Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abolish the Electoral College
NY Times ^ | August 29, 2004

Posted on 08/28/2004 11:34:36 PM PDT by Former Military Chick

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-297 next last
To: Remember_Salamis; Graybeard58
-- No. Kerry wins CA by 5,000,000 votes.

That's nothing. Kerry wins 110% of the vote in Massachusetts.

151 posted on 08/29/2004 3:11:20 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
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.
__________________

Democrats are always more sloppy and self indulgent when it comes to laws and rules. My guess 80% of those dual voters were Democrat voters.
152 posted on 08/29/2004 3:12:15 AM PDT by dennisw (Allah FUBAR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

That means Gore probably had at least 13-14,000 more net votes.


153 posted on 08/29/2004 3:13:20 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: dila813

"Electoral College is great, There should be a limit on the number of electors from a state before a state needs to split into two. California is insane, that monster needs to be split into three states."

-- There was actually a movement in Northern California to split off in the early 1990s. It was during the drought, and the heavily-populated Southern half of the state got the legislature to approve higher water prices and water rationing in the North, while Southern Californians had no such restrictions or even higher prices. The two halves of the state are very different. Even in SoCal there's a diofference politically. San Diego is considered a Republican city, while L.A. is teeming with liberals.


154 posted on 08/29/2004 3:15:23 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis; dennisw; tame; Howlin

My thoughts? Open this area of the Constitution up for actual change, and it'll be a disaster. I don't want to have any sort of bipartisan discussion about the EC issue until the Democrats lose this next election by a wide margin and realize they have to clean house. In fact, I will resist discussion of changes to the EC even if Democrats have won with it. The EC is one of our Founding Fathers' most brilliant ideas, and I am wary of anyone who wants to tinker with it.


155 posted on 08/29/2004 3:16:06 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: risk
Haven't we learned anything from the tinkering with the Senate via the 17th amendment? Why break the bond with the states via the Electoral College, too? Let's just abolish the entire concept of states and be done with it?

-PJ

156 posted on 08/29/2004 3:18:44 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: risk

"At another point in history, I might tolerate this. As it stands, I call it treason. Did you know that in 1960 JFK lost the popular election, but won it with the Electoral College? Where were the Democrats calling for the EC's dissolution then?"

-- JFK DID win the popular vote, but only with a plurality, not a majority. He would have recieved a majority if it weren't for an electoral quirk in Alabama that cost him .4% of the vote and 6 EVs. In Alabama, the 11 Presidential Electors were directly elected. Due to the result of a state primary, five of the Democratic electors on the general election ballot were loyalists pledged to Kennedy and the remaining six were Free electors, not pledged to the Democratic national ticket. These six Unpledged electors cast their ballots for Harry Byrd (President) and Strom Thurmond (Vice President).


157 posted on 08/29/2004 3:19:40 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: dvwjr

OK class, close but no cigar yet. Article 2 Sec. 1. First, it must be understood, on Nov 2 you will not be voting for a President, you will vote for an Elector, who will presumably, but not necessarily, vote for your Presidential candidate. Yes, there are state laws requiring Electors to vote as the state vote goes, but that is not Constitutional law. Two cases, one from NC, the other from West Virginia actually got to the Supreme Court, in both instances, SCOTUS ducked and ruled the question moot, in that an overwhelming majority had spoken and would be unaffected by a ruling.

Wise choice by the nine wise robes. Article II, sec 1, if there be a tie, the House of Representatives shall "chuse", and should that come up a tie, "then from the five highest on the List the said House shall shall in like manner chuse the President." In this incredibly unlikely event, votes shall be taken by states, each state having one vote. In that event, the person coming in second shall be Vice-President, save in another lotto odds tie, then, and only then does the Senate chime in to elect the Vice-President.

Now, a hypothetical exercise for the class: In Nov. a Republican has been elected by a comfortable margin, no Florida style dispute. Between Nov. and the meeting of the Electoral College in mid Dec. the President-elect dies in a tragic accident. (I am freely cribbing from Jeff Greenfield's underrated book, THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE). The Vice President actually is as dumb as a box of rocks, just to add to the fun. Who is the next President?

