Posted on 05/31/2006 6:18:36 AM PDT by NativeNewYorker
The California Secretary of State website states:
"All valid absentee ballots are counted in every election in California, regardless of the outcome or closeness of any race."
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_m.htm
I think they'd have a very easy time of it, myself. I have 3 grounds for this. (Please note: I think this law is a poor idea - but I also think it is Constitutional. That is all I'm arguing here.)
1. As of this time, the courts have not found the tobacco agreement to be a compact between the states. Given that precedent, you have a very, very high hurdle to jump before anything becomes a compact. This is the point most likely to be overturned, so I'm just putting it up here. But it is worth noting that this is the current precedent.
2. The legislation is crafted carefully to avoid the compact issue. The states are not entering into any type of formal agreement. Instead, each state is deciding how to allocate their electoral votes, and basing it on national popular vote, rather than their own state's total. They specify that they will only follow this method if enough other states have also apopted this method, but that is still reached independently, rather than as an agreement. It lacks the reciprocity features a compact would have.
3. Finally, the Supreme Court, if they actually follow the Constitution (a frequently dubious assumption) would stay they heck out of this argument to begin with. It is left to the States to allocate their votes. It is left to Congress to determine whether to accept those votes (to decide whether the election was conducted properly, etc.) The Supreme Court has no role to play in this, and they should stay out of it. It is, as a result, left to the politics in the States and Congress. Given that, if enough states did pass laws like this, I have little doubt but that they would stand.
Drew Garrett
Somehow this idea seems to violate the Voting Rights Act.
Voters in the states not part of the "Compact" votes count toward the appointment of the electors while the those in the "Compact" States may not.
I stand corrected! Thank you.
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/code.html?sec=elec&codesection=15100-15112
It is not a compact but, it is a settlement agreement among plaintiffs and defendants.
It is left to the States to allocate their votes.
Can a State Legislature decide that a certain group only casts 3/5th of a vote. If not, why not? \
I see a big problem with this for Republicans. They only need a few key states to go along with this crap.
All the democrats would need to do is bump up voting in California and New York, and they would win every election.They also would only have to spend their money in a couple democratic states to get the vote out.
Here's a link...
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1168352.php/Calif._bill_would_change_electoral_college
I thought that this was a hoax until I found the link. Do the Dims know that this would have given CA's EVs to Bush last time around?!
Back during the recount fiasco, I remember that the California vote total did not change from November 4 through November 30, indicating that no absentee ballots were added. Those links are no longer available, as they have been replaced by the official state total given around Dec. 15, 2000. However, I did find this link from MSNBC which contradicts my earlier claim: http://www.msnbc.com/d/d2k/g/state_CA.htm This gives an unofficial count on election day of 9.3 million votes cast for either Bush or Gore. The official State tally given out six weeks later totaled 10.4 million votes for either Bush or Gore. This would correlate with the 1.1 million figure given in another site for the number of absentee ballots cast, indicating that the absentee votes were indeed included with the Dec. 15th certification.
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/sov/2000_general/pres.pdf
Please note that this is an addition of 1.1 million votes that were not included during the immediate aftermath of the election when the cries of "Gore won the popular vote" were loudest. I am willing to concede that my earlier claim was in error. However, I am not willing to concede that Gore won the popular vote since there is no certainty whatsoever as to what the actual popular vote was in all 50 states, nor is such a tally even relevant.
I find it highly ironic that the Democrats would even concern themselves in the popular vote tally considering that in the entire history of the Democrat Party, only five Democrats have ever managed to capture a majority of the popular vote in any presidential election.
You can tell who benefits by who's supporting it. California already has too much influence in Washington.
--
Couldn't tell by as little as we see come back to this state in funds from the feds when compared with what is sent to Washington. Yet Boxer and DiChiFi keep getting re-elected.
No, because that violates the 14th Amendment and the federal Voting Rights Act. I don't see how that applies to the discussion, though.
Drew Garrett
So in 2004 since GWBush had more votes NATIONWIDe but californias vote went to Kerry, the electoral votes would go to GWBush?
That totally disenfranchises the california voters!
100% of CF voters could vote one way only to have the electoral count go to the other candidate and make their votes irrelevant.
That is very true. What worries me is that it could end up with a never ending Democrat monompoly on the Executive branch. That would make the U.S. like Canada was under the Liberals. All of the policies for the nation will be made for urban centers, even if they royally screw the people living in rural areas.
read the article.
In essence the votes in california only "count" if they vote the same way as the majority of the USA.
Thus the state of CF has made their citizens' votes irrelevant.
This is not Majority of the CF voters, this is majority of THE NATION.
"Of course, the statisticians show that it is essentially impossible to have an EV win under the current system with more than a 3% PV deficit."
Except of course in the case of President Hayes in 1876 who lost the popular vote by 3.02% and President Adams(6) who lost the popular vote by 10.43%...
dvwjr
Fine. All of their congressional districts are now redrawn to cover the entire state. No more local representation, and all candidates run at-large. Like that would ever happen.
You really need to provide a citation. It sounds like you're confusing "who won the vote in Florida" with "who won the popular vote nationwide." Telling me to go do the research is just going to embarrass yourself until you give me something to back up your claim, which is unorthodox, to put it mildly.
My error, you are correct. I confused the re-count for FloriDUH's electoral votes with the national popular vote.
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.