Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dissenters in GOP rethink Electoral College [Fred Thompson joins those trying to destroy it]
The Washington Times ^ | June 2, 2011 | Valerie Richardson

Posted on 06/03/2011 7:25:02 PM PDT by EternalVigilance

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-175 next last
To: Liberty Valance

I’d like to see that again.

101 posted on 06/04/2011 12:00:09 AM PDT by Gene Eric (*** Jesus ***)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

"This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it."

--- Admiral Josh Painter - (Fred Dalton Thompson) Hunt for Red October - 1990

102 posted on 06/04/2011 12:06:06 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.

What debates did you watch? McCain was the weakest debater out of a weak bunch. I hate saying this, but Romney was the strongest debater 4 years ago.

103 posted on 06/04/2011 12:39:52 AM PDT by conservativebuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

Well, he’s still a more principled conservative than Hucksterbee.

104 posted on 06/04/2011 12:40:31 AM PDT by conservativebuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: conservativebuckeye
I think the jury is out on that one. Huckabee never endorsed McCain-Feingold and was quite vocally against it, calling it "disasterous". And did you know "true conservative" Fred Thompson had a lower lifetime score from the American Conservative Union than "light in the loafers RINO traitor" Lindsey Graham? The labels didn't make much sense given their similar records. I still think the Fredhead freepers didn't present a good case that their hero Fred was somehow soooooo much better than McCain when he and McCain agreed on about 90% of the issues.
105 posted on 06/04/2011 1:00:07 AM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The FRaudster was nothing more than McLame’s b!tch...hanging in just long enough to pull the McLame ‘straight talk express’ out of the ditch (when the McLame campaign was all but toast). When that mission was accomplished and McLame was a shoe-in for the nomination, the FRaudster made a B-line for the sidelines. No suprises on whom he supports for 2012:

106 posted on 06/04/2011 1:01:13 AM PDT by RasterMaster (We the tax-payer subsidize DUh-bama's failures)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
>> I tried to warn ‘em, but most wouldn’t listen. And watching the developing 2012 race it seems that most haven’t learned much, quite frankly. <<

Indeed. Rick Perry's the latest "true conservative" flavor of the week that a bunch of conservatives are swooning over and trying to "draft" for President, despite the fact his record is little different from Pawlenty. A bunch of freepers apparently care more about a candidate who talks tough and acts conservative than one who actually governs that way.

107 posted on 06/04/2011 1:03:40 AM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: hellbender; Impy
>> The Electoral College is there because the States were the sovereign units. A President had to be elected by a majority of the several States’ electors, not by “the people.” By the same token, Senators were to be elected by State legislatures, not “the people.” The only group to be elected directly by popular vote was the House of Representatives. <<

The founding fathers were not perfect or infallible. The only reason the electoral college exists is they were deadlocked between those who wanted Congress to choose the President (like how state legislatures would choose Senators) and those who wanted the President to be directed elected via popular vote (like how Congressmen would be elected). I don't think either scenario would have worked on a national scale, especially with the size the country is today. If Congress choose the President, Pelosi would have taken control of this country in 2006 and we'd probably still have a RAT President now because Republicans didn't win the Senate in 2010. If it was direct popular vote, New York City, L.A., Chicago, etc. would pick our President for the rest of America.

The electoral college system compromise was probably the best option (have the people INDIRECTLY elect the President by choosing electors representing that person), but it too has serious problems. As others have noted on this thread, most states choose electors based on statewide popular vote. That "winner take all" system just inflicts the popular vote problem on a small statewide scale, as big cities can outvote the rest of the state (a perfect example being here in Illinois where Pat Quinn was elected to govern "all of Illinois" by just winning 3 out of 102 counties!) The electoral college could use reforms. As at least three other posts on this thread have mentioned, the idea system would be to allocate electoral votes by each congressional district. That's currently only used in Maine and Nebraska. (under that system, Bush would have still won in 2000, since he carried more Democrat districts than Gore carried Republican districts). It would allow regions of the state in the minority to be represented in the electoral college (especially important if the "winner" only gets 51% of the state's votes), and it would prevent the mainstream media from calling an entire state based on early xit polls in some urban area.

If we get politicians to stop gerrymandering congressional districts and instead have impartial computer drawn districts, combined with an electoral college system based on those districts, we'd far better system than we have today for electing a president (and if we can fix our primary system so Iowa and N.H. stop picking our nominees for the rest of us!)

The "original constitution" may have specified that the House of Reps. was the only federal body that voters could elect and defeat from office, but that was a mistake, IMO. If it were up to me, voters would be able to vote on retention of supreme court judges and other federal judges. That would take a constitutional amendment but I think this reform would be better than what they came up with in 1788. Freepers want to talk about "states rights", well look at the states can elect their judges, look at the ones where the judges are appointed by political bureucrats for life, and ask yourself which system works better?