You, at the back of the room, stumbling in half drunk from last night and going "Duh, I don't know", you have accidentally got it right. The correct answer is, "NOBODY KNOWS". It will be whoever the body of totally unknown electors chooses, and so long as their choice is a natural born citizen, not a felon, they can elect my garbage man President. Care to argue otherwise, I am looking at my ever so handy copy of the Constitution. We have provided for Presidential disability, permanent or temporary, but NOTHING in the Constitution covers that period between election day and that day on which "Congress may determine the Time of chusing the electors and the day on which they shall give their Votes, which day shall be the same throughout the United States.'



158 posted on 08/29/2004 3:19:48 AM PDT by barkeep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Yes, if we change anything it should be to abolish the 17th. But before I advocate that, I would have to figure out what to do with states like California. Can you imagine our legislature appointing our senators? I can't.
159 posted on 08/29/2004 3:23:30 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

"If it isn't broken... But since they are open to changes, how about: every tax dollar paid by an individual during the year preceding election = 1 vote? Since most legislative business is about taxation and money, he who pays the most should by right have the most say. And whoso feels to be disenfranchised and underrepresented would be easily capable of remedying the situation by paying more taxes and buying himself greater electoral weight. It also could help with the deficits."

-- No, but I do think there should be a poll tax. And to make it politically feasible, we can make it a "reverse poll tax" by paying people not to vote. Basically, every registered voter who doesn't show up at the polls gets $50. Some peopel think that it's immoral to do such a thing, but I think it keeps out people who shouldn't be voting FROM voting. If you're willing to sell your right to vote for $50, you have no business deciding your representation.


160 posted on 08/29/2004 3:30:10 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: risk

"My thoughts? Open this area of the Constitution up for actual change, and it'll be a disaster. I don't want to have any sort of bipartisan discussion about the EC issue until the Democrats lose this next election by a wide margin and realize they have to clean house. In fact, I will resist discussion of changes to the EC even if Democrats have won with it. The EC is one of our Founding Fathers' most brilliant ideas, and I am wary of anyone who wants to tinker with it."

-- what about the merits of the idea?


161 posted on 08/29/2004 3:31:29 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: risk
I would have to figure out what to do with states like California. Can you imagine our legislature appointing our senators? I can't.

I can and I'd live with it. I'd hope that it inspires more grass-roots attention to local politics.

If California were to be split up, it would have to be into several viable states -- it can't just be split up. So, how do we split California into smaller states that can still survive on their own?

How about:

1. South California: Coastal San Diego, Los Angeles, north up to, but not including Monterey. They get the naval base and the entertainment business. Capital: Los Angeles. Political leaning: mixed.

2. North California: Coastal Monterey, San Francisco Bay Area, Napa, north to Redding and the Oregon Border. They get liberal fantasyland. Capital: Berkeley. Political leaning: Hard Left Democrat.

3. Sierra: Eastern mountainous region that runs up the entire eastern border of California. They get water, tourism, Yosemite, Tahoe, winter skiing. Capital: Sacramento. Political leaning: Conservative Republican.

-PJ

162 posted on 08/29/2004 3:34:45 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
I don't want to take you to task over it, but it forms a hybrid out of a system that is already complicated by the separation of EC and popular votes. Try explaining the EC concept and yours to kids in civics classes! As it stands we can tell them that their EC votes in the president no matter what. If you thought you could teach middle schoolers what your system meant to the election process, I would consider it.
163 posted on 08/29/2004 3:36:24 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Gerrymandering always makes me nervous. But your comment: "I'd hope that it inspires more grass-roots attention to local politics," is intriguing and I think it would work. Instead of just saying, "will this candidate help you in your district," we'd be forcing citizens to say, "is he up to the task of appointing a senator?"

These are exciting ideas, fellow FReeper!

164 posted on 08/29/2004 3:38:41 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: risk
That's why they call it a "ship of state." You turn the rudder now, but it takes miles before the turn is noticable. Vote for state assemblymen and state senators now, and eventually you will get a federal senator to your liking.

-PJ

165 posted on 08/29/2004 3:41:57 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: dila813
California is insane, that monster needs to be split into three states.

Totally agree. California, taken alone, would be the fifth largest economy in the world. I do not think the founders of this country intended for a single state to have this much power over the rest of the nation. Splitting it into three states makes perfect sense. Of course, Texas and New York would need to be split in two to keep it consistent. Florida is getting close to needing to be split in two.

The Electoral College is great. Otherwise, candidates would be forced to campaign only in big cities, totally ignoring rural areas and sparsely populated states.

