The democrats are cheating already!!

[Murf76]

"Legislation signed last year by Gov. Jerry Brown seeks to give California more electoral clout, however. The law is part of a multi-state effort to circumvent the Electoral College system, the United States’s electoral system that confers disproportionate power on sparsely-populated and swing states."

"The National Popular Vote law would give California’s 55 Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote. *Implementation relies on an “Interstate Compact” where states representing a majority of Electoral College votes, 270, must sign on in order for the agreement to take effect. If the movement succeeds, those states would wield enough power to ensure that the national popular vote winner becomes President.

Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Jersey, Washington state and Washington D.C have all signed on in addition to California, bringing the movement about halfway to its needed threshold."

Legislation Puts California on the Electoral Map - Belmont, CA Patch

If the law "...would give California’s 55 Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote", isn't that screwing Californians out of their vote?
I mean, say the national vote goes to Romney and the vote in California goes to Obama... that would mean that Californians didn't really get a vote, they've deferred their vote to the national will of other states. They're more or less abdicating the right of Californians to vote in national elections. I can't see how that stands up in court against any Californian who chooses to sue.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Well....if the GOP can't garner a majority of the votes nationwide, they don't need to be considered a viable party anyhow...right?

Are they so out of touch with Joe American that they need "help" winning an election?

Do none of you people understand what you're promoting here? Pure democracy is 50%+1, or in plain English, mob rule. Is this REALLY what you think we should do? REALLY?

What you're pushing here is the end of 'representative democracy', where the rights of the minority are PROTECTED from usurpation by the mob.

Fucking MORONS!!!

I'm not disagreeing with that, to a point, but you're trying to make the case that the law is somehow an example of the Democrats cheating.

I'd like for you to explain how that is.

No, I'm not trying to make that case at all, although I can see it as a push to disenfranchise the 'flyover states'...

 

[Plasmaball]

It's the beginning of the end of the electoral college just as the democrats want. If all the states sign on to this we will never see another republican president.

So in 04 when bush won the popular vote this means calis 55 votes would have gone to him...


Omg the cheaters!

 

[buckeye45_73]

Guys the problem isnt cheating, its more of unconstitutional, if they want to pass an amendment, then it's ok, if they want to do it any other way....nope...unconstitutional.


But yeah, sure lets give Cali's votes to the popular vote.........seems kind of stupid for democrats to do that....

 

[OKTexas]

I dont have a problem with this at all! That does not hurt one party more than the other.

Just shows how little you know, if it didn't benefit anyone why bring it up? I can see several ways this would not survive a Constitutional challenge in the courts.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There is absolutely nothing illegal about California is doing.

 

[jillian]

"Legislation signed last year by Gov. Jerry Brown seeks to give California more electoral clout, however. The law is part of a multi-state effort to circumvent the Electoral College system, the United States’s electoral system that confers disproportionate power on sparsely-populated and swing states."

"The National Popular Vote law would give California’s 55 Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote. *Implementation relies on an “Interstate Compact” where states representing a majority of Electoral College votes, 270, must sign on in order for the agreement to take effect. If the movement succeeds, those states would wield enough power to ensure that the national popular vote winner becomes President.

Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Jersey, Washington state and Washington D.C have all signed on in addition to California, bringing the movement about halfway to its needed threshold."

Legislation Puts California on the Electoral Map - Belmont, CA Patch

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Guys the problem isnt cheating, its more of unconstitutional, if they want to pass an amendment, then it's ok, if they want to do it any other way....nope...unconstitutional.


But yeah, sure lets give Cali's votes to the popular vote.........seems kind of stupid for democrats to do that....

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. The states are free to decide how they award their electoral votes.

 

[Sarah G]

It's the beginning of the end of the electoral college just as the democrats want. If all the states sign on to this we will never see another republican president.

After the last 5 republican presidents, that could only be a good thing. Your teaparty is doing it's best to destroy your party anyway.

 

[Misty]

Ok I realize that california rarely goes red but if it did go red brown has signed a bill that negates those electorals in favor of the winner of "the national popular" vote. That is the key phrase here.