The founding fathers were very good men and had a lot of great ideas. But they were not gods and not everything they wrote down in 1788 is perfect and must never be altered. People used to be concerned that Catholics in this country worshipped the Pope and thought he was perfect and never erred. I've met a Catholic who feels that way about the Pope. But I have seen freepers who feel that way about the founding fathers and the government that existed in 1789. I find that troubling.

108 posted on 06/04/2011 1:35:31 AM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: UniqueViews
You do know where you can put that sanctimonious attitude don't you FRiend?


109 posted on 06/04/2011 4:50:49 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer ("If you lie hard enough and sell your soul... you can scam your way to the top" barack obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

The electoral college is a valuable tool. It localizes vote fraud and empowers the states, particularly those with smaller populations.

110 posted on 06/04/2011 5:04:46 AM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Muslims are a people of love, peace, and goodwill, and if you say that they aren't, they'll kill you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
States may decide to apportion their electoral votes on any basis they see fit

Incorrect. They may choose electors on any basis they see fit.

and does not violate an individual right.

A law does not need to violate an individual right in order to be unconstitutional.

111 posted on 06/04/2011 5:08:35 AM PDT by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean

We can see how well the 17th amendment worked which changed the control of the Senators from state Legislatures to a
“popular vote”..........essentially a 2nd House of Reps at this stage.

Our Founding Fathers did everything for a reason after much thought and debate........

Leave it alone. In fact get the 17th back to orginal set up is what the focus should be.

112 posted on 06/04/2011 5:28:14 AM PDT by sbark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
That is NOT the same thing as eliminating the Electoral College. You do that and there will be no more Republic. There will be war if that happens... bank on it.

Citizens of the States have the power to eliminate those that tread on their rights... unless all elections are done away with.


113 posted on 06/04/2011 5:31:50 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer ("If you lie hard enough and sell your soul... you can scam your way to the top" barack obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Farmer Dean

what did you expect from draft dodging head of senate centrist coalition?

Always a Rino..

114 posted on 06/04/2011 7:08:41 AM PDT by heiss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

“A state is not required to conduct a vote AT ALL as a means of selecting it’s Electors.”

You are 100% correct, but you also miss the point by 100%.

No, a state DOES NOT have to conduct a vote to select electors.

But - and its a VERY BIG BUT - if a state DOES conduct a vote as the means of selecting electors, then it must respect the outcome of that vote, and not change it. To do so would violate the Supreme Courts dictum:
“Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”

If a state such as California wants to sign on the the “popular vote” movement, that’s all well and good. They can do so — SO LONG AS THEY ABOLISH THE ELECTION TO CHOOSE ELECTORS (shouting intentional). Get rid of the election in toto, and now the state legislature can select electors however they wish, and it’s completely Constitutional.

But — again — if they HAVE an “election”, then they also have to abide by its results (the “results” being the total of the state’s voters, not modified or changed in any way).

Having written this, I wouldn’t be surprised if you actually see a movement in one or more ‘rat states to actually abolish the “election for President” and have the state legislature choose electors based on the popular vote in OTHER states. Some fool will actually propose doing this. Mark my words.

My prediction:
When the Supreme Court rules on the “popular vote” compact between the states, it will be invalidated by the reasoning I’ve outlined above.

Just sayin’....

115 posted on 06/04/2011 7:40:35 AM PDT by Grumplestiltskin (I may look new, but it's only deja vu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Grumplestiltskin
"Get rid of the election in toto, and now the state legislature can select electors however they wish, and it’s completely Constitutional."

Yes, I agree with you.

116 posted on 06/04/2011 8:30:53 AM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: stilloftyhenight

Then you haven’t looked at how the population is spread out. There are millions more people in suburban and rural areas than in large cities. With a 50% +1 system, you would get a runoff nearly every time.

Also with the current system, people are discouraged to vote because they think their state will go one way or the other and their vote won’t really make any difference.

117 posted on 06/04/2011 8:38:02 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

How would that be possible when those three States have only 75 million people COMBINED? If you’re suggesting fraud then please show me any election in these States where total votes equals three times the population.

118 posted on 06/04/2011 8:52:35 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
“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.”

Fred old chap, that is exactly what happened in 2000; thank God.

119 posted on 06/04/2011 8:57:13 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Pelosi: Obamacare indulgences for sale.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

Why should I show you anything. I am predicting that when it’s worthwhile you’ll see fraud like you’ve never seen before.

120 posted on 06/04/2011 11:00:03 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-175 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson