Posted on 05/31/2006 6:18:36 AM PDT by NativeNewYorker
The final step in a headlong rush to mobocracy!
1912 the selection of state senators was taken from the state legislatures and moved down to a popular vote. This generated a more powerful lower "high house."
With the removal of the electoral college, the mob (more responsive to seductive socialism) will rule the day!
Bread and Circus! bread and circus!
Ruefully,
Top sends
On second thought, I hope this passes. It will ensure that California's absentee votes get counted in a close national election - an action that rarely occurs. In 2000, over one million California absentee votes went uncounted because Gore's margin in the Golden State was in excess of that, meaning that counting the votes wouldn't have changed the outcome. With the new system, those votes would have to be counted because the nationwide margin was less than one million. Historically, absentee ballots in California have favored the GOP by a 2:1 margin, meaning that Bush would have won the popular vote, and California would have given their electors to President Bush.
I think even today's SCOTUS would have a hard time parsing that one to mean anything else.
I daresay that the first time these electoral votes are cast against any state's internal results, some citizen will prosecute a suit over lack of representation and all hell could break out. Especially with a close vote, a la 2000, and some 13 states have similar bills in effect with different means of computing.
It is an interesting concept, except that I don't think any of the four governors in question has either the desire or the stones to push that clause forward.
It's not so clear. This is a piece of California legislation (if passed and signed) which simply specifies that a different method of selecting electors will prevail if some condition is met. That condition happens to be the passing of similar legislation by other states.
There is no actual agreement or compact between the states. (Such a compact would bind the states to some course of action, this doesn't, it can be changed by a future legislature without regard to what other states do.)
Of course, with only blue states having any enthusiasm for this measure, it really is a case of 'be careful what you wish for' for the demonRATs.
And that is a de facto compact. I seriously doubt this would pass Constitutional muster.
Consequence: More Florida 2000s.
Now, it is a rare thing to have a 50-50 race in a state with enough EVs to swing the EV outcome. With the CA proposal, ANY state that is close to 50-50, and can manufacture votes, has the weight of CA behind it, and could swing the nation.
Imagine a small swing state doing a "Florida recount" when the EV margin was 40, and dragging CA the other way.
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.
It gets even better. What is a Republican won the popular vote but 'lost' the electoral vote? Then California's 55 would switch over and the Republican would win. The left would be hysterical even though it's exactly what they said they want.
Funny how they claim to want "majority rule" except in cases like homosexual "marriage", border security, freedom to express religious beliefs (for Christians) freedom to bear arms, removing abortion from the list of "Constitutional rights", etc.
"Republican" in that clause means the classic formulation, government of the people by their elected representatives. That means states can award Electoral College votes as a result of the vote of the people -- either winner take all, which is common now, or choosing electors in Congressional Districts, which two states do now, but a total of 21 states have done in the past.
In the alternative, states have the power, if they choose, to have their Electors chosen by the state legislatures. Either way, the voters of that state have the final say. But the question is whether any state has the power to award its College votes on the basis of the votes of people WHO DO NOT LIVE IN THAT STATE?
There is also a practical and negative result from this proposal which the numbskulls in the California legislature have not considered. If California can award its College votes on the basis of national results, there is zero incentive for any candidate to campaign in California or run ads in California. Win the rest of the country and California will fall into your lap.
"What fools these mortals [legislators] be!"
P.S. info. My primary is over, but because of legal and ethical problems, the incumbent may withdraw/be forced out. He is also losing in the latest poll (5/28) to the Democrat challenger. I seek to be the replacement nominee. For more information see my website. I still need your help.
Congressman Billybob
You are correct, absentee votes NEVER get counted unless the votes are close, they are then used to determine the outcome. There are tons of absentee voters in California, my hubby is one of them.
I used to vote absentee until I realized my vote didn't count.
Good!! Gore STILL didn't win the popular vote in 2000, by the way.
True in a 2 party race --- but........... IMHO, this sets up the a condition where a 3rd party can become a king maker. As in 92 and 96, the popular vote leader would be well below 50% of the total but end up with all the electoral votes in states another candidate carried.
Stupid idea, but typical of California.
That would be very funny!
I've heard claims that those votes aren't counted, but I find that awfully hard to believe. The presidential race is not the only race on the ballot. Those absentee voters are also casting votes for Senator, state legislature, school board, mayor, referendums, etc. Many of those races will be determined by the absentee votes, even if the presidential election isn't. It may take them time, but I'm fairly certain all those votes are eventually tabulated. Do you have a link indicating they are not counted?
It wouldn't be hard to identify two slates of electors who will WANT to vote for one party or the other and then send the slate corresponding to the winner of the popular vote nationwide. Candidates actually win electoral college voters, not the votes of a fixed electoral college.
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.