"Facinating. this Dean character reminds me of the the Capitan's story about reprogramming the Academy computer to beat the Kobayashi Maru scenario" .
Posted on 05/22/2008 5:29:41 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
As we see Barack Obama winning certain cities, regions, and demographics by wide margins, and yet also having a tough time in some states with a lot of electoral votes (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida), it's not unthinkable that he could do what Al Gore did in 2000: Win the popular vote, but lose in the Electoral College.
James Boyce examined a plausible scenario at the Huffington Post:
Barack Obama will win California and New York and all the blue coastal states by huge margins - he will be millions of votes ahead on the basis of New York, California, Illinois and Massachusetts alone. Barack could be as much as 5,000,000 votes ahead out of those four states and what will prevent it from being even larger is minimum focus on those states by the nominee in the fall. But remember, you win by one, you win by a million, you still are limited in your electoral college votes.
He will win these states by margins that may well give him a popular vote victory. He also will get more votes in states where Kerry was non-existent, like Alabama, but he won't win those states, or their Electoral College votes.
So if Obama wins the popular vote by five or ten million votes, he wins the White House right? Well, no. Because he hasn't picked up the needed 18 Electoral College votes.
In the edition of Time magazine hitting stands tomorrow, we will read:
In an interview, Democratic Party boss Howard Dean calls for the end of the electoral college: "It’s unrepresentative of where the American people are. It was fine for the days of the Pony Express, but it’s not necessary to avoid a popular vote on Presidents now.”
(First reaction: Hey, guys, fix your own nominating rules so that you count all 50 states before you start mucking around with the Constitution.)
I wonder if we're witnessing a new Democratic strategy for well beyond the 2008 election — scrap the electoral college (a challenge, obviously) and nominate a candidate who can "run up" the vote totals in the areas Democrats already run well — big cities and university towns.
Rhetorical question. They are globalists/marxists.
Actually, most Americans want to scrap the electoral college, for they do not understand the purpose of the electoral college. Alexander Hamilton is quite above the reading level of the typical American. nN othr words, Americans don’t really understand true federalism; what they understand is “big government” which they increasingly favor.
Only through their physical presence. Beyond that, Marxists all the way.
King Dean wants to abolish the electoral college, The Bill of Rights and the Constitution. It’s all for our own good. YEEEEAAAAGGGHHHH!!!
Of course they are not Americans. And they’re counting chickens before they’re hatched. Especially since gay marriage is likely to be a serious issue on the ballot in California. Last time that ran 60/40 in support of traditional marriage.
These kooks had no problem with the College when BJ Clinton won. He had 8 yrs to do away with it.
Not surprising. This is just one of the many inconveniences of the Constitution that these types would like to change.
This one would most certainly make their dead, illegal alien or elderly vote frauds much more meaningful.
As if there is more than one person in this country who gives a snot what Howard Dean wants.
Sadly........I agree.
Any good socialist like Dean would want to scrap the electoral college! That means more rural areas would lose their political clout while more urban areas would gain political clout. It so just happens conservatives tend to congregate in the former and the socialist Democrats congregate mostly in the latter. What a coincidence! He might as well call for the elimination of the Senate since it was formed to represent all states equally regardless of population size.
If Hillary wins the popular vote but loses the nomination, too bad.
If Barack wins the popular vote but loses the election, the election was stolen.
Got that?
Schulman describes the purpose of the electoral college. Without it a popular vote can easily be bought by the whole world in the US today without the electoral colleges protective mechanism. Here is the piece by Schulman with ref to the federalist papers...
http://www.multied.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html
Why Was the Electoral College Created?
by Marc Schulman
The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.
The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
(See All of the Federalist 68)
Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.
The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states.
One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a receipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.
While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing.
Howard Dean would scrap our Constitution and replace it with the Communist Manifesto.
Funny,there are a lot of people in both parties that want to scrap Howard Dean.
Fortunately, this would require amending the Constitution. While it might make it out of Congress, I can’t see any of the smaller states willingly giving up their influence on the election process.
