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
You can deliver mail or perform federal government services anywhere in this country without having to use detachments of soldiers to provide security. This is not true in most countries in the world and the electoral college is an important reason why our country is so peaceful compared to elsewhere.
When residents of small states have Presidential candidates come visit them to kiss their rural butts and beg for their votes it keeps these small states residents involved with national politics. If you cut these people out of the process and rule them with majority tyranny they WILL take up arms against their government. As it is they get a lot more clout from those three electoral votes than they could ever hope to get from violent resistance.
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.
Same to you NYT!
A far, far better course, a course that would be of extreme benefit to the Republic would be to abolish the New York Times.
I should have said that pure democracy is CLOSE to anarchy.
Just like the saying Genius is very close to Lunacy. All that can be disputed since it is completely opposite from each other.
I kept my response very limited and simple on purpose. Of course, you are correct.
Not necessarily. If a state wants to give 15% of the electoral votes to green and 85% to blue, it can do that. Maine and (I think) Nebraska both allocate electoral votes on a district by district basis. Winner-take-all is not Constitutionally required. The Constitution only says,
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.
I'm not pessimistic. I'm optimistic. The self-interest of the smaller states will safeguard against repeal of the Electoral College. There may be some sort of reform of it, but I seriously doubt there will be direct election of the President.
I agree with everything you have said, but, I do like the BULL$HIT word.
I have been online from oh early 90s and I have not seen that typed the way you did.
Guess I am just to sheltered.
That's why voters should vote their conscience and not let the media decide. I live in CA, but I'm still planning on voting.
I would suggest that you send a note to the Times to clarify, but, after posting a different article last night, it seems papers are being flooded with fake mail.
Sometimes they catch other times they don't. The real losers, those that live in that area.
Without the electoral college, the big East Coast and Left cities will elect the President - this can't be allowed to happen.
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.
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.
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 :)
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?
All good points. I would suggest sending a letter to the editor letting them know they printed a falsehood.
But, after posting the following article I am not sure I would use my valuable time to correct a record, that may be just tossed away.
Sad fact is most of the main stream press has given up their freedom to elect Democrats....which doesn't protect our freedom.
"...taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy"
Hmmm...seems the Slimes doesn't know what kind of a government we have - it is, for the benefit of those in NYC and Yorba Linda, a REPUBLIC!
Wanna-be's maybe. Not natives.
The NYT has only supported the Constitution when it believes its agenda can be served thereby. But, when the Constitution gets in the way, then by all means just change it. This is the same NYT that adamantly opposed amending the Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. And the NYT had no problem with the Supreme Court finding a right to privacy in the Constitution, thus opening the flood gates to abortion.
"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"
No, a state could not split itself.
The Constitution, Section. 3, Clause 1 says: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress"
Without the electoral college Al GORE would be convincing the terrorists we are not only decadent we are ALSO STUPID AS PRESIDENT...
And how do either of them have ANYthing to do with the electoral college? Ranting and raving about what you don't like in the current constitution is rather nonuseful. Unfortunately for you most people do not share your opinion of the 16th or 17th amendments
"OK class, close but no cigar yet."
Your knowledge of US Constitutional history and how Presidents are elected would be first rate if it were still the summer of 1804. Join me by crossing over that bridge to the 21st century, and feel the power...
Here is what I said in reply #41 to poster Leatherneck_MT:
"Really, it never happened. The electoral college has always picked the President and Vice-President. When there was no majority or a tie, then the House of Representatives, with the States each having ONE vote chooses the President, and the Senate chooses the Vice-President."
Now let's review your points in response...
"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."
First off, no one was contesting the fact that electors pick the President, what was at issue was what happens in the case where there is no majority in the electoral college after it votes in December. It matters not what the US Supreme Court says on the matter of electors, it is the final judgement of the Congress which determines which electoral votes shall be counted as valid. No other branch of the Federal government has a say over how or why the electors are counted.
Your next points:
"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."
Excellent information, straight from the Constitution and perfectly valid until June 15th, 1804. You have to keep up with the times...
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
* Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.
A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.
Now the method you described was actually used once with the Thomas Jefferson/Aaron Burr election of 1800 in the House of Representatives. After 36 ballots, Jefferson was President and Burr was Vice-President. After that election, the 12th Amendment listed above was ratified and became the controlling law for Presidential elections. The next time it was used was in 1824 when John Quincy Adams(6) became President when he won the election in the House of Representatives because of the lack of a majority in the electoral college. The Vice-Presidential winner in that same 1824 election was selected by the electoral college because he had a simple majority. The only time the US Senate has exercised its 12th Amendment responsibilities was in the election of 1836 when the Democrat Vice-Presidential candidate Richard Johnson failed to receive the same electoral majority as did his Presidential running mate, Martin Van Buren. He was elected to the office by a majority vote in the US Senate. So you see, all parts of the 12th Amendment have been exercised by the Congress.
Now to your third point, that of the death of a Presidential candidate between the November election the meeting of the Electoral College in mid December...
"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?"
Well, we do know what happens to the electors in the electoral college because it has happened before, just not for the winning candidate. It is not defined in the Constitution or in Federal election law, but the major parties hold the 'whip hand'. The electoral college votes go to other living persons, typically the majority go to whomever the party elders select. In the 1872 presidential election between the two main candidates, the winner Republican Ulysses Grant, the loser Democrat Horace Greeley, had a bit of a glitch. Mr. Greely died on Nov 29, 1872 - that small window in time between the two elections. Now he did not have enough vote to win, but his 66 electoral college votes had to go somewhere in December when the electors met...
42 votes for Thomas Hendricks 18 votes for B. Gratz Brown (the Vice-Presidential candidate) 2 votes for Charles Jenkins 1 vote for David Davis 3 votes for deceased (Greeley) from Georgia (which were not counted by Congress)
Even the House of Representatives of 1873 recognized (unlike Missouri in 2000) that you may not vote the dead into Federal office. The majority of the electors took direction from their party leaders and voted for Thomas Hendricks, who was to become the losing Democrat Vice-Presidential candidate in the presidential elections of 1876.
Glad to get you up to date.
Thank you for updating the thread. I am sending a *ping* for others to read your post #295.
Note: this topic was posted August 29, 2004. Just a little Hillary-related flashback, remember how she joined the bitches' chorus to abolish the E.C. in 2000? Thanks Former Military Chick.