(CA) Bill OK'd to change electoral vote system

[question everything]

Bill OK'd to change electoral vote system

Effort called 'end run' on Constitution

By Samantha Young
ASSOCIATED PRESS

May 31, 2006

SACRAMENTO – Frustrated that presidential candidates have spent so little time in California, lawmakers approved legislation yesterday to change how the state awards its electoral votes for president.

The bill, approved 49-31 mostly along party lines in the Assembly, would pledge California's 55 Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote, a system critics charged was an attempt to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

If the bill became law in California, it would take effect only if states with a combined total of 270 electoral votes – the number required to win the presidency – also agreed to decide the election by popular vote.

(snip)

Backers of the compact say presidential candidates should be forced to campaign before all voters, not just those in so-called battleground states such as Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida. In 2004, California voters cast more than 10 percent of the nation's votes for president, but presidential or vice-presidential candidates visited the state twice in the last month of the campaign, according to a committee analysis of the bill.

Republicans called the compact an “end run” around the U.S. Constitution.

(snip)


Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060531/news_1n31votes.html

[msongs]

1. get rid of e vote FRAUD first .... nt

[bullimiami]

2. this does not circumvent the constitution.

the states have the power to assign their electoral votes however they see fit.
each state sets their own rules.

[GOTV]

3. This is a really interesting idea!

I'd love to see a discussion of the pros and cons.

[cboy4]

4. I think this is sorta a bad idea. I live in Calif. and I don't lose sleep

that they don't spend a lot of time here.

I know maybe people who work for candidates would like to see them come.

But I'd rather the democrats campaign where they need to in order to win -- and that would be concentrating on the battleground states.

[CAcyclist]

6. But think about it.

Right now, we are effectively disenfranchised. Our needs are ignored because we are not in play - Republicans aren't going to get our vote without gaming the system and Democrats think our votes are locked up.

If , on the other hand, our needs were in play, the Republicans would have to take a position to the left of where they are and we would effectively neutralize the fundamentalist vote and the racist and xenophobic vote. Also, because this change wouldn't occur unless other states signed on - which would probably be other urban states like New York and Illinois, the Republicans would have to take a more transit (bus and train) friendly approach and we could start to complete our visions of a more transit(bus and train, bike and walk)-oriented urban design.

Democrats probably would and could continue to ignore us if they needed to to get the moderate vote, but if they campaigned in our states, they could generate more enthusiasm and get better turn-out to the polls here, which could offset a close vote.

[trogdor]

9. This Upstate New Yorker agrees with you.

We feel California's pain. By the time primary day came around for New York in 2004, the matter had already been decided regarding who was carrying the Democratic banner in the presidential race. Most of the time, there isn't anything on the ballot that matters to New York voters.

[cboy4]

10. Yes, very good points. I just know if it came down to making a

final trip here to California near the end of the campaign versus going to closely divided Ohio or Florida, I still think I'd rather the Dem pound those states just to be safe,

[kitkat65]

5. Now the Republicans are concerned about the Constitution? n/t

[michreject]

7. Never happen

It would be impossible and get enough states to agree that total 215 additional electroal votes.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. Whereas Republicans prefer the "frontal assault" on the Constitution. nt