Posted on 05/31/2006 6:18:36 AM PDT by NativeNewYorker
SACRAMENTO, May 31 (UPI) -- The California Assembly has passed a bill giving all its Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide.
The bill is intended to give California more clout in the presidential race, The Los Angeles Times reports.
Despite having 15.5 million voters and 55 Electoral College votes -- the most of any state -- presidential hopefuls campaign most in bubble states like Florida, Ohio and others in the Midwest. There are 538 Electoral College votes divided among U.S. legislators. Each state's votes typically go to whichever candidate wins the particular state.
A bill similar to the one passed in California is being debated in four other states and possibly in every state by the end of the year, the Times said. The bill could effectively side-step the Electoral College process if at least 13 states pass it.
The California Senate still needs to approve the measure and then the governor needs to sign it for it to take effect.
The debate in California was partisan although both Republican and Democratic legislators have supported similar bills in New York, Missouri, Colorado and Illinois.
And all of them will get shot down in SCOTUS as being a compact between states without federal blessing.
You can tell who benefits by who's supporting it. California already has too much influence in Washington.
Things like this have a way of backfiring. How have the Dems been doing since motor voter came out?
The liberal socialists just don't stop trying to bring down our governmental system, do they?? --- for their enhanced empowerment, of course. The only thing in life that matters to them...
The electoral college is a temporary legislature, chosen only for the purpose of electing the president. To bind a legislative delegation to the decisions of people in other states whom they do not represent is not in any way democratic (or republican for that matter).
Given that the states proposing this are all hard core blue states that perenially send all their electoral votes to the dems, how does this hurt conservatives?
This would actually benefit the Republicans (if done only in California), but I still don't like it. I oppose any of these measures by individual states to tamper with the intent of the electoral college.
It certainly would have backfired for them in 2004. GWB would have had an additional 55 votes, for an electoral total of 341! It wouldn't even have been close. Of course then a lot of lefty whiners would have been screaming Bush didn't really win the nationwide popular vote because he stole it, blah blah blah.
What do you mean if done only in CA?
The reason it would benefit CA is simple. It would give greater influence to states that have lopsided voting margins. CA, for example, overwhelmingly votes Dem in the Presidential elections. But any votes in excess of the 50.00001% are really surplusage with the electoral college. If you go to a direct election, then they can use their lopsided margin to add to one candidate's column. Every other state in the Union could conceivably vote for the other candidate, as long as there were enough votes in CA to put their candidate over the top.
So eliminating the electoral college rewards one party politics. Not a good idea.
The Kalifornia Dictators are becoming a serious threat to freedom in this Republic.
The Constitution states that the State Legislatures shall appoint the electors. It does not say they can direct their votes.
Exactly...if this compact were in place in 2004, Bush would have gotten all of California's Electoral votes. Do the Californians realize that?
It's a California bill. If this passed only in California, and other states didn't do the same thing, it would help the Republicans. Bush would have won California in 2004, since he won the national popular vote, making the outcomes in Florida and Ohio meaningless.
But like I said, I still oppose it, because it subverts the intent of the electoral college.
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, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
Good point. In the last election, California would have to give it's votes to Bush!.
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.