Skip to comments.Abolish the Electoral College
Posted on 08/28/2004 11:34:36 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
click here to read article
Better than that, divide Alaska into two, Texas into five, and California into three.
Coastal California could comprise the the coast from just above SF down to the border in a strip 30 miles wide.
Northern and Southern California can be divided in two.
Exactly! The Fed Gov't does not govern the citizens of the US, it governs the States of the US. This is why we have an Electoral College. Are the NY Times really this dumb or are they acting?!?
Hell no. Alaska is one of the least populated states. Why should a state with fewer people than the average congressional district get four senators and another congressmen by splitting itself?
The US should not abolish the Electoral College. There´s no need to, after all, it´s a Republic. BUT, the number of delegates from each state should be proportional to the number of citizens (more than it is today)!
Because I think it would be funny!
Alaskans are very conservative. Two more conservative senators and additional conservative congressman would do wonders for the country.
That would be easy. Do away with the electors for each senate seat. That way the electoral vote of each state would be equal to the number of congressional districts. Read my previous post #71 to find out why that is not advisable.
The Democrats (represented very strongly by the NY Times) want to be able to win elections just by having the high population areas, which are mostly democrat, win the election for them.
There is no other purpose in their continued arguments about the Electoral College.
Since 2/3 of the states would have to radify it after 2/3 of the senate.....it isn't going to happen. (someone correct me if these numbers are wrong).
It's 3/4'ths not 2/3'rds of the states needed for ratification. It is 2/3'rds of both the House and the Senate which are necessary to propose an amendment. I really doubt the senators from the smallest 1/3 or even 1/2 of the states would vote for such a proposal.
It would be a good start. I almost can see the headlines of the foreign newspapers and magazines a few days after the election if the winner does not get the popular vote...
"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."
-- That's because they don't teach the Constitution in schools anymore.
I guess the NYT would rather have presidential candidates offer political handouts in America's largest cities and tell everyone in flyover country to go to hell.
Exactly. If the EC were abolished, no GOP candidate could ever again be elected President, barring some economic catastrophe like in the Carter years. The campaign would be centered around the national media markets of L.A, Chicago, and NYC. Guess who comes out ahead? Its not about making every vote count, its about making it easier for a liberal Democratic presidential candidate to ignore the rest of the country. And that is why the EC will remain intact as a political institution.
Exactly. This trend is very troublesome and always seems to happen in states that go Republican for president. It's stealthy all right and presented as enhancing democracy. I don't see any "popular" efforts to split the electoral votes in RAT states such as California.
You obviously did not read the linked post in my answer. The Electoral College protects against a skewed geographical distribution of support for a candidate even at the expense of sometimes electing the candidate that gets fewer popular votes. It also protects against voter fraud especially from regions where one party is overwhelmingly dominant like New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois. Considering that the USA has the second oldest continuously existing government in the World, it is irrelevant whether foreign journalists understand how it works. The system has worked over 216 years during which time France for example has gone through five republics plus a reinstatement of monarchy.
I have two words for "people in other nations."
The final word is "'em."
Quit changing the way the United States does business because of what "they" think! We will execute murderers if we want. We will not cripple our industries unilaterally to allow other nations to catch up with us in the name of preventing "global warming." We will prevent homosexuals from marrying if it offends our sensibilities. And all of you outsiders who don't like it are free to stay where you are and not to crawl, skip, or swim across our borders to live here!
At first: I have read your linked post.
Secondly, I think that abolishing the senatorial votes in the EC would be a good start.
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.