Posted on 02/29/2008 4:38:12 PM PST by LurkedLongEnough
Secretary of State: Popular Vote Would Encourage More People To Vote
HARTFORD, Conn. -- Supporters of a state bill to change the way the nation elects the president turned up at a hearing in large numbers Friday.
The bill is aimed at eliminating the Electoral College and allowing the national popular vote to determine the country's president. Eyewitness News reported that no one present at the hearing Friday voiced opposition to the passing of the bill.
"We have this system that shuts out over two-thirds of the country including Connecticut," said Connecticut native Barry Fatam, who traveled from California to voice his support. "The candidate receiving the most votes in all 50 states should be elected president. It's the way we elect every other office in this country, except for president."
Channel 3 Eyewitness News reporter Erika Arias reported that many people think that in a presidential election it's their vote that elects the president but it's actually very indirect. She reported that each vote helps elect the Electoral College delegate, who in turn chooses the president.
"The ideal way is to put the vote in hands of the people is to eliminate the Electoral College and change the U.S. Constitution," said Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz.
Bysiewicz said electing the president by popular vote would encourage more people to get out and vote if they knew their vote mattered.
"Under a popular vote system your vote counts for more. Had we had a popular vote system in place in 2000 and 2004 we'd have very different presidents elected," said Bysiewicz.
"It also impacts the messages, if you don't have to worry about Connecticut then you don't have to worry about the issues that are important to Connecticut," said Fatam.
Arias reported that 25 states must pass the bill before it can be considered on a national level.
If super-delegates are perceived as unfair, it wouldn't be hard to convince uneducated (and many illegal) voters that the Electoral College should be abolished because it's "unfair" (blah blah blah). The Constitution must prevail against popular preferences tainted by socialists and their ilk.
I’ll stick with the electoral college.
“Under a popular vote system your vote counts for more. Had we had a popular vote system in place in 2000 and 2004 we’d have very different presidents elected,” said Bysiewicz.
People will argue till doomsday about the 2000 election. But in 2004, Bush won the popular vote by about 3.5 million votes. So how do they get away with making a factually false statement like that?
I would vote to abolish the EC but ONLY if the winner receives 50% plus 1 vote. It would destroy the two party system that has ruled for 220 years.
Geeze. What next a Right to Vote?
Arias reported that 25 states must pass the bill before it can be considered on a national level.
This is a factually incorrect statement. There is no provision for 25 states passing such laws in order to be considered on a national level.
The Electoral College is defined in the constitution. States can change how they allocate their electoral votes, but there’s no provision anywhere in the law that 25 states can initiate a change.
This afternoon Rasmussen was on Fox and said that McCain led Obama in the national poll of the popular vote, but Obama had states with more than the 270 needed to win the electoral college vote ... wanna see the Dems reconsider this notion ?
Right....let America be ruled by the masses of illegals in Kalifornia, and the great un-washed of New York, too......
And superimposes the message: If you can hold New York NY, Los Angles, San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit, maybe Boston, then you don;t have to worry about the issues that are important to Connecticut at all.
The EC protects the importance of the smaller states, just like the Senate does. Without the EC, only CA, NY, TX, and maybe OH would really matter. That means the idiots pushing for this in Connecticut are either utter morons or total liars. Or both!
I've found that Leftist Liberals don't let the facts stand in their way.
This is the part when the American people become sheep, while the two parties morph into wolves.
Huh???
Truth is totally irrelevant to the scumbag Democrats. Obviously.
I’m not sure why such a big deal is made for or against the electoral college. It’s not that often that a president is elected by the college and not by the popular vote.
It’s in the Constitution, it works. It’s not very often “wrong”. It’s a non-issue, brought up every so often by the party-not-in-power to inflame the masses.
We need to consult O’bama. He is that Constitution Scholar who is going to make sure that McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone to American parents serving there will not hurt McCain’s eligibilty to run for President.
New Jersey passed this last month. They joined Maryland is wanting the electoral college gone. You will find Democrats support it. Large cities with millions of people will control all presidential races if there is no electoral college
Dems are dim.
[I’ve found that Leftist Liberals don’t let the facts stand in their way.]
Indeed. They just ignore the facts and all anyone else says and push their argument on. It is there pride that is destroying so many who do not care to dispute facts and opinions.
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.