Yea, and let the ensuing liberal whining be as music to our ears.
Sweeter even than a cold beer on a hot Christmas day :)hahahahaha! Yeah!
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.
Have to admit I gave it some thought after reading your post, but, I do think we need the EC, even if we had to have another Clinton.
I follow you. It goes hand in hand with my leftwing/rightwing theory. I've noticed that there are some who are so far right, that they're identical to those who are so far left. Both wing-tips want nothing short of total control over everything. The only difference is that the far right is marginalized to obscure 3rd parties, and the far left is embraced by the Democratic party itself.
Do the math. Look at the number of states which have a strong interest in the Electoral College, because the one, two or three votes their populations would give them in the College, are roughly doubled to three to five votes for the Senate part of the College. Among those states, there are more than the 34 Senators to block an amendment to destroy the College. And of course there are more than the 13 states to prevent ratification of such an Amendment if it escaped the Congress.
Again, as usual, I spit on the Times for its dishonesty and bigotry and incompetence in political reporting.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "Carville, Davis, and Other Pests -- 'Those We Don't Speak of' "
If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.
A perspective worthy of future debate.
If you ever needed more proof as to the sheer ignorance of the MSM, look no further than this sentence. Although, their continual referencing of the U.S. as a 'democracy' is equally damning.
Morons. Not worth the time to explain it to them.
"If you can't win, cheat.
If you can't win by cheating, change the rules."
Not to be a spelling Nazi, but I must call you on your typo of "United States Armed Forces"... I am sure you meant "United Nations Armed Forces"
I've been using that pic as my screensaver since the election. Keeps me sane.
I bet the leaders of some countries are shocked to find we have freedom of the press. Maybe we should do away with that, too, and just make mandatory NYT subscriptions.
The only reason why this article was written was because Bush lost the popular vote in 2000. It is my conviction, however, that Bush wouldn't have lost the popular vote if voter fraud had been eradicated. The dims are quickly corrupting the entire system. CA has been a BIG problem for years. Ditto IL. Last election showed that MO, NM, and especially FL are now areas where counts can no longer be trusted.
Best,
Michael
The founders had the correct idea when they created the Electoral College.....I say keep it exactly as it is.....BUMP
I stopped reading right there as that is a flat out lie.
The fact is (sorry NY Times, but we do have brains that come fully equipped with memories) that George Bush was leading in the polls and the Al Gore camp was preparing the country for the possibility that George Bush could win the popular vote and Al Gore win the electoral college. The dems then, when they thought that possible, were busily informing us of how it all worked.
Fact: If that had happened the New York Times would never ever be calling for abandoning the electoral college.
Yea, and let the ensuing liberal whining be as music to our ears. Sweeter even than a cold beer on a hot Christmas day :)
The election of the President of the united States is too important to leave entirely up to the mob.<<
I just wanted to say, I enjoyed your post a great deal. thank you.
Yea, and let the ensuing liberal whining be as music to our ears.
Sweeter even than a cold beer on a hot Christmas day :)hahahahaha! Yeah!
Without the electorial college you could possibly take 5 states and dictae to America! Do away with the electorial college and welcome your dictator!
This is not Athenian style democracy. Give it up NYT.
Thanks for clearing up those numbers for ratification of the proposed amendment.
I agree with you....doubtless this could ever pass.
The liberals use the argument to get their constituency all fired up.
Apologies for using that word, for its effect.
Me too -- I also never saw it until today -- until, that is, someone used it in a response posted to me about twenty minutes before I second-handed it to you.
Bit naughty of me, eh?
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.