166 posted on 08/29/2004 3:55:02 AM PDT by SamAdams76 (Bush 53%)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: risk
"I don't want to take you to task over it, but it forms a hybrid out of a system that is already complicated by the separation of EC and popular votes. Try explaining the EC concept and yours to kids in civics classes! As it stands we can tell them that their EC votes in the president no matter what. If you thought you could teach middle schoolers what your system meant to the election process, I would consider it."

-- First off, you're using the same argument to defend the EC that the NYT is using to attack it. Anyways, I'll explain it as if I were talking to a middle schooler:

1. In America, we do not directly elect our president, and we never have.

2. Instead, we "elect the electors".

3. As a voter, your vote for president really counts three times, once for your Congressional district and twice for your state.

4. These "electors" then have to vote for the candidate their constituency chose

5. These totals are added up, the person with the most votes wins

6. If there's a tie for some reason, it gets a little bit complicated.

6a. It will be decided by having each state vote for who they want.

6b. The state will decide who they vote for by having all of their congressmen get together and deciding.

6c. If they cannot decide, the state gets no vote.

6d. If there is again a tie between the number of states, the Senate then gets to vote for president.

6e. If the Senate again ties, the Vice president will break the tie, which happens in every senate vote.

6f. The Constitution is not clear on whether the old Vice President or the new Vice President will break the tie, but it is most likely the old president.

7. Questions?
167 posted on 08/29/2004 4:10:07 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

Yes, they would care less about the people who hold onto traditional values. But that's what the perfumed princes and the Boston brahmin want.


168 posted on 08/29/2004 4:10:48 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

So who's going to violate a state's sovereignty and split the state in two? Only the state itself could decide that. But even that wouldn't work: it would encourage EVERY state to infinitely divide and increase their Senate representation.


169 posted on 08/29/2004 4:12:33 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

<< The Electoral College makes Republicans in New York, and Democrats in Utah, superfluous. >>

Bull$hit!

The Electoral College ensures that the voters of every one of the fifty sovereign states that own operate and comprise these united STATES, gets his say in who will occupy the chief executive's office -- be, as it were, chairman of the federal board.

<< .... in 2000, when George Bush became president even though he lost the popular vote to Al Gore by more than 500,000 votes .... >>

More bull$hit!

The total number of votes cast for Gore by criminal aliens and other ineligible miscreants by far exceeded 500,000 -- and President Bush won where it counts -- and by 38 states to 12 and, geographically, in 81% of the country, populated by 143 million Americans, to Gore's 19% and 129 million.

The Electoral College is one of the Founding Fathers' very best ideas!


170 posted on 08/29/2004 4:15:56 AM PDT by Brian Allen (President George W Bush by 10 percentage points and 44 EC States -- the other bozo 6 States and DC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
Compared to:
  1. States choose their electors by choosing which party's two nominees (which is equal to the number of senators) will represent them.
  2. This priviledge is based on the candidate who recieves the most votes; the party whose candidate is selected nominates the electorate.
  3. The electoral college chooses the president, and their decision is finalized on January 6 after the November election.

171 posted on 08/29/2004 4:20:49 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye
This article pertains to our recent discussions...

See post #81: Alexander Hamilton's treatise on the Electoral College...

BTW, W has been reading about Hamilton lately...

172 posted on 08/29/2004 4:35:38 AM PDT by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

However one may think about the EC - it is definitely more important to get the voting procedure clean! It´s unbearable for the United States that still dead people votes count or that the list of people who are uneligible to vote (like criminals) is hidden from the public in many states. We don´t have these problems in Europe and therefore consider your voting procedure as inferior. You have too many posssibilities to manipulate elections (and I blame the blue and red side for that). I know you will dismiss it, but being registered from birth till death by the city you live in, and bearing a national ID with your address on it has advantages. We receive a notification a few weeks before our election by mail, then we can send it back and ask for a mail vote or we go to the ballots, show our ID or passport, our names on the voter list is marked and we get our vote. When the ballots close, the number of marked names is counted and must be identical with the number of votes. Then the helping hands in the office count the votes - and we take care that at least one of the two big parties is present. With that easy procedure, we never had any claims that there could be a fraud. Oh, and the right to vote can be taken away by a courts decision, but it must be said in the sentence, and for max. 5 years. This (our) system is different to the US -and ... that´s a point why many many people put the finger on you.