So states that sign onto this will give their electorals on a national popular vote level rather than a state popular vote level.

Get it now?

 

[Misty]

It's the beginning of the end of the electoral college just as the democrats want. If all the states sign on to this we will never see another republican president.

After the last 5 republican presidents, that could only be a good thing. Your teaparty is doing it's best to destroy your party anyway.

Obama is using taxpayer money to buy votes and lying about terrorist attacks and the economy is shot and more and more people are living off of taxpayer money and you're worrying about tea partiers.

You're head is up your ass.

 

[AmyNation]

I dont have a problem with this at all! That does not hurt one party more than the other.

Just shows how little you know, if it didn't benefit anyone why bring it up? I can see several ways this would not survive a Constitutional challenge in the courts.

No one said it didn't benefit anyone, just that it didn't favor one party over the other. The idea is to toss support to whoever a majority of Americans vote for, instead of having one person win the popular and the other win the electoral.

Personally, I'm not sure this is the best way to solve the issue, but if they want to try *shrug*.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ok I realize that california rarely goes red but if it did go red brown has signed a bill that negates those electorals in favor of the winner of "the national popular" vote. That is the key phrase here.

So states that sign onto this will give their electorals on a national popular vote level rather than a state popular vote level.

Get it now?

Everyone ‘had it’ since the OP, it still doesn’t constitute ‘cheating,’ now or in the future.

It's the beginning of the end of the electoral college just as the democrats want. If all the states sign on to this we will never see another republican president.

After the last 5 republican presidents, that could only be a good thing. Your teaparty is doing it's best to destroy your party anyway.

Obama is using taxpayer money to buy votes and lying about terrorist attacks and the economy is shot and more and more people are living off of taxpayer money and you're worrying about tea partiers.

You're head is up your ass.

Evidence as to the bolded, or is that just more rightwing nonsense from the echo chamber.

As for the economy being ‘shot,’ and the like – it was shot and dying when Obama got it, it’s recovering now, no thanks to republicans.

 

[Misty]

I dont have a problem with this at all! That does not hurt one party more than the other.

Sure it does. If swing states sign on to this their votes go to the national popular vote not the state popular vote. It hurts republicans or brown wouldn't have signed it into law.

 

[jillian]

I dont have a problem with this at all! That does not hurt one party more than the other.

Sure it does. If swing states sign on to this their votes go to the national popular vote not the state popular vote. It hurts republicans or brown wouldn't have signed it into law.

why should iowa have more of a say per capita than new york?

 

[hazlnut]

It's the beginning of the end of the electoral college just as the democrats want. If all the states sign on to this we will never see another republican president.

Well, what if they trying running an exceptional candidate who relates with people? A great communicator with a doctorate in economics and a military record. Someone popular with his own party and able to reach across the aisle with pragmatic compromise.

Was Chris Christie in the Army?

 

[AmyNation]

I dont have a problem with this at all! That does not hurt one party more than the other.

Sure it does. If swing states sign on to this their votes go to the national popular vote not the state popular vote. It hurts republicans or brown wouldn't have signed it into law.

This does not stop republicans from winning, it simply attempts to circumvent the issue of a majority of Americans picking someone and that person not winning the election.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Majority rule is NOT a real good idea...

That's why we have a Constitution.

 

[AmyNation]

Majority rule is NOT a real good idea...

That's why we have a Constitution.

I agree, this seems like a poor idea to me.

I think they should move to amend the constitution so that someone cannot become president without winning both electoral and popular.

 

[Misty]

I dont have a problem with this at all! That does not hurt one party more than the other.

Sure it does. If swing states sign on to this their votes go to the national popular vote not the state popular vote. It hurts republicans or brown wouldn't have signed it into law.

why should iowa have more of a say per capita than new york?

It's just the opposite new York has more electorals than Iowa giving it more say. Just cuz a state has less people doesn't make it any less important.

Without the electoral college many people and states would be disenfranchised. Something liberals whine about all the time.

Once again liberals show their hypocrisy and try to cheat the constitution.