Skip to comments.Pilloring Pillar of Political Stability (Why We Should Keep The Electoral College As Is)
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 ...
'...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.
From the November 1996 issue of "Discover" magazine:
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!)
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?
“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.
Yes, the 16th Amendment. In 1913. Same year the Federal Reserve Act, plus its’ twisted sister, direct taxation. Bad year.
Wyoming would be a county of californicate and Nebraska would be a county of NY.
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.
“Direct election of Senators” is the 17th Amendment.
You don’t say!?!! thanks for straightening me out...
de toqueville perhaps...
or you just did...
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.