Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Halfmanhalfamazing

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.


3 posted on 01/30/2012 8:09:34 AM PST by SkyDancer ("Never Have Regrets Because At The Time It Was Exactly What You Wanted")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: SkyDancer

A small number of the major cities could elect a President.


12 posted on 01/30/2012 8:16:28 AM PST by PORD (People Of Right & Duty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: SkyDancer
"He doesn’t realize that eliminating the Electoral College would allow the most populated states big cities with sophisticated vote fraud mechanisms control who will be president."

Fixed.

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.

26 posted on 01/30/2012 8:30:46 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (I'd agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: SkyDancer
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.

You mean:

And I thought he was intelligent. My mistake. He doesn’t realize that eliminating the Electoral College would allow the states with most inner city vote fraud to control who will be president.

27 posted on 01/30/2012 8:30:57 AM PST by RightGeek (FUBO and the donkey you rode in on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: SkyDancer
He doesn’t realize that eliminating the Electoral College would allow the most populated states control who will be president.

It would sure spell the end of Federalism as envisioned by the Framers.

Add to that the amount of fraud it would promote. Under the Electoral Collage, solid Democrat states like New York, Illinois or California have no reason to stuff ballot boxes in presidential elections. The Democrats know they will get the electoral votes of those states. If instead you decide to go by total votes nation wide, there is great temptation to stuff the ballot boxes, especially in corrupt big cities.

62 posted on 01/30/2012 10:58:33 AM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: SkyDancer

Senator Thompson is concerned about the precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system as highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency — that is, a mere 26% of the nation’s votes.

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded by states in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states). It assures that every vote is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.


65 posted on 01/30/2012 12:31:42 PM PST by mvymvy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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