Skip to comments.Dissenters in GOP rethink Electoral College [Fred Thompson joins those trying to destroy it]
Posted on 06/03/2011 7:25:02 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
click here to read article
I’d like to see that again.
"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
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.
Well, he’s still a more principled conservative than Hucksterbee.
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:
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.
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.
The electoral college is a valuable tool. It localizes vote fraud and empowers the states, particularly those with smaller populations.
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.
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.
Citizens of the States have the power to eliminate those that tread on their rights... unless all elections are done away with.
what did you expect from draft dodging head of senate centrist coalition?
Always a Rino..
“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 persons 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.
When the Supreme Court rules on the “popular vote” compact between the states, it will be invalidated by the reasoning I’ve outlined above.
Yes, I agree with you.
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.
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.
Fred old chap, that is exactly what happened in 2000; thank God.
Why should I show you anything. I am predicting that when it’s worthwhile you’ll see fraud like you’ve never seen before.
I’m probably a pretty small minority here, but if it is done correctly, I would be in favor of popular vote determination, though it should ONLY be done by Constitutional Amendment.
What was the purpose of the Electoral College in the first place? To choose wise individuals who would then work out the best candidate, thereby avoiding being slaves to the passion of the moment. But with electors now obligated to follow the dictates of the popular vote in their own states, the whole point of the system is erased. Now it only serves to confuse and make things more complicated than they need to be while encouraging cynicism.
Dare I say something positive about French elections and the way they are held? Everyone votes, the votes are counted and 15 minutes after the polls close, we know the winner. If nobody gets 50.01%, there is an immediate runoff between the top two just 2 weeks later, which ensures that the winner gets a majority of the citizens’ votes. In our elections, we have a system in which it has become rare for a candidate to get an actual majority, inviting false flag parties, mischief-makers and lawyers (please excuse the redundancy) to distort the result. Look for big-time false-flag Tea Party candidates in the 2012 elections, just to scatter and dilute the conservative vote. It is going to happen.
I thought a second reason was to prevent smaller states from becoming totally irrelevant. If we went with a straight popular vote, wouldn't candidates just focus their attention on larger cities (even more than now)?
Another temptation to ‘change’ the Constitution. The electoral college was envisioned by the Framers as one of many checks and balances on the concentration of too much political power. Then it was larger states numerical advantage over the smaller states. As many here have posted, it is as valid today as it ever was, maybe more so. And the concept applies to in-state governance as well. Each state of the union has at least one large city, and as every body knows, states like Illinois are led around by the nose by Chicago, a political entity not many of us revere.
I find it troubling that you feel that way about the Founding Fathers.
This is the thought that occurred to me. Can states individually abrogate Constitutional requirements to have electors? Correspondingly , can electors as Constitutionally designated for States give one States voters to to another or more? Sounds like something one would expect out of Russia in 1917 or Germany in 1932 maybe it is.
To give me some some sense that you are not just making numbers up out of whole cloth, that's why. The total number of votes cast in all states in the last presidential election was about 129.5 million.
Nixon on Thompson: ‘Dumb’ but ‘Friendly’
October 09, 2007 9:06 AM
Fred Thompson has made much of his role 30 years ago as a young Senate lawyer helping to lead the investigation of the Watergate scandal and President Richard Nixon.
But a much different, less valiant picture of Thompson emerges from listening to the White House audiotapes made at the time, as President Nixon plotted strategy with his aides in the Oval Office.
Thompson’s job on the Watergate committee was to lead the Republican side of the investigation. He was appointed by his mentor, Sen. Howard Baker of Tennessee, who is now co-chair of Thompson’s 2008 presidential bid.
Two words, Faithless Electors.
Actually I think they only want the inner city thugs to put them in power, then they will rule over us.
Like that s a new concept?
You have a very corrupt government in California at all levels. They'll cheat.
I would be in favor of that, it would prevent the constant loss of Republican/conservative EVs that occur in the "winner take all" blue states. For many of us in blue states, it is painful to see all of the EVs go to the Dim candidate even from districts that are always red.
God, I don't know ..... they're twisting his arm somehow? The man is a constitutional scholar -- he knows better than this! He knows the practical effects, too. It'd make the blue hellhole cities absolute kingmakers.
Maybe he couldn't stand George W. Bush? Al Gore went to some Tennessee pals and they got something on Fred?
The Electoral College used to do just that. The Electors represented the States, not some candidate.
Sorry about your disappointment, but Duncan Hunter got ignored by everybody. The reason? He was a good man, but he was a small man. No clout, no swing, no pull, no friends. Nothing.
These people don’t have a clue what the electoral college was all about.
If one notices that the word “political party” appears absolutely no place in the US Constitution, nor does two-party system, nor does “campaign”, ... then it is imperative that the person figure out HOW the electoral college operated in the absence of “parties” and “campaigns.”
And therein lies the divinely inspired genius of the Founders when it came to selecting a president.
I was talking about the process to select the candidate. Why the hell should we let Iowa and New Hampshire and a couple other states be the ones who select our candidate?
That is absolutely not true, and I've got the quotes to prove it.
Exactly — unfortunately, many conservatives fell for the con, including many here.
Okay, guys, put up or shut up. Give with the details. What was this clever plan, other than Fred not being able to campaign in 2007 until September, because of contractual obligations and liability to NBC, that kept him out of the money chase for whatever limited contributions were available from reluctant early-money GOP donors who'd concluded already that 2008 was going to be a Democratic year and Her Thighness was going to be crowned POTUS?
