Comments on: Voting In California: What Constitution?

By: 0e9fa1f3e9

0e9fa1f3e9 — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 05:58:22 +0000

8906
Everybody is looking for Free Sex.

Find your free sex Porn Downloads here.

By: California Conservative » Voting in California: Democrats Undercut Constitution

Wed, 31 May 2006 14:15:29 +0000

[...] Last month I wrote about AR2948 (What Constitution?, also at California Conservative), a bill written by Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) in the California legislature that would undercut the Electoral process set forth in the constitution. [AB2948] would ratify an interstate compact under which California’s 55 Electoral College members would agree to support the winner of the national popular vote for President regardless of the outcome of the election in California” (San Francisco Examiner, 4/26/06) [...]

By: ZZMike

ZZMike — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 23:11:27 +0000

Earlier primary - probably not a bad idea.

But giving all 55 votes to the national winner effectively means that we might as well do away entirely with federal elections.

At least, that’ll save the state a lot of money.

Poor Tom. You’d think he’d have read the Constitution. But I guess they don’t do that any more in schools.

By: Moon

Moon — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:26:14 +0000

As someone else commenting at another blog pointed out, compacts between states are prohibited by Article 1, Section 10, U.S. Constitution:

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.

By: Woody

Woody — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:53:23 +0000

This is not an attempt to make California “relevant.” This is an attempt to make California “subserviant.” This bill is designed to invalidate any vote that doesn’t match the rest of the country. His theory is that we would then follow the blue states in every presidential election.

His biggest problem, of course, is that the “popular” vote in the last election favored Bush, anyway. He captured 50.7%. By his rule, that means California, which was a Kerry state, would have been forced to throw all its votes to Bush.

By: Avner

Avner — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:38:07 +0000

So let me get this straight. California has passed a law that would have had 55 electoral votes going to GW Bush in ‘04 instead of to Kerry? Do they realize they have made it imperative for people in EVERY state to vote regardless of how futile it might be in their own state? (however that person votes, so might go all of CA’s 55 electoral votes.)

By: Michael Ejercito

Michael Ejercito — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:19:24 +0000

No way this bill would pass. The Democratic leadership in the Legislature would not want to throw away any advantage Democratic presidential nominees have. (Only Republican nominees from California have a chance at winning.)

By: Erik

Erik — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:53:11 +0000

So, basically, his intent is to disenfranchise those of us that live in less populous states.

By: WMD Maker

WMD Maker — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 15:27:36 +0000

Pretty soon to vote in Cali all you will have to do is show up at the polling place to vote. Citizen? who cares? its not like we pay attention to your vote anyway.