Skip to comments.Fred Thompson Promotes ‘National Popular Vote’ Initiative In Harrisburg
Posted on 01/30/2012 8:06:46 AM PST by Halfmanhalfamazing
HARRISBURG, Pa. (CBS) - The state capitol was the scene of two events promoting distinctly different ways of changing the way Pennsylvanias presidential electoral votes are awarded.
Actor and former Senator and former Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson is part of a bi-partisan effort to create a compact agreement among states to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, no matter who wins the state vote for president.
(Excerpt) Read more at philadelphia.cbslocal.com ...
I like Fred, but am not sure why he is supporting this.
And I thought he was intelligent. My mistake. He doesn’t realize that eliminating the Electoral College would allow the most populated states control who will be president.
Sadly, we're screwed regardless.
What the hell is Thompson thinking? The result of this would be that future elections would be controlled by liberals and government dependents in the urban mega-plexes.
Our forefathers were very wise to create the electoral college and their reasoning still holds up today.
WTF, Fred? Please, stop!
Every state in every election could be like Florida 2000.
I thought Fred Thompson was on our side!
It would be very difficult to truly verify the national popular vote totals.
Consider the 2000 election, for example. On election night 2000, Bush was ahead in the national popular vote by about 300,000 votes. The next afternoon, as vote counting continued, the media announced that Al Gore was actually ahead in the popular vote, by about 500,000 votes. How did that happen.
(all of this ignores the Florida electoral vote recount. But the point is, under a national popular vote, the Florida recount wouldn’t have happened that way. There would have had to be a national recount instead.)
In 2000, did the Democrats pad the vote totals for Al Gore, to get him to be ahead in the mythical national popular vote, so they could claim some legitimacy as they pursued the Florida recount? It’s something to think about.
Sheesh Fred.. do a little more reading/learning and a little less talking. This is basic stuff for heavens sake. You’re acting like a tool.
A small number of the major cities could elect a President.
Absolutely stupid idea! Way to “reach across the aisle”, Fred.
A “compact agreement among the states” is called a Constitutional amendment.
He’s been pimping this crap for at least a year.
Here in Michigan the guy I supported for RNC chairman (Saul Anuzis) is also pushing it.
We got progs inside the wire.
Screw fred... he is nothing but a dumb assed actor like looney clooney.
Had them inside the wire for the past 100 years...Just now people are beginning to figure it out.
I was supportive of Fred at one time.
Amazing how people can be so wrong-headed.
This is a "feel good" idea that has no utility or merit. Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats would like to switch to a popular vote. But ignoring the intent of our Founding Fathers is folly because they want to safeguard our Constitutional Republic, not undermine of dispose of it.
Exactly. It’s fun trying to explain to Aussies how our voting system works.
This is the death of the republic.
It would be an abomination for the results of one state’s vote to decide the selection of another state’s elected representatives—and make no mistake—Presidential Electors are elected representatives. It would be no different from a state implementing a law which said a state’s governor would be determined by which party won the majority of governorships that year.
Allocating Electors based on some method which proportional to the state’s votes, such as Maine’s and Nebraska’s Congressional District system remains true to the concept of the Electoral College, but solves many of the limitations, while still creating a clear and defendable winner. Other proportional systems such as the 2004 Colorado proposal have challenges.
Speaking of enemies inside the wire, I watched Red Dawn last night.
It was an interesting story they told about how the invasion was facilitated by illegals.
I live in Washington State where it is accepted practice for democrats to magically find boxes full of ballots for weeks after an election that they have not won. Eliminating the electoral college would guarantee their control on a national scale. Thompson should call his idea the ACORN amendment.
If the popular vote initiative was ever instituted, states like VT, NH, NM, NV, AZ, MT, ND, SD, etc., would NEVER see a presidential candidate.
We would see NYC, LA, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc., electing the president.
Fly-over country would be completely ignored.
Thank goodness the Thompson bandwagon crashed in 2008.
Where do most liberals live?
NYC, LA, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc.
The original point of the electoral college system was the idea that it was better to have a president who was moderately liked all over the country, to a president whose support was intense but limited to just a few locations.
And I thought he was intelligent. My mistake. He doesnt realize that eliminating the Electoral College would allow the states with most inner city vote fraud to control who will be president.
In rural Indiana, we have a saying for what Fred can do to himself (and the horse he rode in on).
“so screwed if we lose the Electoral College”..You are absolutely 100% correct! This would mean the “Left Coast” and the Urban centers of the East would control the presidential elections. Somebody must be paying Thompson for his support on this.
