Thread: California Rejects US Republic Form of Government

California Rejects US Republic Form of Government
May 31, 2006 01:14 PM EST


By Sher Zieve – On Tuesday, California lawmakers effectively rejected the US’ form of government--the Republic. CA lawmakers advised that they would no longer award California’s electoral votes based on which presidential candidate wins in the state but, will base the award of the votes to the candidate that receives the greatest number of popular votes nationwide.

This effectively moves California into the position of having become a "direct democracy".

Said to be an attempt at an “end run” around the US Constitution, California State Assemblyman Chuck Devore, (R-Irvine) said: "The Constitution of the United States was very specific that every state shall have a republican form of government. It's not a direct democracy. Direct democracies were probably seen by the founding fathers as unstable."

The Mercury News writes: “The bill 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.”

http://www.mercurynews.com

This is the way all states should do it. Our current system has never made sense to me.

The people in California's state capitol are by and large crazy. This is one more crazy thing they are doing. Our country and our state are republics. Look at the California state flag. It says "California Republic". Democracies don't last. They are rife with corruption. Our founders created a REPUBLIC, not to be confused with the Republican party.

You don't want to do away with the electoral college. It is the only thing that prevents big states like California and Texas from running the entire country. California and Texas have already been "taken over" by illegals and their supporters. Do you want those two states, the most populous states in the country, running the ENTIRE country. I think not.

The California state legislature is run by crazies. Don't think for a moment they are doing "the right thing".

Godhelpus - thank you for your comments. My next question was going to be what affect would that have on the elections. I remember learning about the electoral college in school but that was a long time ago and had forgot.

Originally Posted by Dianne

This is the way all states should do it. Our current system has never made sense to me.

No, it is not how all states should do it. Direct democracy is not a good thing. (Mobocracy, tyranny of the majority) If you do a little online research, you'll find out why our founding fathers created a Democratic Republic, not a democracy. There is a big difference.

You don't want to do away with the electoral college. It is the only thing that prevents big states like California and Texas from running the entire country. California and Texas have already been "taken over" by illegals and their supporters. Do you want those two states, the most populous states in the country, running the ENTIRE country. I think not.

I agree with GodHelpUs, you would have Calif, the left coast and N.Y. the right coast deciding everything in fly over country. No thank you!

I do see some benefit in the electoral college - but I think I would rather not have the 'winner take all' - but would have the number of electoral votes distributed among the candidates, by the percentage of votes they received in that state.

Fell free to point out the problems with this -

I think this might give an an opportunity to a third party candidate.

I'm with nntrixie on this one. A winner take all approach doesn't seem right to me, either. I'm not up to speed on the Electoral College, but it seems to me that candidates should get electors based on the percentage of votes the get in the popular election.

My 2 cents...

Now why would the folks in California want to change this before the next Presidential Election? Perhaps they will have a huge influx of brand new voters to change the outcome of the election....

The Mercury News writes: “The bill 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.”

Am I reading this right?

We're going to ignore how Californians vote and give the electoral votes to the candidate who gets the largest national popular vote?

So if A wins in California, but B wins nationwide, the California electoral vote goes to B?

This is insane.