Since when have democrats cared about the constitution?
*whistle* Judges! Line up!
Keep dreaming, leftards.
Maybe we can just change the Constitution such that the Democrats can choose whether we use the Electoral College on an election by election basis.
And the rest of the Constitution as well.
I believe that there would not have been a President JFK.
That’s funny. I want to scrap Howard Dean’s political career!
Bookmarked for further ridicule...
Ask anyone the question of whether or not we live in a democracy. Of course they will respond immediately with the wrong answer of “yes we do”. Fact is, and they would know the correct answer, that is, if our public school’s taught this, is that we live in a democratic republic. We elect our president by voting for which way we want our state’s electorates to vote for the president.
It may be that one of the major causes of the dumbing down of the voters that allow screamer Dean to have a shred of credibility is that most of our public schools (my impression, no data to support this, in other words a mere conjecture) fill the “history teacher” slot with some sort of sports coach. After all, why is history important when justification of a good coach’s salary is on the line?
If only our schools required all students to not only read the Constitution of this country, but to be quizzed and tested upon it as a requirement for graduation. OK I’m dreaming.
Congressman Billybob
OK he can start by making the person with the most votes the winner of their party’s nomination..............
LOL! Excellent point! ;-)
Maybe he should start with his own party first. The Democrat system is a screwed up mess.
Bushs’ term is almost ended, and he has not been impeached. Both parties have an equal shot at the Presidency, as we now witness. I would say the system is working well.
I became politically aware in the mid, to late 50s and since then I have seen this subject rear its ugly head during every national election (usually by the side that perceives a possible loss). It has become standard fare. However, as the general populace becomes less and less aware of the need for the Electoral College, the more it becomes a possibility it could win in a national amendment vote. ;-(
“In an interview, Democratic Party boss Howard Dean calls for the end of the electoral college: “It’s unrepresentative of where the American people are. It was fine for the days of the Pony Express, but it’s not necessary to avoid a popular vote on Presidents now.”
The Pony Express didn’t have anything to do with it. The Electoral College, like the Congress, reflects the fact that the original colonies (or states) formed the union, and not the other way around.
The Electoral College reflects the number of Representatives and Senators a state had, and the two senators per state (regardless of population) was necessary to win the agreement of the smaller states who didn’t want to be dominated politically by the more populous of the original thirteen.
So, if Dean wants to abolish the Electoral College, he should also propose abolishing the Senate because it’s based on the same decision to give the smaller states equal representation in that body, regardless of population.
The Senate and Electoral College were necessary nods to the smaller states in order to form the USA in the first place.
So, Dr. Dean, get your constitution amendment drafted and beginning selling it seriously to the 50 states, LOL.
It’s perfectly believable. Their agenda is to destroy the two party system.
I say get rid of the senators first.
Why should Rhode island haveequal say with North carolina?
The RATs feel they can change the US Constitution because it is a “living document”. It’s for the children after all. If the Electoral College is eliminated, the Democrat/Marxist party will never lose another presidential election due to votes from illegals, nursing homes, and cemetaries.
The key for ‘Rats to abolish the electoral college is not via amendment - just not practical for them. There is a much easier way, and they’ve been working on it for many years. With patience, and without our conservative diligence, they can accomplish it. Their mechanism is the schools. Totally infiltrated with ‘Rats, from Kindergarten to higher college levels, they are teaching our children everything but the merits of the electoral college. Its hard to imagine an amendment passing today, but easier to imagine some other way with a willing public “educated” in the right way, to go along with some new cockamamie approach to abolish it. Perhaps some lefty judge might just declare it unconstitutional. Stroke of the pen, and its gone, if nobody puts up a fight, no matter how unreasonable that approach seems today.
The electoral college exists (in part) to ensure that small states, such as Howard Dean’s Vermont, still have a say in national elections. Dean shoots himself in the foot with an idiotic position like that.