Fred Thompson now wants to disenfranchise the small states? WTF?
ONLY someone with no appreciation for our history would want mob rule....which is what a popular vote only national election would be!
I really am concerned, folks, that we are forgetting about the 10th amendment and states rights in our urge to blast “tyranny”.
The enemy has been well entrenched since Teddy Roosevelt. What you are seeing today is their reaction to being rejected.....just look at the temper tantrum known as bloody Thursday. If there was any doubt before it's long gone now.
It's Time to Junk the Electoral College We don't need an amendment to do it. -Jonathan Soros
The fate of the Free World would be determined by Yankees and Lakers fans.
Two problems (among others) Fred:
1. The electoral college confines the damage of fraud to a local area. For instance, if unions are packing the ballot boxes in Chicago, the most damage they can do is to the Illinois electoral vote. But under this plan, if they can control Chicago ballot boxes, they can control the nation.
2. This is just a precursor to a federal voting rights standard. Right now, your state can check voter IDs or ban violent felons from voting, etc. If this electoral college override scheme is implemented, you can bet the ACLU will quickly file suit to require “uniform national” voting laws.
One more blow to the federal republic.
This is the progressive response to the 2000 election.
Every time they don’t like the results, they try to change the rules. They’re constantly tinkering with the system to get the results they want.
Trust me, the first time this “National Popular Vote” scheme fails to elect a Democrat, you can bet the progs will be in court complaining that it “isn’t fair” and needs to be “modified” by a court ruling.
I like Fred too, but this makes me glad that he didn’t make it out of the Republican Primaries.
Okay, kids. One more time. We need a second party!
What amazes me with that map is the number of states with small populations that are FOR it.
Do that not realize that they are basically giving away any influence they have in national elections?
IMHO, this is a terrible idea. That being said, the states can choose to apportion their delegates in whatever manner they choose.
Still and all, going by popular vote is incredibly stupid.
They aren’t giving away their influence, they’re combining it.
When I read the bill they were pushing here in Michigan a few years back, I saw the loophole they left to opt out. (If it looked like the GOP was winning, they could opt out and make a tougher race)
The electoral college,like the Senate, is a tool to ensure the small states and rural populations are not dictated to by the big cities.
Pure democracy is simply mob rule.
Fred, the man who slumped with his face in his hands during impeachment discussions, not sure he wasn’t crying, was paid a long time ago. The payments started the day he was sworn in.
They’re all bought and paid for. They’re all corrupt. McCain, whom I despise, said it on the senate floor. McConnell, whom I despise, asked McCain to name who he thought was corrupt. McCain folded. But he was right. They’re all corrupt. They’re no difference than rich Hollywooders wanting all of us to pay higher taxes so they can feel good.
That’s why they make their own rules. Does a law really have to be passed to prevent insider trading by congress? If so, that means a law was passed that allowed it to begin with. And a president signed it.
Or do they simply say “We’re congress. We do whatever we want.” If that’s the case, they should all be prosecuted.
Nailed it in one.
This idea, in one form or another, has been floating around for a good while. The drumbeat for it gets louder when Dems look like they're going to lose, or have already lost (think Bush-Gore 2000, or during Reagan).
It quiets down when Dems are doing well. Think back to 2008, or during the Clinton Years.
I'm disappointed in Fred, but would love to hear his reasoning.
Fred, WTF are you thinking????????????????????
This makes no sense what so ever.
Has Fred started new meds?
That is pure insanity
While I do not support the “compact” I would favor a constitutional amendment to make the Presidential vote a popular vote. I understand that this works somewhat against the concept of a republic of sovereign states, but the fact is the Electoral College is already a corpse, having no actual decision-making ability. All we have left is a messy useless vestigial curiosity that encourages our sadly uneducated population could be a big monkey wrench.
The current system invites voter fraud, because we invariably have multiple states that are extremely close where a few thousand stolen votes can flip an election. It's a constitutional crisis waiting to happen.
I would like one other constitutional reform:
A two-round election in which the top two finishers in the first round face off in a second round, to diminish the possibility of the third party screwing up the works and giving us a President who is opposed by a strong majority of the voters (under the current system, it's mathematically possible in a 3-way contest to win the popular vote for the presidency by 34% of the vote, and to win the electoral college with as little as 17% of the popular vote (in a 3-way race).
Story from last june.
Fred Thompson to appear in Richmond on behalf of National Popular Vote initiative
Video from last May
Fred Thompson endorses National Popular Vote