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 Pennsylvania’s 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 ...
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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbAD6XI2BxE&feature=player_embedded
We have the same saying in Mississippi!
LLS
I hate all from Washington ping
Electing the President via cumulative popular vote would simply enslave the nation to a few huge cities.
We are so screwed if we lose the electoral college”””
AMEN. IF we drop the Electoral College, we will have the following locations selecting our President, VP.:
New York City
Miami
Chicago
Dallas/Fort Worth
Los Angeles/San Diego
San Francisco
No one else will get any campaigning or attention. A one size fits all policy on everything will be based on CITIES needs, not the rural needs.
Following such an election, only those locations will get any support from the Federal government & they will control the country.
Wyoming-Kansas-Nevada-Alabama, etc, won’t be considered in any way, shape, or form.
Ping
Fred Thompson???
The rats and rinos are determined to have a one-party corruptocracy.
Several good posts. Don’t miss info in post #32 and #35.
Wow! That boy ain’t right in the head.
I used to like him too. This is just pure senility. Popular vote equals the wishes of 4 or maybe 5 urban areas: NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles and a few scattered New York suburbs (I call them New Jersy, Pennsylvania, etc.).....
Where are the interests of Utah, NDAK, SDAK, etc. upheld? This country stands together or it FALLS. If you relegate the future of this country to the whims and fancies of New York and Los Angeles, you have doomed it to the same mix of government-backed immigrant (legal and illegal) whimsy that has lost almost all of the southwestern border states to illegals.
There is a reason for protecting the interests of DISTRIBUTED citizens. It must not be confused with DIVERSE citizens.
I certainly am pleased that this guy’s presidential run was nipped early.
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.