Skip to comments.Al Gore calls for an end to the Electoral College (just go away Al)
Posted on 08/31/2012 7:56:54 PM PDT by Kolath
Former vice president Al Gore is calling for an end to the Electoral College the system that cost him the presidency in 2000.
Gore said that many voters who live outside the dozen or so battleground states are cheated by the system that allocates delegates from the state level on a winner-take-all basis. He called for presidential elections to be determined by the popular vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
...and he’s way smarter than our founders! :/
re: “Former vice president Al Gore is calling for an end to the Electoral College”
Here’s an idea - How about calling for an end to Algore?
Every election this same thing comes up. The Electoral College still works, why get rid of it?
Even Tipper stopped listening to him.
He’s just mad because he wanted to try out for their football team.
Imagine Florida 2000 recounts and challenges in every state. At a minimum the Electoral College helps focus the fraud so hopefully it can be detected and fought. Blue states NY and CA would have amazingly high turnouts, totally wiping out any value to small states.
And I’m sure the electoral college would just love to call for an end to Al Gore.
I-Gore..One of the true sociopaths in politics today. Has absolutely no concept of emotion so he awkwardly acts it out and always fails.
...with great FREEPER remembrances of the day!
I hear the Electorial College has a good defensive line this year
Seems they did just that in 2000 (with a little help from SCOTUS)
Unless I'm confused, any state can opt to allocate delegates proportionally or in any other way it sees fit. The Constitution does not require winner-take-all.
Of course, any state that does so immediately becomes a great deal less important in the presidential election. Which is why they don't.
That said, it should be pointed out that the Electoral College functioned as intended only in the first two elections. Ever since its functionality, to the extent it has any, bears absolutely no resemblance to that intended by the Founders.
Hillary Clinton said the same thing.
That one sentence alone should dissuade anyone from calling America a democracy.
If America were a democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic then it would already be that way.
FU ManBearPig, you’re yesterday’s news.
You lost, Al! Ha! Ha!
Al Gore is probably sorry he took the initiative of creating the electoral college.
Who’s Al Gore?
ManBearPig is down! Call the Waambulance!
In related news, Al Gore reportedly called for changing the rules of baseball so that the team with the most hits wins the game (because choosing the winner based on which team scores the most runs is ‘undemocratic’).
Hey Al - you and the horse you rode in on.
Gore is such a tool!! Any time my liberal friends complain over the 2000 election I simply present them with a fact smackdown. Gore lost 5 states that Clinton easily won twice. Arkansas (Slick’s home state), West Virginia (”Sheets” Byrd’s home state), Tennessee (his own home state), Missouri (where Democrat Mel Carnahan was elected posthumously to the Senate that year), and finally New Hampshire. Had Gore won just one of these aforementioned states he would have been the 43rd president. Florida would not even have mattered. The electoral college works just fine and gives a voice to lesser populated states. Otherwise, with only having to win a popularity vote the candidates could focus all their energy on the most populated cities and not be concerned with “flyover land.”
That's like saying "If England were a monarchy, then the Queen could decree any law she wanted for the country". Having a monarchy doesn't mean the monarch has absolute power to do whatever they want, and having a democracy doesn't mean the voters have absolute power to pass anything they want. In most cases, they decide things indirectly and delegate power to others. The electoral college is a perfect example of that.
Was the electoral college the third or fourth college that algore flunked out of?
12 years later and this loser is still sore? LOL. This reminds me of an old bud of mine that 15 yrs later, he’s still sore his ex-GF from high school is married and has kids.
Total nonsense....do you want the throngs of idiots in New York and California to solely elect our leaders???? The electoral college gives proportional representation to all!
This is part of their plan. They know that the are losing the election. They have been pressuring the polling companies to give them the results that they want and to over sample Democrats. When Gallop indicated that Mitt Romney was was ahead in the electoral votes, last week, the Obama justice dept started proceedings to sue Gallop. They are whining and lying about Republican voter intimidation. They have the courts under their control, including the Supreme Court, the majority of which does not believe in God give rights.
