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 ...
Idiots.
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.
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.
I think it disenfranchises minority parties vote in the state and they should sue to overturn it.
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.
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.
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.
unconsitutional
bttt
I would be in favor of my state leaving a union run by California.
If all the votes go to the majority winner of the rest of the states - then Californians need not even vote - as whoever wins in the rest of the country wins...regardless of whether or not the California electoral votes may have swung the results the other way.
Totally negates the states votes.
so why should the citizens of California even bother to go vote?
And the 14th amendment also provides a remedy for this:
"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."
That is to say, if all the citizens are disenfranchised, then the state is stripped of all representation. So NPV could lead to all of the compact states' electoral votes being discounted, congressional representation denied, dissolution of the state government.
I wonder whether this clause has ever been tested?
Doesn’t any “winner takes all” directive to the electors of a state make it unconstitutional ? Appointing electors, who may or may not vote as directed, seems implied in the passages you quote. The Constitution doesn’t say each state shall have “votes”, but “electors”, which are PERSONS. Electors have at least the possibility of voting their conscience without regard to the popular vote in their state. This CA policy, just as the other states that give all their electoral college votes in a single block, should be unconstitutional because it denies those individual electors the right to vote their conscience.
Again, I apologize for this creepy state.
If California wants to abrogate its rights as a State and responsibilities to its own citizens, maybe they should revert to Territorial status and be run directly from Washington again..
It's better than 'Present'!
It's 'our votes don't count, the rest of the country picks our winner'.
It's more like 'We're incredibly stupid but present'!
As Sir Winston Churchill said “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” Except in this case, the best argument against democracy is the lunatic liberals in California.
Yes, I agree. I believe the law to be constitutional - electors are to be chosen in a manner that the state legislature shall direct - but most of these laws have escape clauses such as “a majority of states comprising the Union must pass a similar law.” Of course when the law produces a result that the legislature doesn’t like, and one state rescinds, does it invalidate the others too? I would say so but if you think Bush v. Gore 2000 was bad, just wait until the lawsuits on this one occur.
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.