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
As I noted at the time, Fred deserved due credit for endorsing Hoffman before it was popular to do so, but ONE decent conservative endorsement in his life didn't make Fred into a great conservative role model overall. In fact, the Hoffman endorsement was rather unusual for Fred, in the past he nearly always supported the GOP establishment choice over a conservative underdog in primaries. Let's wait and see if Fred has truly turned over a new leaf, I argued. But Fred's fans would have none of it, laughing about how all the prominent Republicans who got aboard the Hoffman express afterwards were nothing compared to Fred's kick ass conservative leadership.
Fast forward two years later, and where all those Fredheads now? After swearing during the 2008 campaign that Fred's past endorsement of McCain would NEVER happen again cuz Fred's such a principled conservative now, they were pretty silent when he did radios ads promoting McCain over J.D. Hayworth in the 2010 U.S. Senate primary. Sarah Palin got racked over the coals for it on FR, and unlike Fred, she had an excuse for endorsing McCain (the old "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" rule in politics), whereas Fred Thompson owed McCain nothing and was retired, making his endorsement even worse.
Now Fred's working with the left to dismantle the electoral college? Do the Fredheads still think he's soooooooooo much more a consistent, principled conservative than Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, etc.? Fred Thompson was to the right of his pal McCain in the Senate, but the number of degrees to the right can be measured in milimeters. He's certainly better than a RINO, but I think it's time to admire he's no 'southern fried Reagan" as his fanclub continually claimed.
See my Post #30 - winner of each district wins the single electoral vote for that district. 2 electoral votes for the state are left over. Those votes go to the overall winner of the state's popular vote [as a "bonus"].
If this had been in place in 2008 in MD [where I live], Obama woulda won 7-3 instead of 10-0 ...
Another bought and paid for senile P.R.I.C.K.
The Second Amendment gives the lamb the ability to contest the vote of the two wolves.
I don’t get it. What do you mean?
They kept arguing Hunter should drop in favor of "southern fried Reagan" Fred Thompson, fantasizing about the possibility of a Thompson/Hunter ticket. However, this ignored the fact that "Federalist Fred" completely ignored Duncan Hunter and wouldn't give him the time of day. In fact, the only presidential candidate who even floated the possibility of having Hunter on his team was "nanny state socialist" Mike Huckabee.
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.
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, theres 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.
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
“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.”
You’re not supposed to talk about that. Yet.
“Thats exactly why the left wants this. They want inner city thugs to control us.”
And if ever there was an issue that could break the nation apart into pieces — with or without a new civil war too boot — this is it.
“The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. 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.”
This is why the “popular vote” movement will eventually fail as unconstitutional.
Because when a state chooses how its electors shall vote on circumstances that have nothing to do with the [same] state’s actual voters*, that shall become the “valuing of one person’s vote over that of another”.
*Making the determination of which electors shall be chosen — based on vote totals from OUTside the state in question (and not “of the voters of that state”).
I hope that when this does reach the U.S. Supreme Court, we still hold the majority. You already know how Kagan, Sotomayor, etc., will vote....
I saw through the FRaudster early on as well.
When I read “Stanford University Professor”, that was reason enough to dismiss his idea. Besides, the Founders intended that the Electoral College was a protection for states with smaller population. Otherwise California and New York could elect a President.
Yes, Fred Thompson is not the man you and many others thought he was. TN hasn’t a clue about the real liberal Fred. (Ditto Corker and Lamar! too)
Absolutely not true.
States may decide to apportion their electoral votes on any basis they see fit and does not violate an individual right.
The Constitution specifies only that the Federal government will guarantee a Republican form of government.
Letting the cities decide all future POTUS=Leftist power, forever! This is the definitive problem with getting rid of the Electoral College.
Palin like McPain is for open borders, something her backers seem to forget.
Something you may not be aware of: Fred Thompson is a protege of that old compromiser Howard Baker, who Nancy Reagan brought aboard to save Ronnie during Iran-Contra. Like Baker, Thompson is always jumping in support of liberal fads.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The states can choose their Electors any way they damn well please.
I thought all of those 2008 candidates did average in the debates; none excelled, but I have to say McPain did as well as any of them. Maybe that’s why the little Republican primary voters have to go with the frontrunners.
I do not agree.
A State could vote to give the power to appoint all Electors to the Governor...or, to be nominated by "an independent, 3-judge panel" for considerations by the Legislature.
A state is not required to conduct a vote AT ALL as a means of selecting it's Electors.
You need a Constitutional Amendment to take out the Electoral College.
Anything else is just corruption on a Grand Scale....
No, it isn't. BUT, SCOTUS has ALSO ruled that once a state allows its citizens to vote for electors, their votes are protected by equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Their votes MUST be valued equally as EVERY other voter.
This proposed NPV compact basically states:
The citizens can vote for electors within the state. If a candidate DOES NOT win the electoral vote within the state BUT DOES win the NPV, then that candidate WILL receive the electoral votes that the citizens of the state said that he WAS NOT ENTITLED to ...
So, the voters of this state DO NOT have their votes treated FAIRLY - since voters in the majority NATIONALLY determine the selection of electors for this state.
“In ‘08 he was never anything more than a stalking horse for McCain. That’s it. Worked beautifully, too.”
Exactly — unfortunately, many conservatives fell for the con, including many here.
Result: President Obama.
In 1970, this came up as a proposed amendment in Congress. It passed the House and I think it was on the verge of getting out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Then, an obscure staffer for the Minority [GOP] wrote a dissenting brief that was sent to the Committee. The bill was tabled and NEVER brought to the Senate Floor for a vote.
He musta made a helluva argument ...
“I am steaming about my $2500.00 wasted and my support of him... ... **** fred thompson... the rat bastard.”
Should have listened to those who tried to warn you at the time, and there were a few...
You fell for the con — maybe you learned your lesson, maybe not.
“Good Grief! Wasn’t Fred a conservative once?”
NO. But as an actor, he played one in 2008.
"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
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.