Abolish the Electoral College

NY Times ^ | August 29, 2004

[Former Military Chick]

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

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.

[Melas]

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.

[Congressman Billybob]

The bigotry and stupidity of the New York Times are legendary, and raise ugly heads again. Under the Constitution, no amendment can succeed without a 2/3rd vote in the Senate, followed by a 3/4ths vote of the state legislatures. Any reporter and editor at the Times should know these details.

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.

[Former Military Chick]

>>I wouldn't oppose scrapping the Electoral College if it were part of a package of reforms that included 1) national propositions and referenda, 2) legislative and popular review of judicial decisions and 3) term limits.<<

A perspective worthy of future debate.

[jwalsh07]

ABOLISH THE NEW YORK TIMES

[Dr.Deth]

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.

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.

[Dr.Deth]

In a nutshell, the Democrat/MSM mantra:

"If you can't win, cheat.

If you can't win by cheating, change the rules."

[Dr.Deth]

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.

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"

[P.O.E.]

I've been using that pic as my screensaver since the election. Keeps me sane.

[P.O.E.]

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.

[Cooltouch]

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

[JulieRNR21]

The founders had the correct idea when they created the Electoral College.....I say keep it exactly as it is.....BUMP

[cyncooper]

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.

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.

[farfromhome]

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

Yea, and let the ensuing liberal whining be as music to our ears. Sweeter even than a cold beer on a hot Christmas day :)

[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.<<

I just wanted to say, I enjoyed your post a great deal. thank you.

[MeekOneGOP]

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!

[gunnedah]

Without the electorial college you could possibly take 5 states and dictae to America! Do away with the electorial college and welcome your dictator!

[ThomasMore]

This shocks people in other nations who have been taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy.

This is not Athenian style democracy. Give it up NYT.

[TheLion]

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.

[Brian Allen]

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?