Thursday, August 31, 2006
Liberal Mantra: If You Can't Win an Election, Change the Rules
Liberals and their ilk for years have argued that the Electoral College is "antiquated" and should be changed to allow for popular vote elections only. Despite the fact that every other word out of the liberal mouth is "follow the Constitution," liberals here believe that they should follow it only when it allows them to win elections. If it is a hindrance to them winning, it needs to be changed so they can win.
The "Get Rid of the Electoral College" movement is now moving to California, where liberals want the state's electoral votes for President to be awarded not to the candidate who wins the state, but to the popular votes winner in the country. This means that a Republican who won the state (which is a longshot for moronic California, but one can hope) would lose the state's electoral votes if they somehow lost the popular vote in the entire country.
Another example of liberals' doctrine of "heads I win, tails you lose."
A Vote to Quit the Electoral College
Liberals find one imbecilic Republican to back their silly bill - next they will say this makes it "bipartisan."
Actually, it doesn't. It makes it stupid, with one Republican signing on to the stupidity.
If this doesn't work for the Left, perhaps they can pass legislation making each Republican vote 3/5ths of a Downie vote. They tried that once before in the Constitution, when it came to slaves.
Liberals and their ilk for years have argued that the Electoral College is "antiquated" and should be changed to allow for popular vote elections only. Despite the fact that every other word out of the liberal mouth is "follow the Constitution," liberals here believe that they should follow it only when it allows them to win elections. If it is a hindrance to them winning, it needs to be changed so they can win.
The "Get Rid of the Electoral College" movement is now moving to California, where liberals want the state's electoral votes for President to be awarded not to the candidate who wins the state, but to the popular votes winner in the country. This means that a Republican who won the state (which is a longshot for moronic California, but one can hope) would lose the state's electoral votes if they somehow lost the popular vote in the entire country.
Another example of liberals' doctrine of "heads I win, tails you lose."
A Vote to Quit the Electoral College
Lawmakers sent Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a bill Wednesday that would make California the first state to jump aboard a national movement to elect the president by popular vote.
Under the legislation, California would grant its electoral votes to the nominee who gets the most votes nationwide — not the most votes in California. Get enough other states to do the same, backers of the bill say, and soon presidential candidates will have to campaign across the nation, not just in a few key "battleground" states such as Ohio and Michigan that can sway the Electoral College vote.
"Frankly, the current system doesn't work," said Assemblyman Rick Keene (R-Chico), the only Republican to vote for the bill. "Presidential candidates don't bother to visit the largest state in the nation…. California is left out."
If Schwarzenegger signs the bill — AB 2948 by Assemblyman Tom Umberg (D-Anaheim) — California will be the first state to embrace the "national popular vote" movement, though legislation is pending in five other states: New York, Illinois, Missouri, Colorado and Louisiana.
The California legislation would not take effect until enough states passed such laws to make up a majority of the Electoral College votes — a minimum of 11 states, depending on population.
The governor's office said Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on the bill.
Liberals find one imbecilic Republican to back their silly bill - next they will say this makes it "bipartisan."
Actually, it doesn't. It makes it stupid, with one Republican signing on to the stupidity.
If this doesn't work for the Left, perhaps they can pass legislation making each Republican vote 3/5ths of a Downie vote. They tried that once before in the Constitution, when it came to slaves.
