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

Skip to comments.

Bush by 537; Gore by 537,179 (Gigglefest Alert: Ex-CBS Newer Says Abolish Electoral College!)
The New York Times ^ | November 16, 2001 | Martin Plissner

Posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:44 PM PST by Timesink



November 16, 2001

Bush by 537; Gore by 537,179

By MARTIN PLISSNER

WASHINGTON -- Now that a group of major news organizations has concluded that it was not the Supreme Court that imposed President Bush upon the nation, it's important to note that the voters didn't decide it that way, either. It does not take eight months of research with the University of Chicago to know that the current leader of the free (or at least the antiterrorist) world got half a million fewer votes last year than his opponent.

Let it be stipulated at the outset that under the law of the land George W. Bush is the country's duly elected head of state. And maybe, given the alternative and the nature of the times, that is just as well. Still, do we really need more elections, in years to come, in which people are still arguing a year later about whether the president's margin in a single state was 537 votes (the official result in Florida) or 225 — when the Federal Election Commission says he trailed nationally by 537,179?

Getting rid of the Electoral College ought not to be a partisan issue. The most serious effort to abolish it, in 1969, was led by Richard Nixon. He had won the popular vote the year before by half a million votes, but a switch in three states of barely a tenth of those votes might have enabled George Wallace to pick the winner.

Backed by a Republican White House, the Democratic House of Representatives passed, 338 to 70, a constitutional amendment calling for the direct election of the president by popular vote. The threat of a filibuster by members from small states and the South blocked it in the Senate.

There is no reason to think that retiring this historical anachronism would over time give an edge to either party, but it would certainly equalize the role of all voters in exercising their most important civic responsibility. It would also add some weight to the grumpy judgments this country issues when national majorities are set aside in places like Yugoslavia.

Defenders of the Electoral College (try explaining it to a teenage child, as some of us had to do last year) argue that if you just added up the total vote, as you do for every other office in the land, presidential campaigns would focus entirely on the big states while people in places like South Dakota and Delaware would get no attention at all. Yet last year New York and Texas got little attention from the presidential candidates. Had it been the popular vote that decided the election, as Mr. Bush himself has pointed out, he would have run a different campaign. Though there was no way he could have lost Texas or won New York, he would have worked hard to get out every vote in his own state and to shave Al Gore's vote in his best state.

Mr. Bush's strategists were ridiculed last year when he spent time and money in California, which he had little chance of winning, and in terms of strategy this decision deserved the ridicule. If his time and money had been spent in, say, Florida, we might not still be pawing over undervotes and overvotes in Palm Beach and Duval Counties. But the fact is that a man who wants to be president of the United States should not turn his back on 11 million California voters, and we should not have a system that makes it prudent for him to do so.

Electing our leaders every four years ought not to be a parlor game in which campaign commanders (and network know-it-alls) block out red states for one side and blue states for the other and then put all their chips on the "battleground states" in gray. Whether you're a Democrat in Utah or Texas, or a Republican in Rhode Island or New York, your vote ought to count as much as anyone's in Florida, Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. There's been enough talk about fixing the voting machines. It's time to fix the Electoral College.

Martin Plissner, former executive political director of CBS News, is the author of "The Control Room: How Television Calls the Shots in Presidential Elections."



TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: floridarecount
A CBS News executive proving he's a liberal and a Constitution-basher. I'm stunned.
1 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:44 PM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Does any one take into account,the state was called to Gore before half of the state's polls were closed.I had to encourage my daughters to go ahead and vote here in California.Even though we live in a stinking liberal cesspool,Were all proud to have voted for a President who is worthy of the nations respect, not to mention the military....nuff said
2 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:44 PM PST by blaze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Electoral College worked perfectly, God voted, and Bush was Selected.

What, the idiots want us recounting chads in every precinct in the U.S.A. for four years next time? Pure insanity.

If they abolished the Electoral College then I'd adopt the Democrats modus operendi and stuff ballot boxes, too. It'd be a nightmare.

Texas Democrat precincts and Pennsylvania precincts led the way, with 120% and 105% of respective registered voters voting in the last election. I say we go for 350,000 voters in the next election, and blast the myth of the apathic to smithereens.

3 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:44 PM PST by patriciaruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth
dropping my zeros...

I meant let's go for 350 million voters in the next election.

4 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:44 PM PST by patriciaruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Bush won handily among U.S. citizens who had a legal right to vote.
5 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:45 PM PST by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Darn it, "Newer" = "Newser" in the headline.
6 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:45 PM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
The Electoral College served its purpose PERFECTLY for situations like this. Without it, a few concentrated areas of the country would elect the President, rather than a wide cross-section of the country.

They wailing and gnashing of teeth continues. And I'm loving every minute of it.

7 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:45 PM PST by jporcus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Yawnnnnnn...
8 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:45 PM PST by Verax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jporcus
At least all of W's supporters were ALIVE and US Citizens who had a right to vote. Also lets look at a few statistics...
Counties won: Gore – 677 Bush – 2,434.
Square miles won: Gore – 580,134 Bush – 2,427,039
Population of counties won: Gore – 127 million Bush – 143 million
Murder rates in counties won by: Gore --- over 13 per 100,000 Bush --- less than 2 per 100,000
I think this says enough...oh does anybody still have that nice and pretty Red and Blue map to post?
9 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:45 PM PST by Swingj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: blaze
The Constitution is a compact of the parties - the federal government, the people and the states. The Electoral College is intended to provide some measure of protection against the tyranny of the majority which the liberals have made the keystone of their existence. Of course, liberals have never been concerned about the consistency of their beliefs unless it means winning elections.

My question to the liberals is "if the Electoral College is non-democratic and should be abolished, should not any Constitutional Amendment doing so also abolish the US Senate?" After all Montana has two Senators and less than a million citizens whereas California at least ten times the number of citizens and only two Senators - can anything be less democratic?

10 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:48 PM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Maybe we oughta give the Superbowl title to the team with the most total yards, and the World Series to the team that scores the most runs in seven games.

But I think we should keep the rules of the Constitution.

11 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:48 PM PST by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
You're right it is a giggler by Martin Plissner.
Then I started LOL, and that advanced, as I got further into the article, to ROTFLOL.
I'm better now. snicker, chuckle
Plissner was a real pisser2 with this one. chuckle, snicker take out the l&n...
12 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:48 PM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blaze
"Does any one take into account,the state was called to Gore before half of the state's polls were closed."

If you recall BEFORE election night Drudge bragged how he would release VNS Poll data BEFORE the networks did.
Sure enough, before the 2nd time zone in FL closed he "announced" Gore won.
Then Fox, according to O'Reilly, was the 1st network to "announce" Gore won before the FL polls had closed.
On election night I was at a friends house while she was on the State of FL election return site,
it showed Bush ahead while Fox and everyone else said Gore won.
I wonder how many Bush votes were lost by the 2nd time zone AND across the USA due to Drudge, Fox etc.
13 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:49 PM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Bush by 537; Gore by 537,179

Air brush figures, by air brains.

14 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:49 PM PST by chainsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth
Remember in the week or so before the election, when some pundits believed that Bush would win the popular vote and Gore would win the electoral college? In response, a couple of the usual suspects put together articles praising the electoral college to the skies. When the election happened, and the reverse had in fact occurred, the articles (which hadn't gone to press) were pulled. I believe their existence was known through the online versions.

I'm sorry my recollection is so hazy on this. Maybe someone else on the threads recalls the specifics?

15 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:51 PM PST by Ratatoskr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Swingj
I've argued that if anything we should have more resolution in our electoral college process. Two votes from every county in the country.

Eddie01 "actually I like the US Constitution just the way it is"

16 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:53 PM PST by The Real Eddie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
No doubt we would all be so much better off if the Presidenet were to be elected by the voters in New York and California.
17 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:53 PM PST by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink

18 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:54 PM PST by Diogenesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Oh, boy, I haven't gotten to say this in a long time:
BWAAAAAHHHHAAAAAA!
19 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:54 PM PST by sockmonkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
FYI--

Larry Elder: The Clintons and the Journalists who Love Them

20 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:54 PM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ratatoskr
It was more than a few weeks before the election that this happened. They(liberal talking heads) were saying how great the electoral college was because they thought President Bush may win the popular vote and gore's only chance was the college. They changed their strips as usual when it became apparent the reverse was going to happen. Liberals are never consistent (period, exclamation point)
21 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:54 PM PST by Caribou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: blaze
Not only was florida called on behalf of Goron -it CONTINUED to be in Gore's column when the percentages were 57%Bush... it looked really silly on TV. And instead of switching it to BUSH they switched it back to UNDECIDED.

