Yep!It's Bush-Cheney 2004, btw. You can bet on that. :^D
Here is the FULL version of that.
Posted on 08/28/2004 11:34:36 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
When Republican delegates nominate their presidential candidate this week, they will be doing it in a city where residents who support George Bush have, for all practical purposes, already been disenfranchised. Barring a tsunami of a sweep, heavily Democratic New York will send its electoral votes to John Kerry and both parties have already written New York off as a surefire blue state. The Electoral College makes Republicans in New York, and Democrats in Utah, superfluous. It also makes members of the majority party in those states feel less than crucial. It's hard to tell New York City children that every vote is equally important - it's winner take all here, and whether Senator Kerry beats the president by one New York vote or one million, he will still walk away with all 31 of the state's electoral votes.
The Electoral College got a brief spate of attention in 2000, when George Bush became president even though he lost the popular vote to Al Gore by more than 500,000 votes. Many people realized then for the first time that we have a system in which the president is chosen not by the voters themselves, but by 538 electors. It's a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis. There should be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president.
The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote. This shocks people in other nations who have been taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy. The Electoral College also heavily favors small states. The fact that every one gets three automatic electors - one for each senator and a House member - means states that by population might be entitled to only one or two electoral votes wind up with three, four or five.
The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are reasons enough for scrapping the system. But there are other consequences as well. This election has been making clear how the Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns. A few swing states take on oversized importance, leading the candidates to focus their attention, money and promises on a small slice of the electorate. We are hearing far more this year about the issue of storing hazardous waste at Yucca Mountain, an important one for Nevada's 2.2 million residents, than about securing ports against terrorism, a vital concern for 19.2 million New Yorkers. The political concerns of Cuban-Americans, who are concentrated in the swing state of Florida, are of enormous interest to the candidates. The interests of people from Puerto Rico scarcely come up at all, since they are mainly settled in areas already conceded as Kerry territory. The emphasis on swing states removes the incentive for a large part of the population to follow the campaign, or even to vote.
Those are the problems we have already experienced. The arcane rules governing the Electoral College have the potential to create havoc if things go wrong. Electors are not required to vote for the candidates they are pledged to, and if the vote is close in the Electoral College, a losing candidate might well be able to persuade a small number of electors to switch sides. Because there are an even number of electors - one for every senator and House member of the states, and three for the District of Columbia - the Electoral College vote can end in a tie. There are several plausible situations in which a 269-269 tie could occur this year. In the case of a tie, the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation gets one vote - one for Wyoming's 500,000 residents and one for California's 35.5 million.
The Electoral College's supporters argue that it plays an important role in balancing relations among the states, and protecting the interests of small states. A few years ago, this page was moved by these concerns to support the Electoral College. But we were wrong. The small states are already significantly overrepresented in the Senate, which more than looks out for their interests. And there is no interest higher than making every vote count.
Making Votes Count: Editorials in this series remain online at nytimes.com/makingvotescount.
bttt
The true colors of the NYT are now coming out.
I think the NYT needs a refresher course in "The Federalist Papers".
This country was specifically founded against "mob rule". It's why we are a republic and not a true democracy. Of course with that stupid redistricting, incumbents can hardly be booted out even when they die.
Our Founding Fathers were a lot smarter and had the foresight to protect this great country from the idiots at the NYT -- fed by the Billaries of the world.
Yep!It's Bush-Cheney 2004, btw. You can bet on that. :^D
Here is the FULL version of that.
I could have streamlined my directions like that too, but I went into detail.
I'm not as pessimistic. If it were part of a populist reform package to "take back our government" they might.
Then it can use its own wiser-than-the-Founding-Fathers plan, and spare the rest of us the headache.
The New York Times does not understand what it is to live in America. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of Americans don't understand the Electoral College either because basic civics education ceased to be a priority in the schools a long time ago.
Passing blame to others. How Democratic. :-)
(j/k)
"Thanks for posting the EV count for that method, I did not know them.
In a way, such a method would make the Presidental race overly populist.
Whereas candidates now focus on a handful of "battleground" states and said states issues in play;
EV by cong dist would mean that each cong dist is worth the same so populist themes would go farther - esp. in urban districts that have only 40,000 voters
that's my $0.02"
-- Populism would do down because the State Legislatures would become "Kingmakers", drawing the congressional district lines. This would put the emphasis on controlling the legislature to control the presidency to some extent. And it's pretty hard to use mass media and pupulism to win a state rep. distict.
You can deliver mail or perform federal government services anywhere in this country without having to use detachments of soldiers to provide security. This is not true in most countries in the world and the electoral college is an important reason why our country is so peaceful compared to elsewhere.
When residents of small states have Presidential candidates come visit them to kiss their rural butts and beg for their votes it keeps these small states residents involved with national politics. If you cut these people out of the process and rule them with majority tyranny they WILL take up arms against their government. As it is they get a lot more clout from those three electoral votes than they could ever hope to get from violent resistance.
NYT knows this, and what they don't say is that when push comes to shove they want rural malcontents put down with all the terrible might of our United States Armed Forces.
Same to you NYT!
A far, far better course, a course that would be of extreme benefit to the Republic would be to abolish the New York Times.
I should have said that pure democracy is CLOSE to anarchy.
Just like the saying Genius is very close to Lunacy. All that can be disputed since it is completely opposite from each other.
I kept my response very limited and simple on purpose. Of course, you are correct.
Not necessarily. If a state wants to give 15% of the electoral votes to green and 85% to blue, it can do that. Maine and (I think) Nebraska both allocate electoral votes on a district by district basis. Winner-take-all is not Constitutionally required. The Constitution only says,
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.
I'm not pessimistic. I'm optimistic. The self-interest of the smaller states will safeguard against repeal of the Electoral College. There may be some sort of reform of it, but I seriously doubt there will be direct election of the President.
thpppppt :)
I agree with everything you have said, but, I do like the BULL$HIT word.
I have been online from oh early 90s and I have not seen that typed the way you did.
Guess I am just to sheltered.
That's why voters should vote their conscience and not let the media decide. I live in CA, but I'm still planning on voting.
I would suggest that you send a note to the Times to clarify, but, after posting a different article last night, it seems papers are being flooded with fake mail.
Sometimes they catch other times they don't. The real losers, those that live in that area.
Without the electoral college, the big East Coast and Left cities will elect the President - this can't be allowed to happen.
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.
