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
Uh, when did the originally system ever have the US Senate choose both the President and the VP??
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.
The real reason the Slimes wants to get rid of the EC is that it is a major barrier to election fraud.
No matter how many votes the Dems cook up in Chicago, NYC, LA, etc, it doesn't matter past the point that the Dems "win" those states.
The only states where fraud will really help the Dems then are the battleground states where their political machines are unlikely to be very strong, and rampant fraud somewhat likely to be caught...
So, remove the EC, and all the sudden the fraud we all know goes on in big cities via Democrat election officials allow them to "win" every presidential election that isn't a Republican blow out.
"Yeah, I'm sure port security is at the top of the list of concerns of the average resident of Syracuse."
Actually, with the port of Oswego only 35 miles directly upwind, port security does get some thought here in Syracuse.
Wisconsin has two senators and neither of them represent our state's interests. I don't know what they do.
Whereas Kerry and Kennedy have sucked up millions of tax dollars from the rest of the nation for the Big Dig.
Liberals always howl "Count Every Vote!" or "Every Vote Counts!" but they never seem to practice what they preach.
States used to distribute state senate districts based on geography.
The ill-advised SCOTUS 1964 Baker vs Carr decision ended that.
I'm am certain the NYTimes loved it.
They have been taught incorrectly. A democracy is five wolves and a labd voting on whats for lunch. This a constitutional republic.
No matter how many times history has proven the danger of "pure" democracy, aka mob rule, the NYT just won't give up on it.
Wanna stop the "dump the electoral college" people in their tracks?
Ask them if they wanted a Florida-style recount in ALL 50 STATES in 2000 because the two candidates came within the margin of error that should require a recount. Can you imagine the chaos and dirty tricks that would happen? Or would they want NO recourse for a narrow loser in the national popular vote?
Sorry. One state of that sort of hokum was plenty enough for me.
The electoral college is one of the most ingenius things our founding fathers have devised. Once in a blue moon it creates a controversy like it did in 2000 but most of the time it settles arguments rather that starts them and we should be grateful for that.
They have been taught incorrectly. A democracy is five wolves and a labd voting on whats for lunch. This a constitutional republic.
It was the equivalent of a coin toss landing on the edge instead of either side. Why is it so hard for DUMMYRATS to believe that coin leaned a little more in George W. Bush's favor in one close state?
That figure was also well within the margin of error (nationally). We would have had THOUSANDS of lawsuits as a county by county NATIONAL recount was conducted. We know that there was some democrat vote fraud (multiple residence voters - 2 states, college kids who went through the line several times, etc.).
0.52% (half a percent) doesn't impress me. The Goebbelsesque drum beat says that there was no mandate for President Bush. Albert Gore JUNIOR would not have been able to make such a claim either. Also, both candidates got more votes than Bill Clinton ever did and I didn't hear his leadership questioned by Big Media. The 2002 election also firmed up the nation's support for President Bush with Republican victories.
Point taken, but you know what I mean. :)
What you say!?
You mean they actually delineate that in our Constitution>
"Screw the rest of the nation."
I imagine the folks in the U.P. of Michigan and New Petersburgh, Ohio are feeling pretty good about the Electoral College during this campaign season.
The Senate was formed for a reason. It came after the HofR existed. The Senate was formed so that each state had 2 Senators, or in other words, equal representation and a counterbalance to the House Of Representatives which is heavily slanted toward states with higher population density.
Because the leftists at the NYT don't like federalism. They want centralized government, relegating the states to little more than administrative units of the federal government. Nobody in America votes for the President. We all vote for electors representing our respective states, which is exactly as it should be.
In this day and age of container shipments, residents of Syracuse would be wise to be concerned about port security.
Unfortunately, Terrorists can reach and touch someone no matter where they feel safe. All the more reason to vote for someone who is series about defeating them.
BUSH AND ANYBODY IN 04
When did the senate pick the president?