173 posted on 08/29/2004 4:40:55 AM PDT by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

The Times' editorital does not answer the one critical question: why should American citizerns entrust the Presidency to the voters of the most populous states?
That would be the consequence of electing the President
by popular vote.


174 posted on 08/29/2004 4:49:48 AM PDT by quadrant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

I would vote for keeping the Electoral Collage as it is - and as the founding fathers wished it to be. It is the last vestige of the concept of the united States of America as opposed to the United states of America. It was bad enough when our Senators were changed from representing the States to become nothing more than another House of Representatives.
The election of the President of the united States is too important to leave entirely up to the mob.


175 posted on 08/29/2004 4:58:02 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dila813
California is insane, that monster needs to be split into three states.

I think many Californians would agree.
176 posted on 08/29/2004 5:00:14 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Without the EC, candidates would just focus on NY, CA, TX, FL and a handful of coastal mega states.

A very good point.
177 posted on 08/29/2004 5:01:55 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

At least it would have spared us clinton, who won with 42 percent of the popular vote.


178 posted on 08/29/2004 5:07:35 AM PDT by js1138 (Speedy architect of perfect labyrinths.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine; Remember_Salamis
Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

Hello .30Carbine! We agree on something: the EC is a superb institution, and Hamilton does indeed explain it well, quoting Alexander Pope: "For forms of government let fools contest -- That which is best administered is best."

Hamilton was also a proponent of the right for individual citizens to keep and bear military-grade weapons.

He was also a defender of the state's neutrality with respect to religious beliefs writing in Federalist 51, " In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects."

179 posted on 08/29/2004 5:11:22 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
It's hard to tell New York City children that every vote is equally important

Then explain to the children that the electoral college makes every vote equally importatnt.

180 posted on 08/29/2004 5:16:17 AM PDT by Rightly Biased (I'll vote Republican till the day I die then I'll vote democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rightly Biased

That's part of their grand "third way" scheme: convince Americans that we really have direct democracy. Then they'll be able to buy our votes directly, as much as they've been trying to do indirectly for years -- in all parties. This is not a direct democracy, and it won't last for 20 years once it has been converted to such. But the anti-EC people want that. They want it to be "more democratic."

It's a Republic, if we can keep it! --Benjamin Franklin


181 posted on 08/29/2004 5:22:08 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
...lost the popular vote to Al Gore by more than 500,000 votes...

And how many of those 500,000 "votes" were actually fraudulent ballots, ballots by Deceased-Americans, ballots by Felonious-Americans, etc?

182 posted on 08/29/2004 5:34:44 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (...and Freedom tastes of Reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE MUST STAY!


183 posted on 08/29/2004 5:38:35 AM PDT by JOE43270 (JOE43270 My vote goes for President Bush because he is a great leader and a good man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: risk
Our Founding Fathers were brilliant and had a wonderful understanding of where this nation was going,and what would be the best way to run a country and best suit its citizens.

Our representative form of government has proved itself these 228 years surviving a civil war and some changes to its constitution. There ain't no way some whining liberal crybabies are going to change our form of government any time soon. Even if the "slimes" endorses doing away with the EC all that rag is and will ever be anymore is a mouthpiece for the clintons.
184 posted on 08/29/2004 5:39:43 AM PDT by Rightly Biased (I'll vote Republican till the day I die then I'll vote democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: devolve; Former Military Chick
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.

Translation: The New York Slimes is still bitter their algore lost the election in 2000.

How algore almost stole an election .....



Bug-eyed Chad Search

I'm betting Bush takes the popular vote this year, and the electoral college vote, of course !


185 posted on 08/29/2004 5:46:58 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Rightly Biased; Cincinatus' Wife; qam1
I agree. I also think we have to rise to meet challenges that are presented to us. We need to learn the history of western civilization the way the Founding Fathers knew it. We have to master the philosophy developed during the Reformation and Enlightenment. We also need to study -- and often reject -- the relativist ideas of the 20th century. It's important for new generations of free thinkers to establish better understanding of the core principles of freedom. As I've said about the Greatest Generation: the mistake of the baby boomers was to believe it. They reasoned that they didn't need to do anything important because their parents already had "done it all." They were like ostriches sticking their heads into the sands of time. While the Constitution isn't a living document, it may be amended. I just think this idea of amending it by abolishing the EC is loathsome and disingenuous.
186 posted on 08/29/2004 5:52:33 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
Pravda on the Hudson once again proves that they are a bunch of morons.