The plan seems to be that they will lose the election and sue to over turn it, claiming that Obama would have won the popular vote if the Republicans had let every vote count.
Roberts will throw the election to Obama.
Prima facie evidence the Electoral College should be retained. This issue is easy to demagogue but voters in low-population states had better beware! Eliminating the College would give all electoral power to high-population states and big union-run cities.
They also have a damn good QB and a Safety that Mel Kieper Jr thinks will be drafted in the 1st round.
The electoral college prevents corruption from crossing state boundaries. No amount of cheating in Chicago can cross the state boundary to affect the electoral votes in Indiana.
That is why the Democrats have to do away with it. They would rather than have to cheat in several states, and have their weaker organizations stopped and exposed, they would prefer that their stronger organizations in states that they have already corrupted can dominate. Even if their opponents win, it would only be by matching corruption, and good government would be doomed.
Fifty, count 'em, 50 sets of watertight doors.
I’m good with one delegate per county. Let’s pass that constitutional amendment right now.
There’s nothing to stop states from allocating their delegates proportionately. I’d suggest California, New York and Illinois give it a try. ;-)
The electoral college makes it more difficult for a numerous interest group whose beliefs are alien to our ideals to overwhelm the system with a lock-step vote. I think that this probably was the intent of the founders.
One gross example: Obama’s Justice Dept disallowing polling places to check voter I.D.’s with the obvious intention of having his constituents and illegal aliens vote multiple times.
Al here is a hint why it is there.
It is in the Constitution. Kind of a neat document, sorry you have not read it.
Your welcome “Buff”
My claim might be partial nonsense, but it is certainly not total nonsense.
The EC was intended to be an assembly of eminent men, selected by each State, rather than by the people of the State. These men would in a very real sense decide on who the candidates were and then elect the President and Vice-President. Technically that is what it still is, as the electors are not legally bound to vote for the candidate to which they are pledged. There is not a trace in the Constitution of the notion of national presidential elections, or even that the people as a whole would know who the candidates were prior to the meeting of the EC.
Since the notion of political parties is absent from the Constitition, and in such absense there is no particular reason to expect the EC to consistently achieve a majority for one man, there are scholars who claim the actual original intent was for the EC to nominate three candidates, with the election among them normally defaulting to the House.
Since 1796 the EC has not in a genuine sense elected anybody. It has in practice, with exception of one or two states, become a way of divvying up the popular vote by State and giving all the State’s votes to a single candidate.
You can argue about whether this is a good or bad thing. But you cannot logically argue it is what the Founders intended.
In the original Constitution only the House of Representative was elected by popular vote, which is why it was called that. All other elections were indirect.
I can think of two republicans off the top of my head who are calling for the same thing.
England was in practice never an absolute monarchy. Power was originally split between king and nobility in practice. In theory the King was close to absolute, but he couldn’t push too far without causing a revolt, so he had 2nd Amendment type limitation on his power.
As King John found out. Magna Carta started a 400 year struggle between absolutism and constitutionalism. For much of this period the King’s effective power increased, reaching a high point probably under the Tudors, with Henry VIII very nearly absolute.
England did not in theory become a true constitutional monarch till 1688, when the monarch’s power was strictly limited by the Glorious Revolution.
What ever will get in thier way they want it removed. Will the democratic convention require all attendies to show a photo ID? Like the racist ID’s you need to vote?
There's a lot to be said in favor of making it necessary for a president to have to get wide support across the country, rather than focusing on a few urban areas.
So was I wrong in anything I said?
Not disagreeing with you, just expanding on it a bit.
The English Civil War was the major clash between absolute and constitutional monarchy. It could easily have gone the other way and the last non-absolutist monarchy in Europe have gone down.
We look back on this war and see the Parliamentary forces as the wave of the future. But that wasn’t the way it was seen at the time. The conventional wisdom was that absolutism was modern and progressive, and representation and limited governments were holdovers from the medieval past.
For my benefit or for the benefit of someone else?
General interest. Not trying to say you don’t know what you are talking about. No offense intended.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.