Posted on 10/26/2012 1:38:36 PM PDT by Nachum
The head of the House Democratic campaign arm this week proposed a constitutional amendment that would give the winner of the popular vote in the presidential race an additional 29 electoral votes. Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) did not offer an explanation in the joint resolution filed in the House for why he was proposing to change the way elections in the U.S. are decided. Under the Constitution, the candidate who wins at least 270 electoral votes wins the presidency, regardless of the popular vote. The prospect of a split between the popular vote and the Electoral College usually provokes cries
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
This better never pass
Here’s and idea from a guy in a state with less than 10 electoral votes to offer: NO!
I think the last one prevented Congress from giving themselves an immediate pay raise
He’s from NY state and I’m guessing his proposal would mean that the winner of the national popular vote would get NY’s 29 electoral votes no matter which candidate actually wins the election in that state.
Do you remember when Clinton was polling high in the popular vote in his first run, and all the media pundits were coming out advocating using the popular vote instead of the EV count. Turns out he lost the popular vote and you never heard another word about using the popular vote after that ...until NOW! What scumbags!
Desperation
It would have been enough to turn Bush - Gore into a "mandate" for Gore. It is also the number of electoral votes of Florida.
This would push campaigns to court large states rather than just swing states and the candidates would have to offer pork.
...it will probably pass.
With McCain and the usual gang of idiots giving us a lecture on how it will make elections more fair.
So what do you want me to say?
I give them credit for figuring out up front it would have to be a Constitutional amendment. They’re not usually that bright.
That would keep from giving too much weight to the larger states and would firewall vote fraud at the district level (once you steal enough votes to steal a district, stealing more wouldn't help).
They jumped on that bandwagon again after 2000 when AG won the popular but lost the election.
That won’t pass.
LOL! One of those times I wish JimRob would include a “like” button!
How about a law requiring a picture ID to vote instead?
This will be quickly withdrawn when Romney wins the popular vote...
Actually there is a good argument for popular vote vs electoral college. Under the EC system, eleven battleground states get the most attention because they are swing states. The rest are ignored because one party dominates it. In states where one party dominates by 10 or more, very little effort or campaigning occurs. Rather the dominant states are used as fund raising sources to fight in the 11 swing states. One way is to decide delegates by Congressional districts like Maine and Nebraska. Win that district, you win the delegates.
Yeah, good luck getting 38 states to agree!
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.