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.
Save for later read.
It would be easier to abolish the states than to do that.
I think they understand very well.
Spoken like a true socialist Democrat...
We do know, without question, that the losing candidate outpolled the winning one in the nation at large. In modern times this was unprecedented, but it had almost happened three times within living memory: in 1960, when J.F.K.'s plurality was barely a hundred thousand votes;
That's precisely what they want; however there are two problems with that. First the constitution only allows the state legislature to determine the method by which electors are chosen (not referenda). Second, even if referend were allowed, this one is on the date that the electors are chosen. According to federal election law, the method by which a state selects electors must be written in staute at least six days prior to the date the electors are chosen. This referendum could be designed to create even more controversies by creating the potential of Supreme Court decsions affecting how the state allocates its electors.
One article I read indicated that the proponents might decide whether to apply it to the 2004 election depending on whether it helps Kerry or not. Abviously if Kerry carried Colorado, DemocRATS would be shooting themselves in the foot if they applied it this year, and might cause Kerry to lose the Electoral College. If Kerry doesn't carry the state, the DemocRATS would be likely to want the law to apply this year. Of course that would be strange, because if Bush wins, it is unlikely for the referendum to pass.
... It is not my reputation that is crossing Jordan River on Nov 3rd ... Hope, the popular vote goes to the winner!
See my tagline.
In a direct election, every vote counts the same as every other vote for President. Sounds good on paper, but that also means every fraudulent votes counts as much as every legal vote.
In the Electoral College, because the Electors of the President on selected on a state-by-state basis, if one state has a corrupt election system, the votes in the other states are not affected.
Case in point: California has over 10 million voters. In the 2000 election is has been estimated that more fraudulent votes were cast in California than all of the the votes in several individual states. California does not require any identification or citizneship papers to register to vote - only the registrant's affidavit that they meet the requirments. In fact, an illegal alien case obtain a driver's license and receive a voter registration in the mail. That illegal alien could mail in the registraion and an application for a permanent absentee ballot, cast a vote, and never be confronted by a living human being!
Gore's popular nationwide vote margin in the 2000 election was largely provided by his margin in California.
If you want your vote to be cancelled out by one of possibly over 1 million fraudulent voters in California, then work hard to get rid of the Electoral College.
Our Republic is in serious trouble if the electoral college gets thrown out.
Thanks much. What's annoying is how the Democrats can conceivably nullify a lot of Republican states by 2008, the next Presidential election. They are relentlessly into rabid dog politics since they consider themselves the party of government.
GOP pols are more laid back and don't look at politics and government jobs as careers. Not the way the Dems do.
You and I are agreeing more and more.
It's making me nervous.
I don't buy the notion that Gore necessarily actually won the "popular vote". He carried some states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsisn due to vote fraud. There were precints in Philadelphia in which over 130% turnout. Gore's campaign manager was the son of the formere mayor of Chicago and the brother of the curent one. Chicago is known to have some of the most crooked elections in the US. The Electoral College is deliberately designed to thwart vote fraud.
The electoral college is one of the last vestiges of the old republic. You can see why Hillary and the NYT want to get rid of it. Think Rome, bread and circuses.
The only way we should change the system, if at all, is to have an ever MORE federalist electoral college:
Instead of winner-take-all states, how about the following:
A victory in a single congressional district = 1 EV.
A victory statewide = 2 EV.
This would open up areas within states to political competition. For example, in California there is a large number of conservatives, but the state they're slightly outmnumbered by libs. Same goes for upstate NY, southern illinois, North Florida, Western Pennsylvania, and many other places.
I've heard a lot of conservatives propose this idea, and the common counterargument is a growth in gerrymandering. My response: so what!
If congressional district lines were more important, wouldn't that make who controls the state legislature more important? And if that were the case, wouldn't that in effect devolve power away from the Federal Government and back to the states???
It would bring us back closer to the days when control of the state legislature was more important than federal seats! That was before the 17th Amendment, when senators were appointed by the legislatures.
If this happened in the last election, Bush would have won by by more votes.
30 states voted for Bush, which would give him 60 EV from state-wide races (senatorial representation). Al Gore would have gotten 40 EV. If everybody voted according to their congressional district, Bush would have 228 EV from the Congressional EVs.
That's 288 EV for Bush, 250 EV for Gore. If democrats wanted to increase their electoral prospects, they would have to strengthen their appeal at the LOCAL level. No longer can a presidential candidate put a slick gloss on a campaign, bite their lip, promise to "feel their pain", and ride on positive media coverage. Support would have to be built from the ground up. The executive branch would be weak, like the constitution intended. States would have more power as well.
There are still the states. If you really want to eradicate the "old republic," you might as well do away with states entirely and have just one humongous national government over everyone.
Awesome map. Where'd you get that from???
I imagine the logical next step is Hillary and the NY Slimes calling to abolish the entire U.S. Constition.
You know the details. Many west Florida (Panhandle) voters are in another time zone. They did a u-turn away from polling places when they heard the media beating the drum how Gore had taken Florida. Panhandle is Republican. GWBush probably lost 5-10 thousand votes that way. Florida should never have been decided in the courts......blame the mass media.
"Let's see now. kerry wins 49 states by 50,000 votes each. Pres Bush wins Texas by 3,000,000 votes. BUSH WINS!"
-- No. Kerry wins CA by 5,000,000 votes.
I hope it will be as informative in the light of day as it is during the darkness.
There is a lot to be said about the EC. Of course, I really doubt we will have enough folks to agree on this, which helps. Of course, don't bet the farm on that observation.
BTW, good night /good morning
ROTFLMAO! Don't worry, I'm sure we'll find enough issues to bash each with :o)
And don't forget the more than 40,000 who voted in both New York and Florida. I doubt many of those votes were for Bush.