Thought you might be interested in this thread.
The NYT should check into states rights. If New York wants to apportion its vote, it's free do so, as a couple of other states already do.
The really easy way to win the popular vote without winning the electoral vote is to win very high margins in a few states. Each state has two senators, and the electoral vote for each state is the number of senators plus congressmen. If a candidate wins big in the large states while losing small states or just wins big in one region, the extra votes allocated to for senators will add up rather quickly. That happened in 1888 when Grover Cleveland ran for reelection. His main issue was free trade which was very popular in the South but unpopular elsewhere. Cleveland racked up 60-80% of the popular vote throughout southern states. I might also add that the black vote was suppressed in those states. If it had not been, would Cleveland have won the plurality of the popular vote? In fact only in 1876 did a candidate winning a majority of the popular vote lose the electoral vote.
In 2000, Al Gore won just 20 states plus the District of Columbia. Bush won 30 states. That means Bush won nine more than Gore yielding 18 more senatorial electoral votes. That's the same number of electoral votes as Michigan in 2000. It was as if Bush had won an additional medium large state. In the 20th century only two winning presidential candidates won the presidency while not winning in the majority of states, Kennedy in 1960 and Carter in 1976.
Hey DEMs......... da rules is da rules!!!!
I kind of like the electoral college. Now especially since the NY Times says otherwise.
Madison would agree with you. Guarding against demagogues was one of the reasons the Electoral College was proposed at the Convention.
This shocks people in other nations who have been taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy.
This should shock the New York Times The USA is a republic not a democracy.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu...
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote!!!"Benjamin Franklin
Getting rid of the Electoral College would abolish the republic.
BTW, all of us need to keep a sharp eye out for stealth initiatives placed on state ballots in strongly Republican states ONLY to split the electors in proportion to the popular vote count. I heard outside liberals have already placed such a measure on the Colorado state ballot and their gunning for other Republican states. It's another scandal in the making. Nothing is beneath these people and they never give up. So we have to just keep fighting them as a part of our lifestyle. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilence."
You're right on the money. If the EC goes, the United States can become another Venezuela in just a few years. We need a Bush landslide to silence this talk (at least for a while.)
I think the best founding father advocate of the Electoral College was Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #68.
To the People of the State of New York:
THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded.1 I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.E1
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of several, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. 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.
Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.
All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says:
"For forms of government let fools contest --
That which is best administered is best," --
yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.
The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter.
The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other. It is remarkable that in this, as in most other instances, the objection which is made would lie against the constitution of this State. We have a Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President.
The NYT is not ignorant. They are playing to the ignorance of the multicultural morons who vote Rat.
We who understand history can not be fooled by their propaganda.
Both the US House of Representative and the US Senate were hammered out at the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia. The was the Sherman Compromise, which got the large and small States to agree...
The two Houses of Congress came into existance at the same time, neither was "first"...
I already have written a response regarding the Colorado initiative that I have posted on every thread I could find on that topic. I might as well post it again here. It is interesting that the person promoting that intiative for Colorado is from California. I wonder why he doesn't favor it for his own state?
It is unconstitutional, because it is a referendum. The constitution very specifically says that the state legislatures, and only the state legislatures have the authority to determine the method by which electors are chosen! The Colorado legislature very specifically rejected such a system.
As long as large states like California, New York and Texas do not change from a winner take all system, it is not in the interest of small states like Colorado to do so.
I also don't want to forgot to mention that it also violates the federal election code. The method by which the electors is selected must be in place before (as I recall at least six days prior to) the date the electors are chosen which is election day. Even if the a referendum were a valid mechanism of determining the method of allocating electors, this referendum is too late to affect the 2004 election. This referendum should be fought in court and removed from the ballot.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
You're correct. I stand corrected.
The Democrats never cease to amaze me with their wanton disregard for the law, instead, they have a wanton desire to break the law or abolish it altogether.
