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 ...
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.
Eliminate the electoral college and we’re one step away from a transforming the country into a democracy, not the constitutional republic we were set up to be. The states with the largest population will determine who’s president. Smaller states and rural areas might as well not bother to vote. Presidential candidates will tailor their campaigns to win the largest states and won’t waste money on running campaigns in less populated states.
Trust California which is an economic and political disaster as well as the source of the sewage being pumped into our popular culture to come up with another blockhead idea.
Explain to me why we should elect Bush Redux?
He is no more in favor of enforcing out immigration laws than Obama or Bush. Frankly, I’m fed up with Presidents who will not enforce our laws!
Because the USSC won´t stop them.
If barry wins another term, we´re done. Of course, we may done already, but that would sure finish us off.
We citizens did not consent to this.
That is a fallacious argument ...
If the states in the NPV Compact DID NOT allow their citizens TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AT ALL, that would be one thing. If their citizens could not vote and the legislature ACCEPTED the winner of the NPV in the states that DID NOT participate in the NPV Compact, there WOULD BE NO infringement of 14th Amendment rights since their citizens DID NOT VOTE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
BUT, if the states in the NPV Compact allow their citizens to vote for their electors, 14th Amendment protections apply.
A state CANNOT say that it WILL allow you to vote, WILL uphold your 14th Amendment rights NOT to allow other voter's votes to be favored over the majority in your state, and WILL award its electoral votes to the majority candidate within your state - as long as the majority candidate in your state wins the NPV], BUT IF the majority candidate within your state LOSES the NPV, then the state WILL infringe your 14th Amendment rights AND WILL award its electoral votes to winner of the NPV, regardless that he/she LOST the vote in your state.
When a state DOES NOT allow its citizens to vote and ACCEPTS the NPV of the OTHER states, no 14th Amendment violation occurs, but its citizens CANNOT PARTICIPATE in the general election.
When a state DOES allow its citizens to vote and accepts the majority vote in its state [winner-take-all], no 14th Amendment violation occurs.
When a state DOES allow its citizens to vote and allows the majority winner to claim its electoral votes, BUT takes them away and awards them to the other candidate IF that majority winner within the state DOES NOT win the NPV, A 14TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION DOES OCCUR.
In the last case, this is because the cumulative total of the majority of votes in 49 states [who ARE NOT ALLOWED to vote in your state] and the MINORITY of legal votes within your state ARE FAVORED over the original majority within the state.
Remember, that SCOTUS has ruled:
It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).
For Christ's sake - READ Bush v. Gore, SEC II B, paragraphs 1 and 2 ... It affirms the right of states to choose the method of selecting their electors - BUT PLACES 14TH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION RESTRICTIONS ON THEM WHEN THEY GRANT THEIR CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR ELECTORS ...
READ IT - THEN TELL ME WHY 14TH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION DOES NOT APPLY SINCE YOU BELIEVE THAT STATES HAVE AN INCONTROVERTIBLE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE METHOD IN WHICH THEY SELECT THEIR ELECTORS ...
Here is another question ...
Let us assume that a candidate won the electoral vote in a VERY CLOSE election, but lost the NPV and had his electoral victory overturned by the NPV Compact ...
Would that candidate be entitled to a recount IN ALL 50 STATES [including those that DID NOT participate in the NPV Compact], since the NPV determined the outcome ???
You are correct. People seem to forget that there are not JUST 55 electors [as in the case of CA]. There are 110 POTENTIAL electors - 55 DEM loylists and 55 GOP loyalists [in a 2-party race]. Whichever candidate wins, their elector slate is selected.
Thus, VERY FEW faithless electors ...
Thanks for seeing my point. These laws could compel a loyal Republican to vote for a Democrat and vice versa. We have to remember that individual party loyalists would have to break with their own party to vote for a national winner from the other party.
I’ve heard that it’s questionable if a state can compel the individual electors to vote for a specific candidate in the electoral college. This could get messy. We could be playing with fire on this one.
The reason they are doing this is because the electoral college is defined in the constitution, with the 12th amendment particularly defining how it works. So since the liberals know they could never get a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college, they see this idea to force the electoral college to vote a certain way as the next best thing to a national popular vote.
I believe a state has the ultimate authority to assign their electoral votes however they wish. Pretty stupid though. It only minimizes their influence in the eyes of a national election. Why even campaign in California? You need to win other states to get the electoral votes, not California’s.
No, I don't think you do - under NPV, the winner within a state's slate would be provisionally be given the nod - but lets say it is an incredibly close election and Hawaii puts the other guy over the top with the NPV.
Then, the winner within the state's slate is withdrawn and replace with the winner of the NPV's slate ...
No faithless electors ...
Look at what they did in Massachusetts when Kerry ran for President, they changed the law to avoid a runoff election for his seat. Then, after Teddy Kennedy died, they changed it back...Democrats have no morals, ethics or scruples, they are mad with Stalin-Hitler-Mao-like power cravings and a desire to rule like dictators...
Going to lose? Then move the goalposts.
So then, if a Republican won the national popular vote, but California voted Democrat, then the Republican electors from California go to the electoral college.
Well, I can see issues if you have a razor thin margin such as 2000. Al Gore won the national popular vote, however, there were not recounts done to verify this. I can see a situation where a recount would have to be done everywhere. That could produce some headaches.
The voters of California did not give their vote of approval to this end-run around the Constitution. The state legislature did, and I would suspect the vote was mainly along party lines.
Should the 2012 presidential election be as close as the 2000 election, I predict a long, long court battle will ensue due to this effort to fix something that wasn't broken. Obama could stay on in the White House for quite a while awaiting the result, which of course would eventually be determined by the Supreme Court.
You think the Dems were stretching the truth when they claimed G W Bush was "selected" in 2000, wait 'till the SHTF in November 2012. We could see riots in the streets of major cities.
A class action suit should be filed immediately to head off such an eventuality, on behalf of all California voters, regardless of party affiliation.
Well, I can see issues if you have a razor thin margin such as 2000. Al Gore won the national popular vote, however, there were not recounts done to verify this. I can see a situation where a recount would have to be done everywhere. That could produce some headaches.
Yup. These assholes in these DEM-controlled legislatures are blinded by the 2000 election. They forge ahead without considering the constitutional ramifications vis-a-vis 14th Amendment equal protection violations, the law of unintended consequences [GOP winning popular vote and getting their electoral votes], and the possibility that a candidate could demand [and get] recounts in ALL of the states because the election was handed to his opponent based on the NPV.
Nope. Per the 20th Amendment, current Presidential term ends at noon on the 20th of January following the Presidential Election. If a POTUS and VPOTUS [since they run as a ticket] have NOT been selected by then, the Presidential succession kicks in - starting with the Speaker of the House [who, presumably DID win election the previous November]. Failing that, it goes to the President Pro Tem of the Senate [which is the longest serving Senator] - and so on and so on ...
Good point - the statute may be found at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/statquery
AB 459.
The slate of electors representing the NPV winner is certified; they wouldn’t require electoral college winners to vote for the NPV winner.
Bush v. Gore does affirm the right for the legislature to choose the electors themselves in the case of electoral conflict. Although the statute states this cannot happen, a more recently passed law amends a previously passed law.
Yes, I see it now - if the Democrats lose the NPV but would have won the EV, a resident in a state that would flip its slate will claim lack of equal protection and sue. If the reverse happens and the case is brought by a Republican, they’ll say “Selected not elected.”
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.