That's true. I think the weight is to the south, but a North-South split is the only way to do it and still maintain two viable states.
-PJ
Posted on 08/26/2007 3:06:50 PM PDT by melt
He's a state's rights guy, an announced federalist......and I'll bet he'll make mincemeat out of Feinstein if her proposed commie takeover legislation gets too far.
Fred may just be the right man to deal with all the wrong things looming on the horizon.
Leni
I accept the correction, it’s difficult for an “outsider” of those states to remember that their sum total is not their large cities :)
Why is it Senators... and only Senators... who seem to be so enthusiastic for abolishing the part of the Connecticut Compromise that doesn’t allow them to exist.
Blowhards.
People such as Feinstein have no regard for our country and as this congressmen (no pandering to gender or office - senators and representatives are congressmen) should be tried for crimes against the country. Their oath of office requires them to DEFEND the constitution of the United States, not tear it apart.
This country IS NOT a democracy (read more here: http://brogdensmuse.menofhonorministry.org/Politics/the_Republic.htm) and we should thank God for that and not tolerate malicious government officials who wish to destroy this country.
Aaaarrrrggggghhhhh!! The political divide is not north-south, it's coastal-inland. It's safe to say that a division of California would be a north-south one. So you'd have TWO liberal-leaning states dominated by liberal coastal cities instead of one.
Worth reposting.
Unfortunately, DiFi, the Constitution gives the STATES the power to determine their method of allocating electors. You don't have s**t to say about it.
Go ahead an propose your constitutional amendment. It won't pass either branch of Congress, much less the requisite number of state legislatures.
The proposed California initiative is a great idea--based on the same principle AS the electoral college, but applying to an individual state.
It's a combination of political posturing and an attempt to sandbag the initiative proposal to break up California's electoral votes like Maine and Nebraska do.
Bingo.
The United States was and is not a "democracy". The Founding Fathers had no use whatsoever for "democracy" (termed "the tyranny of the majority" in their day).
More idiocy.
Go ahead retard, change the U. S. Constitution by getting the States with fewer Electoral votes to go along with your shameless posturing.
I know what you mean! That relief map of the red-blue areas posted above really puts it home. I hadn’t realized that so much of the immediate inland East coast was red.
Recheck your history books, DiFi. It happened in 1876, 1888, and 2000. That's three times. If you are referring to 1824 as the fourth time, John Quincy Adams was not elected by the Electoral College but by the House of Representatives. (I doubt she is referring to 1960, in which Democrat JFK lost the popular vote if you count Alabama a certain way.)
Yep...the Founding Fathers set up the electoral college for very good reasons, to keep the big states from perpetually steamrolling the smaller states. Also, the Framers would find the idea of allowing popular “mob” vote for presidential elections quite horrifying.
Article 2, Sec 1: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."
Good point. I really don't know how that's been (or is being) addressed.
That's true. I think the weight is to the south, but a North-South split is the only way to do it and still maintain two viable states.
-PJ
My guess is he would not only not allow it he would be extremely PO-d that his liberal counterparts would even try such a thing.
Think he's made any calls? :-)
I’m not necessarily opposed to popular vote electing the president. After all it is a national election. Of course this would be all ‘in theory’.
In reality, however, having the nationwide poplar vote decide the presidency would be a recipe for chaos. A close vote would make Florida 2000 look like a school board election. Why doesn’t someone in the press ask her how you go about doing a nationwide recount?
Secondly, we would have to make sure our diebold machines are in every election district in the country (oops! I let our secret out. I hope no DUmmies are reading.)
Until the 1840s, the winner-take-all system was not universal. It’s a product of the two party system
Those old Communists are gone but their ideology is still going strong. The Democrat Party are the New Communists. Those who nursed on the Communist ideology in the Sixties are alive and well in the Democrat Party. The tactics developed by Soviet political scientists to bring down the institution of U.S. Democracy are now being applied by the likes of Soros and their agents, Feinstein, Kennedy, Reid, Clinton, Murray, Schumer, and other bit players.
If the DemonRATs get the Executive Branch, they will dismantle our Democracy post haste. Those who voice their opposition will be put through a period of repression like never seen in this country. Mark my words.
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.