So in 2000 we would’ve needed a NATIONAL recount county by county since gore’s “popular” victory was 0,51% One HALF of ONE percent. And that was only the tallied votes. It did not include 3,000 military ballots in Florida. There were probably other absentee ballots that were not tallied (up to a week after election day) because the race was not in question (the number of outstanding ballots would not flip the state).
Let’s get rid of the Senate too. No more 2 senators for Rhode Island. Let’s give 2 senators to all of New England and 5 senators to Texas.
bump 14
“In an interview, Democratic Party boss Howard Dean calls for the end of the electoral college: “It’s unrepresentative of where the American people are. It was fine for the days of the Pony Express, but it’s not necessary to avoid a popular vote on Presidents now.””
Fine for the days of the Pony Express? Is that how this rube sees our Constitution? He more than likely thinks that the founding fathers are hicks who lucked into what they created. What this moron doesn’t know is that the founders were light years ahead of him in intelligence. If Dean lived in the days of the founders, he might have been smart enough to pick up the trash in the rooms where they met...maybe.
In those days teenagers were ambassadors...today teens are mindless idiots who can barely read the back of a box of cereal. Dean would have been considered an imbecile.
.today teens are mindless idiots who can barely read the back of a box of cereal.
I just came home from presenting an award at the local high school. The award I gave was to am academically outstanding student and is sponsored by a community service organization. One of the awards given, not ours, but an award within the school itself was to students who had grades of all C’s and above. C’s !!!!! Who gives awards for C’s???
Another organization I belong to gives a scholarship to a local senior graduate. For years, I have been appalled by the writing skills the applicants possess or rather lack.
"Facinating. this Dean character reminds me of the the Capitan's story about reprogramming the Academy computer to beat the Kobayashi Maru scenario" .
“Maybe we can just change the Constitution such that the Democrats can choose whether we use the Electoral College on an election by election basis.”
But of course only after the election. We will let the Democrats choose any metric that allows them to win.
It is hilarious hearing the announcers talking about Obama winning under the current set of rules. How can anybody listen to this with a straight face. Talk about your situational ethics. There is absolutely no rule of law when these people talk.
If he doesn't get 18 EVs, it's going to be a blowout...
Exactly right. The Electoral college serves as a firewall to contain recounts (for example since New Mexico did not mean anything in the final election in 2000 it was not subject to the scrutiny of Florida even though it was nearly as close). I can’t imagine what a national recount would be like. It would be a zoo. I can’t think of a single major republic that has a direct election for its chief executive. The other major system is Parliamentary which is even more indirect than our system.
I think possibly awarding the electors by county with a bonus 2 for winning the state might work a little better. The states have the option of doing this anytime that they want to (ie Maine and Nebraska). Dems in Colorado were pushing to do this in 2004 - I wonder why they are silent now?
Why not scrap the Constitution as well? Oh yeah, Democrats want to do that as well. We really need a national “bitch slap a Democrat” day.
Not being a rabble rouser here but I sincerely believe Democrats are only concerned with what they want to get done with no regard for the Constitution. Can you imagine a democrat writing a law saying, oh, we can’t do that, no they don’t think that way at all. The Constitution is only viewed as a small stumbling block. Hence their arguments, that it’s outdated, fluid, living and breathing, etc.
Living and breathing until the day they set it on fire.
My thoughts exactly. It is more proof of the DIVINELY inspired intelligence of our Founding Fathers. IMO, they could not have come up with such a simple, yet brilliant document without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
If we scrap the electoral college, there is ZERO justification for a House of Representatives. The whole idea was to give all states a voice in how government is (mis)run. Large populated states would not be able to run rampant over everybody else.
Anyway, that was the idea. Socialists don’t know, much less care about history, law, ethics, morals and a whole bunch of other messy stuff.
He sees the writing on the wall. National polls show B.O. with a double digit lead, yet even Dean knows that B.O. will lose Ohio and Pennsylvania and thus the Electoral College. He also knows that the margin in those states won’t be as close as Florida in 2000, so there will be no argument to recount.
Me thinks the shine is beginning to come off of the rockstar for the DNC bigwigs.
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.