>>the president is chosen not by the voters themselves, but by 538 electors. It's a ridiculous setup
It is not!
It's a built in check and balance against Dem propagandists.
I previously posted advocacy for the Electoral College from one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton. Here is an excerpt from a modern defense of the Electoral College. The article called Math Against Tyrrany was published in Discover Magazine in December 1996. It is too long to put into this thread in its entirety, although it probably would be a good idea to put it into its own thread before the election.
Math Against Tyrannyby Will Hively, Discover magazine, November, 1996
The more Natapoff looked into the nitty-gritty of real elections, the more parallels he found with another American institution that stirs up wild passions in the populace. The same logic that governs our electoral system, he saw, also applies to many sports--which Americans do, intuitively, understand. In baseball?s World Series, for example, the team that scores the most runs overall is like a candidate who gets the most votes. But to become champion, that team must win the most games. In 1960, during a World Series as nail-bitingly close as that year?s presidential battle between Kennedy and Nixon, the New York Yankees, with the awesome slugging combination of Mickey Mantle, Roger Maris, and Bill "Moose" Skowron, scored more than twice as many total runs as the Pittsburgh Pirates, 55 to 27. Yet the Yankees lost the series, four games to three. Even Natapoff, who grew up in the shadow of Yankee Stadium, conceded that Pittsburgh deserved to win. "Nobody walked away saying it was unfair," he says.
Runs must be grouped in a way that wins games, just as popular votes must be grouped in a way that wins states. The Yankees won three blowouts (16-3, 10-0, 12-0), but they couldn?t come up with the runs they needed in the other four games, which were close. "And that?s exactly how Cleveland lost the series of 1888," Natapoff continues. "Grover Cleveland. He lost the five largest states by a close margin, though he carried Texas, which was a thinly populated state then, by a large margin. So he scored more runs, but he lost the five biggies." And that was fair, too. In sports, we accept that a true champion should be more consistent than the 1960 Yankees. A champion should be able to win at least some of the tough, close contests by every means available--bunting, stealing, brilliant pitching, dazzling plays in the field--and not just smack home runs against second-best pitchers. A presidential candidate worthy of office, by the same logic, should have broad appeal across the whole nation, and not just play strongly on a single issue to isolated blocs of voters.
"Experts, scholars, deep thinkers could make errors on electoral reform," Natapoff decided, "but nine-year-olds could explain to a Martian why the Yankees lost in 1960, and why it was right. And both have the same underlying abstract principle."
So the NYT is advocating Disenfranchising flyover country.
Votes must be starting to make more of a difference than newspapers and the NYT is threatened.
"There should be a limit on the number of electors from a state before a state needs to split into two."
Now THAT'S a reform worth discussing. Too bad the bien pensants at the Times couldn't think of it. I imagine there a lot of conservatives in Cali who wouldn't mind being in their own Semi-Cali state. For a variety of reasons.
Hey now this is New York State's problem. If they want to stop disenfranchishing their Republican minority then they can invent some scheme to divide their electoral votes up. I encourage California to do the same. *muhahahaha*
What you say!? You mean they actually delineate that in our Constitution
It damned sure does!
Section 4 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Absolutely! And, think of the impacts on the Senate with four more Senators.
That's OK. The EC is a built in system to prevent the cities from dominating rural and suburban areas by shear numbers. It's a good thing.
How about we divide california into three states?
I see multiple threats to our nation's constitutional form of government. The right presents its own from time to time, but right now the most serious threat is in electoral "reform" sought by the left.
They are confused... We are a Republic not a Democracy. If they understood that we are a Republic, it would all make sense.
They are confused... This is not a problem of the Electoral College - it is the FUNCTION of the Electoral College. If we wanted a system in which the winner of the popular vote is president, that would be easy to setup. The fact that we have an electoral college is evidence that the framers of our REPUBLIC did not want a DEMOCRACY.
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.