Fred a stalking horse? Sorry EV I don’t buy that. Too many candidates are accused of that in absence of all proof. I don’t believe Fred wasted his time and energy running for President just to help McCain.
As for the EC, in principle I support the popular vote and thus disagree with most freepers. In 04 Kerry lost Ohio and the election by a much smaller margin that he lost nationwide. It would have tremendously pissed me off if he had won with the overall popular majority still going to Bush. I’d be very curious to have seen the reaction to that on the right.
Practically though popular vote is likely to help the democrats more often than not (like in 2000) because of the big cities and their massive fraud. And it opens the door to nationwide recounts, which would be disastrous. And while on principle I don’t care much about empowering smaller states in POTUS elections, those states mostly lean our way so empowering them is positive.
So Fred is wrong, we need the EC to protect us from the aforementioned problems. I’m a realpolitik kind of guy. Lost in the discussion is that it’s exceeding unlikely for the EC and popular vote to actually produce different winners.
I wasn’t on the Fred train at the time in 08. I got on it in hindsight. Since then I’ve learned many things that make me like him less, this is another one. Still like him better than Rudy McRombee.
You are “troubled” that he doesn’t think the founders were demigods?
I agree with him, they were mortal men. And in their wisdom they made the constitution amendable. Most of those amendments have been positive.
Right. Two-thirds of the Congress. Three-quarters of the states. Uh-huh. That’ll happen. /S
How happy do you think SCOTUS will be with a gerrymandered Lege like California's picking the State's representatives to the Electoral College based on cronyism and corruption? How is that guaranteeing "a republican form of government"?
In Texas, the state house of representatives is overwhelmingly Republican, but it's run by the 'Rats, acting through a RiNO speaker of the state house who has strong powers, and a RiNO lieutenant governor presiding over the state senate who likewise has strong powers, who, collaborating with the 'Rats and a few RiNO's, regularly put the majority conservative Republicans in a corner?
The state house just voted for a new redistricting map which pairs eight conservative GOP legislators off against each other in new districts. A record killoff of conservatives, by a RiNO speaker working hand-in-glove with the 'Rats.
What if the Texas Lege pulled something similar with Texas's Electors, and handed the Presidency to Nancy Pelosi?
One theory is that, JFK having received the presidency in 1960 from the hand of Sam "Momo" Giancana of the Chicago Mob, when he and RFK damaged the Cosa Nostra with the Joseph Valachi papers and testimony, "Momo" and the boys sent Lee Harvey Oswald to repossess it.
My own theory is that it was LBJ; other people like Nikita Khruschev. I can't wait for the day that that affair is finally elucidated -- all I know is that the LBJ and his Warren Commission have pissed on our heads for 45 years and told us it's raining.
These are enormous questions of power and right. Let's listen to people who are warning us about electoral fraud.
Individually, they were quite flawed, but collectively, they were darn near perfect. The electoral college is brilliant and absolutely shouldn’t be messed with. Besides, it makes election night more entertaining.
The Electoral College concept is sound, its the current 48-state winner-take-all concept that is flawed [the exceptions being ME and NE].
The winner of the popular vote in each Congressional District within a State should be awarded it’s electoral vote. The overall winner of the popular vote within that State should be awarded the remaining 2 electoral votes as a “bonus”.
This method most accurately reflects the political beliefs of ALL of the people of the United States AND it would ENCOURAGE candidates to campaign in ALL districts throughout the country - since EACH electoral vote [except the remaining 2] would be up for grabs on an individual basis.
Interesting. I find it “troubling” he DOES think they were demigods. Even the greatest political leaders in history did not have the right position 100% of the time. And the pro-creationist loons claim those of us who believe in evolution use it as a religion. I never claimed the theory of evolution was perfect and without flaws, but these “abolish the 17th amendment” types apperently have a new religion called Founding Fatherism with the premise that anyone who worked on the constitution was incapable of error. I’m glad these guys weren’t around in the 1860s to explain to us mere mortals that slavery was OK because the founders said so.
Yes, it makes it more entertaining for Democrat political machines who can use the early totals to swing an entire state their way and steal the election, as was demonstrated in 1960 when the Dems flipped Texas and Illinois to JFK by "finding" a few extra votes in a handful of counties and overturning the rest of the state. And of course in 2000 when the Democrats were able to use early exit polls to "project" Gore winning Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (when the polls were still open on the west coast!) thereby depressing GOP turnout and damn-near giving Gore national electoral victory based on a fake "lead" in Florida.
The funny thing is, if you actually look at what "the founders" had to say about allocating the electoral votes, they were completely silent on how states would distribute the electoral votes each had, and left it up to the state governments to decide for themselves. They could aware all their electoral votes to the candidate will the tallest height if they wanted to.
That means post #148 (and many other freepers) suggestion of allocating all electoral votes based on congressional district (as Maine and Nebraska ALREADY do) wouldn't "mess with the founders intention" at all.
In fact, in the early days of the Republic, some of their states allocated electoral votes based on who the state legislature wanted for President, and regardless of who the citizens of their state wanted, so you "abolish the 17th amendment" types would have been quite pleased that they selected your President the same way they selected your Senators back then. Plenty of backroom deals happened with that method in effect, Presidential candidates could "win" states where they were insanely unpopular just by greasing a few palms. I think that's why that method of allocating electoral votes pretty much disappeared by the national stage by the 1830s, which was totally doable without a constitutional amendment thanks to the founders being silent on how the electoral votes would be distributed. Good thing, too. 90% of the state legislatures in this country are run by scumbags career politicians who only care about enriching themselves and could care less what's best for the state.