So, apparently any state with 51% for GORE was decided but any state with over 50% for bush was still 'too close to call'

Dan "Boy is our face red" Rather knew damn well what he was up to...

22 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:55 PM PST by Mr. K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Martin Plissner, former executive political director of CBS News, is the author of "The Control Room: How Television Calls the Shots in Presidential Elections."

Ain't it the truth, Plissner. Ain't it the truth.

23 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:55 PM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
537,179/60,000,000=.00895 or 0.895%. Well within the vote counting margin of error.

Never abolish the electoral college! It's the only fair system!

That's all I have to say.

24 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:55 PM PST by Woodman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swingj
It's not red and blue, but it certainly tells the story.


25 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:56 PM PST by Commonsense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Too bad for those want to abolish the electoral college that it would require ratification by a number of states who would lose all their electoral clout thereby. Slim chance of that happening.

Now a worthwhile reform would be to simply assign the electoral votes automatically and abolish the office of "elector" as a person. We should not have to worry about electors being "flipped" as many Freepers did.

26 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:56 PM PST by Uncle Fud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Fud
Agree totally!
27 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:56 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
I must admit, I never really appreciated the genius of the Electoral College until Election 2000. Without it, the liberal's "Rural Cleansing" could not be challenged.

"Rural Cleansing" means the destruction of the "old-fashion" values on which the country was founded.

28 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:57 PM PST by libertylover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Martin Plissner, former executive political director of CBS News, is the author of "The Control Room: How Television Calls the Shots in Presidential Elections."

maybe THIS is the problem , marty

29 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:57 PM PST by InvisibleChurch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Martin Plissner


Antifederalist No. 72

On the Electoral College; On Reeligibility of the President

By an anonymous writer "REPUBLICUS," appearing in The Kentucky Gazette on March 1, 1788.

. . I go now to Art. 2, Sec. 1, which vest the supreme continental executive power in a president-in order to the choice of whom, the legislative body of each state is empowered to point out to their constituents some mode of choice, or (to save trouble) may choose themselves, a certain number of electors, who shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot, for two persons, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. Or in other words, they shall vote for two, one or both of whom they know nothing of. An extraordinary refinement this, on the plain simple business of election; and of which the grand convention have certainly the honor of being the first inventors; and that for an officer too, of so much importance as a president - invested with legislative and executive powers; who is to be commander in chief of the army, navy, militia, etc.; grant reprieves and pardons; have a temporary negative on all bills and resolves; convene and adjourn both houses of congress; be supreme conservator of laws; commission all officers; make treaties; and who is to continue four years, and is only removable on conviction of treason or bribery, and triable only by the senate, who are to be his own council, whose interest in every instance runs parallel with his own, and who are neither the officers of the people, nor accountable to them.

Is it then become necessary, that a free people should first resign their right of suffrage into other hands besides their own, and then, secondly, that they to whom they resign it should be compelled to choose men, whose persons, characters, manners, or principles they know nothing of? And, after all (excepting some such change as is not likely to happen twice in the same century) to intrust Congress with the final decision at last? Is it necessary, is it rational, that the sacred rights of mankind should thus dwindle down to Electors of electors, and those again electors of other electors? This seems to be degrading them even below the prophetical curse denounced by the good old patriarch, on the offspring of his degenerate son: "servant of servants". . .

