Why the Electoral College Matters (A campaign to circumvent the Elector College is underway)

American Thinker ^ | 07/30/2010 | Rick Moran

[LeonardFMason]

Small States would react by building a coalition of Senators that would fight BIG state governing. Small states would band together to build a filibuster block. Things in DC would grind to a halt.

[IrishCatholic]

bookmark.

[Erik Latranyi]

Under a "National Popular Vote" system, fraudulogenic ballots generated where people "Vote early and vote often" will poison the national ballot pool, whereas under the Electoral College, it doesn't matter if a candidate gets 1000% (not a typo) of the popular vote in a given state, they still only get that state's allotment of Electoral Votes.

Which is why Soros setup a group to install leftist secretaries of state nationwide who will assist in the popular vote fraud.

Link here:

Soros Eyes Secretaries

[Erik Latranyi]

Isn’t the point behind this to enable the manufacturing of votes, which the Democrats are very good at, to produce a fake majority of popular votes?

See post #23

[Erik Latranyi]

See post #23 to see the structure being put in place to accomplish nationwide fraud.

[Erik Latranyi]

See post #23 for the structure being put in place to assist in the “legal” manufacture of votes nationwide.

[LachlanMinnesota]

Best argument and only real reason for its exitence. Think how many Chicago votes could be used to wiipe out a smaller state’s votes for the other candidate, a la Nixon and Kennedy.

[LachlanMinnesota]

Best argument and only real reason for its existence. Think how many Chicago votes could be used to wiipe out a smaller state’s votes for the other candidate, a la Nixon and Kennedy.

[ChurtleDawg]

but in a hypothetical close race in Illinois, the fact that all of Illinois electoral votes go to the pop vote winner, it would encourage shenanigans in the larger districts. In a pop vote scheme, both candidates would both get a percentage of the popular vote from a given state. But if a contested state is large and the margin is thin, then the winner takes ALL of the electoral votes. So a few hundred votes in a key state can change the electoral outcome dramatically.

This might be problematic. Imagine if John Kerry had won Ohio by a few hundred votes in 2004 but lost the national popular vote. He would have been President.

[Graybeard58]

Under a popular vote only system, Kerry or Gore could have lost their respective elections even if they had carried 49 states by a 50,000 vote margin each and Bush had carried Texas by 3 million (Which he didn't quite do but it's possible) Would the rats like that scenario?

This math excludes Obama's other 7 states.

[VRWCmember]

But there are two powerful reasons for maintaining the current system. First, as conservatives, we favor tradition -- especially when it can't be proved that changing the rules would make the system better. For every argument in favor of deep-sixing the Electoral College, there are counterarguments which reveal some of the unintended consequences that would arise if we were to abandon the College and consign the Founders' wisdom to the dustbin of history.

No, conservatism doesn't "favor tradition" per se, but it DOES favor rule of law and the CONSTITUTION.

[Lmo56]

the majority of the states that have approved it are blue states, such as Maryland, which would undercut their own voters.

I live in MD ...

The citizens of MD really did not pay attention to this. In 2012, although the law will be inoperative, if the GOP wins - they will realize that [had the law had been in effect] their electoral votes would have gone to the GOP.

Then, they will demand a repeal ...

[Condor51]

A few states have taken it upon themselves to circumvent the Electoral College by joining what has come to be known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, where no matter the vote for president in their own states, they will apportion electoral votes based on the national popular vote totals. Massachusetts is the latest state to join this Compact, but it is unclear whether it would actually pass constitutional muster if challenged.

It's unclear?
To whom? Red the Wino, Harry the Heroin Addict, or Mike the Meth-Head?

"Interstate compact"
An interstate compact is an agreement between two or more states of the United States of America. Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that

"no state shall enter into an agreement or compact with another state" without the consent of Congress.

Seems pretty clear to me. Then again, I learned to READ in the 2nd Grade.

Eben tho I went to a Chicago publik skuul for my edumakation. And den eben passd da US Consteetootion Text in my junyour year in Hi Skrul, which weeze had two in order to gradumate as Seenyour.

And now I'm an Engineer. Back then I couldn't even spell it.
(old joke)

[corvus]

“The magic formula to reach a majority of the Electoral College votes, therefore, was a test of the broadest possible appeal of a candidate. It guaranteed that no region, no interest would be slighted by a candidate who did so at the risk of alienating key groups and losing precious Electoral College votes in the process.”

Good post, this subject and the like should be kept front and center. It represents a key part of the brilliance of the Founders to agree upon what is necessary at the Federal level to assure politicians serve the people and the interests of the Nation and not themselves. One key rationale of the concept can be viewed in all states or subunits (Counties, etc.) of the union which can easily fall victim to dominance by the likes of a large city within the jurisdiction.

[TruthHound]

Why we need the E.C.? So this mostly red map isn't permanently ruled by the little blue splotches: