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 ...
Stuff like this is what makes me sure that the internal polling for the democrats shows them losing big time.
This is not the kind of stuff that is suggested by a team that thinks they will win.
I like it.
Seriously.
The problem with going by popular vote, you get “turn out the base elections” and occasionally a Hitler wins.
With the electoral college, NY and TX are left out and only swing voters in swing states matter in a close election. THIS IS A VERY GOOD THING. The center must hold and civil wars are bad.
The bad thing about the electoral college is that outside of 10 swing states, the rest of the country is ignored.
This hybrid plan means you need to pay attention to the swing voters in swing states AND AT THE SAME TIME TURN OUT YOUR RESPECTIVE BASE IN NY, CA, TX, AL, ETC.
Popular vote for president would be a problem. In a close race we'd have legal action galore demanding recount after recount in every state. It would take forever to declare a winner.
It looks to me like the Democrats believe they will come up 28 votes short after election day. Great news.
I like this plan.
Today, candidates are spending more time in NH and Iowa than NY and TX. This is wrong.
With a strictly popular vote plan, NH and IA would be totally ignored, and equally wrong.
This plan makes candidates focus on the swing states and also do some campaigning in the big states too.
I don’t like the popular vote because you can get a Hitler winning.
also a big storm like the one headed to NYC could change the results of the election (or a huge snowstorm in MN, ID, and WY), (or a New england snow storm).
With the electoral college, both parties are forced to the middle.
OK, we’ll swap you the 29 EVs for (1) a full re-registration of every voter in the nation, in person, with full ID, every four years. (2) Removal of all deceased persons from the voter rolls within five days of their death announcement. (3) ID required of every voter, no exceptions. (4)No vote counts released to the media until after the polls close on the West Coast. (5) No physical votes (Paper ballots, punchcards, etc.) to be handled out of public view; members of both parties must be involved in any transporting of ballots from precints to town hall or wherever ballots are taken for counting and (6) all counting to be done in public.
Oh, I almost forgot: (7) Ballots “found” after the election will be void. I know, maybe the RATs will try to hide some from Pub districts to invalidate them, that’s why workers from both parties have to transport them.
29 instead of 30 - lol
It’s like my granddaughter told me last year, “you know why we celebrate the 4th of July?” (She’s six, so said why do we) As only a six year old can say it, “because grandma saying happy July 5th would sound silly”
When I read ‘29’, that is exactly what I thought about a bunch of six year olds.
Look what happened when we stated electing senators by popular vote.
Here in Michigan, Detroit, Ann Arbor, and Flint get to elect our senators, and the rest of us get to STFU and take it.
As it stands, DC’s three electoral votes have the Dems starting up by three regardless.
If you like dunces like Obama being elected by moochers sucking on the public teat you will like a system that awards the presidency to the candidate with the largest popular vote.
I like your proposals, but I’m not too sure about those 29 EV’s. That being said this bozo, Steve Israel, is my congresscritter. His district is set up to ensure his continued reelection. Believe me if he’s proposing this idea it has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with getting the maximum amount of votes from large blue states like NY, CA and IL and he’ll get those votes if he has to print them himself. We have to remember that a growing number of the residents of these states are illegals. Steve and his bunch would do anything to give them a vote legally or not!
Proportional would be my choice as well. I hated living in PA and not having my “vote” count even though the congressional district always went Republican.
Yea, the way districts are drawn in California only liberals get a say, and they are only about 30% of the population.
We have friends who moved from New Jersey to PA, because of the taxes in NJ, they’ve been there two years wonder if they will move back.
Abolish the Electoral College and replace it with IQ-weighted popular vote, verified by DNA.
“How’d they come up with 29?”
Actually, that’s very logical.
That would give each state 1/2 a vote.
You have a subversive sense of humor.
Constitutional amendment will take some time to do. It has to go to the States. It’s not supposed to be easy.
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.