Jerry Brown endorses popular vote bill for California

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
So this means if Candidate A wins California but Candidate B gets more votes overall then Candidate B gets CA's 55 electoral votes?


Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill that would award all of California's 55 Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote in presidential elections.

The movement by a group called National Popular Vote aims to prevent a repeat of 2000, when Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote but Republican George W. Bush won the electoral vote. The proposed change would ensure the winner of the national popular vote becomes president.

With Brown's signature Monday, California became the eighth state to sign on, giving the effort 132 of the 270 electoral votes it needs to take effect.

California and most other states currently have winner-take-all systems that give all the electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most votes in that state.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/08/08/state/n131327D33.DTL
 
this undermines each states importance in the overall election process. while california is certainly entitled to make this change, this change gives power to other states over california's electoral votes. some might argue that this is a good thing because it might have the effect of candidates actually campaigning in more states as the heavy electoral states won't have as much sway. sounds like a good argument, but i'm not convinced yet. imo.....this is all about the butt hurt dems who are still whining about al gore's loss in 2000. had gore won, this change wouldn't even be on the horizon in such a grand scale.
 
Yurt said:
this undermines each states importance in the overall election process. while california is certainly entitled to make this change, this change gives power to other states over california's electoral votes. some might argue that this is a good thing because it might have the effect of candidates actually campaigning in more states as the heavy electoral states won't have as much sway. sounds like a good argument, but i'm not convinced yet. imo.....this is all about the butt hurt dems who are still whining about al gore's loss in 2000. had gore won, this change wouldn't even be on the horizon in such a grand scale.
Click to expand...

I don't think California has the power to make this change. Isn't it against the Constitutionally mandated process?

Its retarded anyway. In theory California could be, say, 75% for the Democrat but the rest of the county be for the Republican, so their 55 votes go to the Republican. Jerry's been doing too much weed and hasn't thought this through.
 
Damn Yankee said:
I don't think California has the power to make this change. Isn't it against the Constitutionally mandated process?

Its retarded anyway. In theory California could be, say, 75% for the Democrat but the rest of the county be for the Republican, so their 55 votes go to the Republican. Jerry's been doing too much weed and hasn't thought this through.
Click to expand...

i'm 99% sure it is not unconstitutional. the states are free to do what they like with their electoral votes. if you look at each state's process you will see how wide it can vary.
 
Yurt said:
i'm 99% sure it is not unconstitutional. the states are free to do what they like with their electoral votes. if you look at each state's process you will see how wide it can vary.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's true. Most are all-or-nothing and some proportion them, which is retarded.
 
Yurt said:
jealousy will never get you anywhere....

what precedent is this setting? other states have already done this, other states are free to ignore it.
Click to expand...

would you want your state to give it's electoral votes to a candidate that lost the popular vote in your state?........
 
LOL Only in California, where the understanding of government is limited to "when do I get my check?" Do these mindless twits understand that had this law existed in 2004, Bush, their demon incarnate, would have gotten CA's electoral votes?

What a bunch of fucking droons.

It does set a bad precedent, though. The president was never intended to be popularly elected. Too few people understand our government enough to realize this. Ever since they fucked the balance of power by making the Senate popularly elected, the democratic progressives are all about "democracy", ignoring the basic fact that our system of government is founded on the principles of a constitutional republic, NOT a democracy. Democracy was examined and turned down for the horrendous ideology it is.
 
It doesn't take effect until enough states sign on that they'd have the 270 electoral votes. I think it is stupid myself.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
would you want your state to give it's electoral votes to a candidate that lost the popular vote in your state?........
Click to expand...

what does that have to do with your jealousy of my great state? i like the system as is now...though i am not convinced it is the best system. i explained more in post 3
 
Yurt said:
i'm 99% sure it is not unconstitutional. the states are free to do what they like with their electoral votes. if you look at each state's process you will see how wide it can vary.
Click to expand...

not so sure about that. The US Constitution gives the feds the power to enforce a republican form of government, which would include the election process.
 
There is no Constitutional mandate on how the electors from each state shall apportion their votes. It simply states they must vote by ballot. But nothing is said how those ballots are determined. Conceivably a state could set things up so their electors vote without ANY direction from the popular vote. In fact, it is the studied opinion of many Constitutional scholars that such was the intended method of electing the president, without any actual popular vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top