i am truly surprised and saddened to hear this...
Posted on 06/03/2011 7:25:02 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
Popular-vote pact picks up steam
A once-sleepy movement that would upend the Electoral College, reverse two centuries of constitutional practice and elect presidents by direct popular vote has quietly picked up momentum in recent days, with Republican Party leaders scrambling to stanch a steady stream of defections by GOP state lawmakers to the plan.
*snip*
Under the idea introduced in 2006 by Stanford University consulting professor John Koza, states that join the NPV compact pledge to give all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote - even if a majority of the state’s voters supported another candidate. If a group of states with an accumulated tally of 270 electoral votes - the bare majority - sign on, the practical effect would be that the popular-vote winner instantly becomes the Electoral College winner as well.
*snip*
A rash of Republican state legislators have signed on as co-sponsors and even sponsors of this year’s spate of NPV bills. At a May 12 news conference, two prominent Republicans — former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and former Gov. Jim Edgar of Illinois — endorsed the compact.
“We’re perpetually kind of rolling the dice in presidential elections in this country and risking electing someone who didn’t get the most votes,” Mr. Thompson said at the event. “It’s an unnecessary risk.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
WTF?
What “risk?”
The system works as the Founders intended.
What is it with these idiots that they cannot abide to live under the restrictions of the Constitution?
I have a better idea:
Let’s say a state has 10 electoral votes.
If Candidate A wins the statewide vote, then 2 votes go to A.
If Candidate B wins four of the eight congressional districts, then B gets four votes and A the other four.
Total: six to A, four to B.
“I would support a system where one candidate had to get 50% + 1 votes. If no candidate was able to, then there would be a runoff between the top two.”
NO! That system would succeed in allowing the large population centers to select our leaders. Since they are overwhelmingly Democrat, they would succeed in defeating the votes of flyover country which is overwhelmingly conservative!
‘
I don't believe any conspiracy theories that Fred Thompson deliberately entered the race to sabotage the other candidates so his buddy McCain would win the nomination. That being said, since Fred Thompson was a long time friend of McCain and refused to go say anything critical of him, he did have an indirect effect of making it easier for McCain to win the primary.
A perfect example was Fred Thompson's "must win" state of South Carolina. Up until that point, McCain hadn't won any state that he hadn't already won in his failed 2000 campaign, the race was still a tossup. The polls showed McCain in first place (by a slim plurality) in S.C., with Huckabee and Romney battling it out for second and Fred Thompson and Giuliani behind them. Fred Thompson really hadn't pushed hard yet and time was running out. The obvious stragedy would for Fred to forcefully contrast his conservative values to McCain and pry McCain voters into his camp. But he wouldn't lift a finger to campaign against McCain. Instead, he ran a bunch of attack ads against Huckabee, which didn't do anything to help Fred's numbers (they were appealing to different consituencies -- Huckabee was focused on hardcore pro-lifers and the FairTax people, neither of whom Fred was going for), but it damaged Huck enough to give McCain a clear victory. Once McCain won in "conservative" South Carolina, he had the momemtum as the strongest candidate for the rest of the primary season.
A national popular vote would invite corruption on a larger scale than already exists and would the biggest urban centers to dominate everything.
Wrong, Fred! Bad decision.
Have another GJack and leave the electoral college alone.
The correct reform to the Electoral College, in view of the rise of political parties, would be to require all states to adopt the Maine/Nebraska system of apportioning one elector to the winner of the popular vote in each Congressional district, and two electors to the winner of the popular vote state-wide.
It would preserve the Founders intent of diluting popular enthusiasm and giving the states a voice.
NO.
The EC is pure genius.
Democrats “are for it because they get votes almost exclusively from major urban areas. The strategy is to eke out victories nationwide that way,” said Mr. Del Beccaro.
Such an approach is also rife for voter fraud, given the recent history of groups like ACORN manufacturing Democratic voters in urban centers, he said.
“Their constituencies are there, and it makes it easier for groups like ACORN to register voters by compliant and noncompliant means,” said Mr. Del Beccaro. “[Democrats] are also pushing for same-day voter registration. If you combine those things, there’s a huge opportunity for fraud.”
Good Grief! Wasn’t Fred a conservative once?
Go back to full time acting and stick with it, Fred. I guess Fred is unaware that Algore got more votes than W in 2000.
“The only group to be elected directly by popular vote was the House of Representatives.”
And even with the corruption of a ridiculously small number of “Representatives” that we have, they’re still by district, and not even the whole state (Except, of course, Wyoming, since it only has one).
Obviously, if this country is going to be ruled exclusively by the large urban centers, we’re all done.
If we go to a straight popular vote system, then New York and LA could dominate the elections.
Candidates could ignore small states or rural areas as statistically insignificant. They would focus on the big states and cities.
It would severely limit the possibility of getting real conservatives getting into the White House.
The Electoral College is the rules of our game to ensure that smaller regions have a say in who leads them.
It would truly be a disaster to eliminate it.
i am truly surprised and saddened to hear this...
Good point. I read a column that argued for a return to the system in which US Senators are appointed by state legislatures. That would enhance the power of the states, give them a direct voice in limiting the power of the feds and make who controls the state legislatures more important.
“Insanity.WTF is wrong with Fred?”
Is he trying to get another job in Hollywierd?
He’s pullling a Ted Olson. Well, we had no great candidates who had a chance at the nomination in ‘08, as it turns out, and if Sarah doesn’t run, I’m afraid that our nominee will suck again. Romney seems even worse than Juan. Bob
Cain/Palin-2012
“Now this. If the Electoral College is abolished, then why not get rid of the whole “states” idea altogether? Just call them provinces of the federal government.”
Shhhhhhh!
You’re not supposed to talk about that. Yet.
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.