187 posted on 08/29/2004 5:56:25 AM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative; rock58seg
haha! Yeah, that's a great tagline ya got there Rock!

188 posted on 08/29/2004 6:03:45 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Cacique; Tailgunner Joe; Cincinatus' Wife
The IPS has been campaigning for the erradication of the EC. I saw them on CSPAN ranting about it over the weekend. See their Voter's Bill of "Rights."

The word "rights" is now the most abused political word in the whole dictionary.

189 posted on 08/29/2004 6:14:14 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

Once again, another marginally educated New York Times pinhead who think s he's smarter than the Founding Fathers.


190 posted on 08/29/2004 6:16:51 AM PDT by Uncle Vlad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kesg

I for one agree with the NYT. We should abolish the electoral college and each state should be equally represented. After all, we are a federation of states.

The EC was a compromise between big states and small states. It has been a functional compromise. If the Slimes wants to break the compromise, they should be reminded what the other side wanted too.


191 posted on 08/29/2004 6:19:08 AM PDT by blanknoone (Republicans need to acknowledge that campaign finance reform failed and start setting up 527s.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: risk; Former Military Chick

Groan.


192 posted on 08/29/2004 6:22:44 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
A few years ago, this page was moved by these concerns to support the Electoral College. But we were wrong.

IIRC, the NYT favored this when they thought their boy OwlGore was going to win the EC and lose the popular vote. Besides the fact that we'll never know the true vote count nationwide for 2000, due to the dead and other DNC repeat voters, etc.

The small states are already significantly overrepresented in the Senate, which more than looks out for their interests.

Who has the graphic of the BS meter? Repeal the 17th Amendment.

And there is no interest higher than making every vote count.

Bwahaha! Stop it! You're killing me!

193 posted on 08/29/2004 6:57:13 AM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

I was just setting up a scenario where a candidate could win a majority in 49 states and still lose the election under a popular vote system.

I still believe that the Pres will win this election in a land slide and if even more damning info continues to come out on kerry it will be the biggest land slide in history.


194 posted on 08/29/2004 7:13:36 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (Graybeard - Illinois resident - Keyes voter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Michael81Dus
The DemocRAT party opposes any effective reforms that would prevent voter fraud, while actually mandating policies that make it worse.

In 1993 just after Bill Clinton became President the DemocRATS in Congress forced the "motor voter" bill through. It requires every state to have voter registration at the same places where states issue drivers licenses. Every applicant for a drivers license must be asked whether he or she wants to register to vote too. The problem is the qualifications for voting are different than those for driving. Quite a number of illegal aliens end up being registered to vote this way.

While drivers licenses are used as picture IDs for many purposes, they aren't not usually required to be shown to prove one's ID when voting. In fact quite a few DemocRAT demagogue lawyers file civil rights suits against states and localities that try to require picture IDs as proof of ID. Observers who ask people for IDs are often served with civil rights lawsuits or even physically intimidated. There are a number of precincts in some inner city strongholds that regularly vote 90%+ for DemocRAT candidates where poll watchers are afraid to go for fear of their lives.

Another thing is that different states have different standards for voting, although much less different than 150 years ago. While there have been constitutional amendments mandating suffrage for men over the age of 21, then women, then citizens over the age of 18, etc. there are still differences between states. The states jealously an rightfully guard their prerogatives to determining those policies. Some states ban convicted felons from voting after serving time in prison. Other states allow convicted felons to vote after they have served their sentences. A handful allow felons still in prison to vote. The Electoral College eliminates the incentives for states to competitively lower their standards. If a prisoner is not allowed to vote for president in one state but is in another, the state with lower standards effectively has a larger impact on the election if it is determined by the popular vote. There are some politicians in California who want to lower the voting age to 14. Without the Electoral College, California would be given a bigger voice in the outcome of presidential election due to the expansion of the proportion of the population eligible to vote.

Finally, you should look more closely at the EC institutions. The EC does not elect it's president by popular vote. In fact there is no EC wide vote of any kind that determines who the next president is. The presidency rotates every six months among the heads over government of the member states. The rotation is on a schedule that is sometimes manipulated for political advantage. One interesting effect is that small countries control the presidency out of proportion to their population in the EC. I wonder why the EC doesn't elect its president by direct election?

195 posted on 08/29/2004 7:30:38 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick
From the article, The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are reasons enough for scrapping the system.

The only place the Times can go with this argument is total and forced franchise for all humans - hell, why not include dogs? (cats no!) -- who inhabit not just the States but the territories, of the United States. By its argument, the Times has democracy, that is, majority vote, the goal of government.

It is not. The purpose of government is to secure happiness for the individual. History has shown over and over that pure democracies do not secure this end. Our Founders were very, very clear on history.

We do not have a democracy. As stands, half or less the registered voters vote in national elections. That means, even with the 14th and 15th amendments, making citizens of the former slaves and securing their rights to vote, even with the 19th amendment, giving womins the vote, even with the 23rd amendment giving electoral college representation to the District of Columbia, even with the 24th amendment and the abolishment of polling taxes, and even with the 26th amendment, which lowered the age of the right to vote to 18, even with all these extensions of democracy, we have no majority rule. A majority of the minority yet decide national affairs.

Now, the Times, thinks it's unfair and unbecoming of a democracy that the electoral college splits this majority into historically-defined geogrphic divisions. Why draw the line there? For true, pure democracy, we must not just allow, we must require human resident of the country (and dogs!) to vote. There must not be a single national decision that is not approved by the people.

Temporal representation, such as the 4-year presidential, 2-year House, and 6-year Senate terms, is another barrier to pure democracy. This, too, must not stand. Democratic government must respond to the people's will -- a majority of all of them, or it fails.

Such nonsense.

Back in 1912, when these stupid ideas of direct democracy were rampant, pushed ahead by the wildly popular and wildly-dangerous ex-President, Theodore Roosevelt, his Republican opponent, William Howard Taft had to argue against the same sort of stupidity as the Times is giving us today. Taft said,

It was long ago recognized that direct action of a temporary majority of the existing electorate must be limited by fundamental law; that is by a Constitution intended to protect the individual and the minority of the electorate and the non-voting majority of the people against the unjust or the arbitrary action of the majority of the electorate.
He wasn't speaking of the electoral college, but it yet stands as a bulwark against precisely those dangers.
196 posted on 08/29/2004 7:35:12 AM PDT by nicollo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael81Dus
I'm getting tired. let me correct this paragraph. I meant "EU" rathter than "EC"

Finally, you should look more closely at the EU institutions. The EU does not elect it's president by popular vote. In fact there is no EU wide vote of any kind that determines who the next president is. The presidency rotates every six months among the heads over government of the member states. The rotation is on a schedule that is sometimes manipulated for political advantage. One interesting effect is that small countries control the presidency out of proportion to their population in the EU. I wonder why the EU doesn't elect its president by direct election?

197 posted on 08/29/2004 7:36:17 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Outlaw76

Heck, they could offer all of the voters in your ten counties 100 acres of vacationland out in fly over country.


198 posted on 08/29/2004 7:37:51 AM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: jnarcus
Good insight. And there is several more points to make, subtle but true.

1) No one will ever win the EC but lose by even a significant though small margin, say 3-5%. It's never happened and never will.

2) The Founding Fathers basically wanted close elections, or electoral ties, to be won by the candidate that won the most states. In baseball, ties go to the runner. In Presidential elections, ties go to the candidate with the widest appeal across all states, large and small. This means that any close election, with each candidate within 1-2%, can go either way.

3) There has also been a longstanding sense that voting standards are different in every state. You can't have a national election without a common standard for eligibility, determination of flawed ballots, etc. The Constitution defers to states much of the right for determining eligibility -- of course this was modified by the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s to eliminate disenfranchisment of Blacks.

By the way, analyses have been done that prove your point. Without his huge majorities in two single cities -- Los Angeles and New York -- Gore would have lost the popular vote by 2,000,000. That means effectively that LA and NYC would have determined the election outcome.

199 posted on 08/29/2004 7:38:56 AM PDT by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Former Military Chick

These libs can whine for abolishing the EC all they want. It's never going to happen.

Abolishing the EC will require a Constitutional Amendment, which requires the support of the very states they wish to disenfranchise through their action. It's a pipe dream.


200 posted on 08/29/2004 7:54:20 AM PDT by William Martel (Anyone but Kerry in 2004.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-297 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson