I personally am all for this. It won't garentee GOP wins but it will give us a fighting chance and most important, it would virtually negate the effect of vote fraud overriding the rest of us.
To: Springman; cyclotic; netmilsmom; RatsDawg; PGalt; FreedomHammer; queenkathy; madison10; ...
posted on 02/25/2013 6:27:19 PM PST
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
I agree. it would also do away with the welfare mama’s in the big cities basically taking the whole state.
posted on 02/25/2013 6:29:35 PM PST
Basically my view is this wouldnt be the appropriate time...
What would you wait for? Some time where you were not within 4 years of a presidential election?
posted on 02/25/2013 6:34:39 PM PST
(When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
I’m for it as well, because of the limitation on fraud, as well as it being generally more representative of the voting patterns of the state. One consequence that may not have been considered, is that going this route will enable third party candidates to possibly siphon off delegates, by winning a district here and there. Personally I’m all for having more choices.
posted on 02/25/2013 6:36:39 PM PST
(this space available for catchy tagline)
The people have it within their power to rebalance their own government.
I read that earlier on mlive, the comments were obviously mostly retards going to U-M.
These same RETARDS all want a national election based on the popular vote - and went on to claim that it is republicans that want to steal elections.
Only one thing to say on saving America:
REPEAL THE 17TH AMENDMENT!
There would be no Fat Stabacow or Karl Marxist Lenin as our senators, other states too.
Unlike the Founder Founders who had designed a republic, libtards always prefer mob rule majorities as they have no understanding of a representative republic.
posted on 02/25/2013 8:37:49 PM PST
(Victory is not relative, it is absolute.)
This is a fairer proposition than the one working its way through states - the national popular vote interstate compact
. This is a scheme whereby a state promises to allocate its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most popular votes nationally. Even in the case where a state like California was to have gone overwhelmingly for the libdem, if the republican happened to win a higher number of popular votes nationally, California would pledge its electoral votes for the candidate who lost their state election.
posted on 02/25/2013 9:43:44 PM PST
(A half-truth is a complete lie)
I’m pretty worried about this - it’s playing with fire. People will see this as a blatant electoral vote grab. It might lead to greater popular support for a National Popular Vote.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson