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?
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!
This is the part when the American people become sheep, while the two parties morph into wolves.
Huh???
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.
Nah. Eliminating the EC would place way too much emphasis on the densely populated large cities which are heavily liberal.
Here we go again.
Proof of the superiority of the Electoral College.
If Connecticut wants to disenfranchise itself by abdicating their rights in the Electoral College, so be it. I seriously doubt that other small states will go along with it.
The Connecticut guy doesn’t know that his statement is completely false. If it was popular vote only then the candidates would only campaign in New York, California, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania and Ohio. The rest would be ignored. The Electoral College is what gets states like Connecticut any attention from the campaigns what so ever. It doesn’t matter what the people or even an indvidual state says the only way to get rid of the Electoral College is to pass an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which requires 2/3 of each house of the Congress and then a majority vote of the legislatures of 3/4 of the States.
Ravenstar
You would have to get a constitutional amendment through in order to get rid of the electoral college. It will never happen-thankfully.
Yeah that’s right, let’s have just the popular vote and have California an New York elect our presidents. The heck with the rest of the country and think how much it would save on campaigns since you don’t have to travel there and you can ignore everybody in flyover country.
To see where this would come in useful, suppose that the state containing Springfield, USA (I'll call it Simpsonia) passed this rule. Outside Simpsonia, Charlie received 2,000,000 more votes than David. David, however, won Simpsonia--probably by a margin of over 2,000,000 votes.
Charlie, as runner-up in Simpsonia, could demand that it release the exact vote breakdown between himself and David. On the other hand, were he to do so, David would win the popular vote. If Charlie doesn't ask that the information be released, David could no longer be awarded a popular vote victory.
Although I'm sure David would want the popular vote information released, I don't see where he would have any legal standing to demand it. As far as Simpsonia is concerned, the only purpose of the election is to determine who should be awarded Simpsonia's Electors. If David is awarded all of Simpsonia's Electors, I can't see that he would have any right to demand anything beyond that.
Incidentally, if a down-ballot candidate were to get nearly half as many votes as the top two candidates combined (unlikely but not impossible) that candidate should be allowed to demand a recount, but the top two candidates' votes would remain aggregated unless the recount showed the down-ballot candidate got at least half as many votes as the top two combined. If, after the recount, the down-ballot candidate does not reach half the total of the top two, then mathematically he cannot be the winner and he is thus not entitled to demand the breakdown of the top two. If he does reach half the top-two-total, then he is at least the runner up, and would thus have the right to demand a specific breakdown.
For example, before the recount, Pat and Quincy have exactly 67.0%, while Robert has 33.0%. Clearly, Pat or Quincy must have 33.5% or better, so Robert is not the winner. On the other hand, if the recount comes in with P+Q at 66.0% and Robert at 34.0%, then clearly either Patrick or Quincy must score 33% or below. Robert would thus be entitled to know how Patrick and Quincy divided their votes; if 34.1%/32.9%, then Robert still loses. But if 33.9%/33.1%, then Robert wins.