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

Skip to comments.

Pilloring Pillar of Political Stability (Why We Should Keep The Electoral College As Is)
Forbes Magazine ^ | 08 October 2007 | Steve Forbes

Posted on 10/18/2007 12:52:32 PM PDT by shrinkermd

Ever since the 2000 Presidential Election, powerful movements have been afoot to alter or abolish the Electoral College. After all, critics complain, Al Gore won the popular vote, but Bush won the presidency because he had a narrow victory in the Electoral College. "How undemocratic can you get?" they cry.

Why should this political battle concern investors? Because the Electoral College encourages political stability--a basic condition for long-term progress.

Undermining it would have adverse consequences for wealth creation and entrepreneurial opportunity in the U.S.

One approach: to have states award their electoral votes on the basis of who wins each congressional district instead of going with the traditional winner takes all. Maine and Nebraska already have provisions that do just that. Under this scheme a Republican presidential candidate could carry the state of Nebraska, but if his Democratic opponent won one of the state's three congressional districts she would receive one electoral vote; the Republican would get four instead of five.

Republicans are pushing just such a change in California. They're proposing a ballot initiative for next June's statewide primary election that would award electoral votes based on the winner of each congressional district.

...The whole idea should be consigned to a dumpster. Winner by congressional district would be even more "undemocratic" than the current rules. Most boundaries are corruptly drawn, designed to protect incumbents or give advantage to the dominant party drawing the lines. In Texas the GOP "flipped" several seats to its side in 2004 by artistically redrawing congressional districts. In California both parties, by mutual agreement, rigged districts so that every incumbent would win reelection. Nationwide, only 60, at most, of the 435 congressional districts can be considered competitive

(Excerpt) Read more at members.forbes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: college; electoral; electoralcollege
"...This uniquely American institution serves our country extremely well. It forces serious candidates to wage national campaigns. One has to win a majority of electoral votes to capture the White House. Thus, regional or single-issue candidates have no hope of achieving victory. While most of us share basic principles, we are a diverse country in our interests and attitudes toward numerous issues.

'...Presidential aspirants, if they are to triumph, must create nationwide coalitions of supporters; they are pushed to bring diverse groups together. Thus, the College usually mitigates divisions instead of inflaming them.

1 posted on 10/18/2007 12:52:39 PM PDT by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Here we go again.

From the November 1996 issue of "Discover" magazine:

Math Against Tyranny

2 posted on 10/18/2007 1:00:45 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

BWAAA WAAAAA WAAAA!! We didn’t get our way! It’s all the fault of the Electoral College! Boohoohoo! What’s its point? Let’s get rid of it!

(They’re such crybabies. Why doesn’t someone offer them a stiff drink and the cabfare home. Go cry in your bathrooms, y’big babies. In other words, GROW UP!)


3 posted on 10/18/2007 1:06:08 PM PDT by camofilly (The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
This was started as a compromise between large population but small states like New York and large area states with small population. If it had not been for the agreement New York would run the whole country. The demorats want to run down the whole country and force the rural people to bankroll the big cities worse than they are forced to do now. Who was it that said that Democracy is a good form of government until the people find they have the keys to the treasury and plunder the country?
4 posted on 10/18/2007 1:08:01 PM PDT by mountainlyons (Hard core conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlyons

Once the EC has been eviscerated the next step will be to disembowel the Senate itself. Why should Wyoming get two votes in the Senate, the same as California?


5 posted on 10/18/2007 1:14:08 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US

“Once the EC has been eviscerated the next step will be to disembowel the Senate itself.”

The Senate has already been laid waste since they started to elect Senators by popular vote.

Because of this we have lost all common sense and one of the checks that were built into the system by our founding fathers.


6 posted on 10/18/2007 1:19:08 PM PDT by OldMissileer (Atlas, Titan, Minuteman, PK. Winners of the Cold War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OldMissileer

Yes, the 16th Amendment. In 1913. Same year the Federal Reserve Act, plus its’ twisted sister, direct taxation. Bad year.


7 posted on 10/18/2007 1:22:54 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US
Once the EC has been eviscerated the next step will be to disembowel the Senate itself. Why should Wyoming get two votes in the Senate, the same as California?

Wyoming would be a county of californicate and Nebraska would be a county of NY.

8 posted on 10/18/2007 1:34:52 PM PDT by mountainlyons (Hard core conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd

Why not just get rid of the unit rule for electors. No longer would the total popular vote in a state give ALL the electoral votes to one candidate. Each congressional district would select an elector who would vote for the person who won that district. The two remaing votes would go to the statewide winner.


9 posted on 10/18/2007 2:17:23 PM PDT by orchid (Defeat is worse than death, you have to LIVE with defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US

“Direct election of Senators” is the 17th Amendment.


10 posted on 10/18/2007 2:39:53 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring

You don’t say!?!! thanks for straightening me out...


11 posted on 10/18/2007 4:13:27 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mountainlyons

de toqueville perhaps...

or you just did...

teeman


12 posted on 10/18/2007 6:07:21 PM PDT by teeman8r
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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