on 08/09/2011 4:25:19 PM PDT by savagesusie (Virtue is a habit of the mind, consistent with nature and moderation and reason. Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: copaliscrossing
I will say that it may be the only chance the Republican Party has to pick up those electoral votes.

That's something I thought for years... the Republicans have lots of paths to the White House without California's 55 or so EVs... but the Democrats have NONE. I've always thought we should focus a LOT harder on winning California, because without it, the Democrats literally have *no* chance in a Presidential election.

30 posted on 08/09/2011 4:25:55 PM PDT by Terabitten ("Don't retreat. RELOAD!!" -Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tnlibertarian
How is this unconstitutional?

Despite the arguments that a State can decide on its electors, this is certainly against the spirit of the Constitution. It has the State precommitted not to the election-day will of its populace, but to the outcome of a nationwide voter tally. That will give an immense weight to the cumulative effect of party machine fraud, which I believe has been mostly Democratic and centered in big cities, like Chicago, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia.

Instead of fraud being somewhat isolated by state, it will have a cumulative national effect. It will make every fake vote count. Very bad idea.

31 posted on 08/09/2011 4:26:34 PM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Reagan69

“Nah, if an R wins it, they’ll have an emergency meeting and recind the “law”. That’s how they do things.”

You can take that to the bank.


32 posted on 08/09/2011 4:27:45 PM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (Both sides need to put aside the partisan bickering, & work out how much free stuff I get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

By my estimation, the states that have already passed it have 124 electoral votes locked up for most likely democrats.


33 posted on 08/09/2011 4:28:21 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf
I think California is going to regret this in 2012...

There are always unintended consequences in the wake of progressive brainstorms. This is truly one to be hoped for.

34 posted on 08/09/2011 4:28:35 PM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Where's he getting these ideas? He's not smart enough to be that stupid all by himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Calusa

>>> Jerry Brown fiddles while the California economy burns.

you’ll like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgG0rdWJAJY


35 posted on 08/09/2011 4:28:49 PM PDT by Safrguns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

This will last until the first time a Republican wins the national popular vote.


36 posted on 08/09/2011 4:29:10 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Even Herbert Hoover kept a AAA bond rating.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terabitten

I just really don’t see where the Constitutional issue is.

*****

READ Bush v. Gore - dammit !!!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

Section II B - First AND Second paragraphs ...


37 posted on 08/09/2011 4:30:09 PM PDT by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

Sarah, can you not hear all our voices asking you to PLEASE save us from this take over?!?!?!?

If there is a GOD in heaven he will make it so.


38 posted on 08/09/2011 4:31:14 PM PDT by Calif4Palin (President Palin sounds so good....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tnlibertarian

Absolutely right. The state chooses how it awards electors.


39 posted on 08/09/2011 4:31:45 PM PDT by GunRunner (10 Years of FReeping...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

“I think California is going to regret this in 2012...”

Concur. This could only hurt democrats.


40 posted on 08/09/2011 4:31:45 PM PDT by Jewbacca (The residents of Iroquois territory may not determine whether Jews may live in Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

Idiots.


41 posted on 08/09/2011 4:32:50 PM PDT by mylife (OPINIONS ~ $ 1.00 HALFBAKED ~ 50c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

As I have tried to hammer home. If there are 30 million illegals in America, that’s enough to fill more than 50 congressional districts.

Choose well America, it could well be your last chance.


42 posted on 08/09/2011 4:34:35 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
I prefer the district voting system. Each congressional district's equivalent electoral vote gets awarded to the candidate that received a majority. If no majority, then the top two candidates have a runoff 30 days later with no write in candidates allowed.

The two state votes are awarded by the legislators meeting in unicameral session within 7 days of the election. The candidates are nominated by the number of votes received in the state and the legislators vote up or down the candidates in order. Failure to vote for an candidate at the end of the list throws the nomination over to the Governor. The Governor also nominates the other state's electoral vote.

43 posted on 08/09/2011 4:35:50 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tcrlaf

I think it disenfranchises minority parties vote in the state and they should sue to overturn it.


44 posted on 08/09/2011 4:37:26 PM PDT by Always Independent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
Google and read Bush v. Gore ...

Not up for doing homework this evening. If there is something important there, post it.

State has the exclusive, unalterable, and uninterferable right to select method of choosing electors.

Alright.

BUT, if it chooses to allow it's citizens to select it's electors, then the state CANNOT infringe on the voters' 14 Amendment Equal Protection rights by valuing one voter's vote over another.

It sounds like they aren't allowing its citizens to select its electors, or at least solely its citizens. There is no infringement on the voters' 14th amendment rights. All citizens are valued the same. The losers' votes aren't valued any less, they simply lost. Just the same as the minority in any election. The problem with the Florida election was that in a selective recount, a voter in one county was being treated differently than a voter in another county. This would not be the case in California. Granted, this is the informed legal opinion of an accountant, not a lawyer.

45 posted on 08/09/2011 4:37:36 PM PDT by tnlibertarian (Don't mend SS, end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
As soon as California denies the right of its own citizens to select its electors and forfeits that right to the national population as a whole, that state will then lose its representation in the House. I can't wait.

Amendment XIV, Sec. 2:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

46 posted on 08/09/2011 4:38:38 PM PDT by Hoodat (Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. - (Rom 8:37))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tnlibertarian

A state can decide how to appoint its electors.

However, I thought that electors can not be required to vote a certain way. In reality, electors in the electoral college are loyal party workers, who will vote for their party. Faithless electors are rare because they are party loyalists.

The electoral votes are not just numbers on a scoreboard. They are actual people who have to cast an actual vote. Can you imagine Democrat electors, elected by voters in their state, being compelled to vote for a Republican for president? I can’t see it. I think if this happens, there will be many faithless electors who vote for their own party. Especially if their actions tip the balance in a close election.


47 posted on 08/09/2011 4:47:54 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

unconsitutional


48 posted on 08/09/2011 4:52:39 PM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

bttt


49 posted on 08/09/2011 4:53:17 PM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

I would be in favor of my state leaving a union run by California.


50 posted on 08/09/2011 4:54:45 PM PDT by Truth is a Weapon (Truth, it hurts so good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 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