Again I would ask (considering how prone mankind are to engross power, and then to abuse it) is it not probable, at least possible, that the president who is to be vested with all this demiomnipotence - who is not chosen by the community; and who consequently, as to them, is irresponsible and independent-that he, I say, by a few artful and dependent emissaries in Congress, may not only perpetuate his own personal administration, but also make it hereditary? By the same means, he may render his suspensive power over the laws as operative and permanent as that of G. the 3d over the acts of the British parliament; and under the modest title of president, may exercise the combined authority of legislation and execution, in a latitude yet unthought of. Upon his being invested with those powers a second or third time, he may acquire such enormous influence-as, added to his uncontrollable power over the army, navy, and militia; together with his private interest in the officers of all these different departments, who are all to be appointed by himself, and so his creatures, in the true political sense of the word; and more especially when added to all this, he has the power of forming treaties and alliances, and calling them to his assistance-that he may, I say, under all these advantages and almost irresistible temptations, on some pretended pique, haughtily and contemptuously, turn our poor lower house (the only shadow of liberty we shall have left) out of doors, and give us law at the bayonet's point. Or, may not the senate, who are nearly in the same situation, with respect to the people, from similar motives and by similar means, erect themselves easily into an oligarchy, towards which they have already attempted so large a stride? To one of which channels, or rather to a confluence of both, we seem to be fast gliding away; and the moment we arrive at it-farewell liberty. . . .

To conclude, I can think of but one source of right to government, or any branch of it-and that is THE PEOPLE. They, and only they, have a right to determine whether they will make laws, or execute them, or do both in a collective body, or by a delegated authority. Delegation is a positive actual investiture. Therefore if any people are subjected to an authority which they have not thus actually chosen-even though they may have tamely submitted to it-yet it is not their legitimate government. They are wholly passive, and as far as they are so, are in a state of slavery. Thank heaven we are not yet arrived at that state. And while we continue to have sense enough to discover and detect, and virtue en(>ugh to detest and oppose every attempt, either of force or fraud, either from without or within, to bring us into it, we never will.

Let us therefore continue united in the cause of rational liberty. Let unity and liberty be our mark as well as our motto. For only such an union can secure our freedom; and division will inevitably destroy it. Thus a mountain of sand may peace meal [sic] be removed by the feeble hands of a child; but if consolidated into a rock, it mocks the united efforts of mankind, and can only fall in a general wreck of nature.

REPUBLICUS


FEDERALIST PAPERS

Federalist No. 68

The Mode of Electing the President
From the New York Packet
Friday, March 14, 1788.

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded. I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.

All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: ``For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.

The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter.

The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other. It is remarkable that in this, as in most other instances, the objection which is made would lie against the constitution of this State. We have a Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President.

PUBLIUS.

30 posted on 11/16/2001 1:22:57 PM PST by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
"Still, do we really need more elections, in years to come, in which people are still arguing a year later about whether the president's margin in a single state was 537 votes (the official result in Florida) or 225 "

YES!!YES!!YES!!

What else would have gotten people involved in the process?The next election I imagine will have one of the highest turnouts that we have seen since WWII.

It will also be one of the hardest jobs conservative activists will ever have because uninformed ignorant voters who don't even speak or read Engish will be flocking to the polls.

31 posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:05 PM PST by ODDITHER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Caribou
Yes, you're right. There was one story in particular, though, that they managed to pull (US News, maybe?) before it hit the presses. That's the story that sticks in my mind (obviously the details didn't stick). It was by somebody awful.
32 posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:05 PM PST by Ratatoskr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
And, if the democRATS won you would be hearing how great the Electoral College is, how smart our ancestors were. That the system STILL works. SOUR GRAPES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
33 posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:05 PM PST by Puppage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monocle
The Electoral College was one of the many compromises made between the large, powerful Colonies and the smaller Colonies that made the ratification of the US Constitution possible. The deal is made and the die is cast. The only way to abolish the Electoral College is to amend the Constitution. There is no way in this world that 2/3 of the states are going to agree to do such a thing. It only takes 17 states who currently have disproportionately large representation in the Electoral College to prevent this from ever coming to pass. Wyoming, Rhode Island, Deleware, Montana, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Maine, Vermont, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, North and South Dakota, Idaho, Nebraska and Minnesota would never ratify such an amendment. To do so would be to exile themselves into permanent politcal oblivion.

So speculation about whether or not it would be a good thing is completely worthless. It's like saying that if I could just reduce the gravitational constant by 20%, I would be able to slam-dunk a basketball. It's true, but irrelevant.

I, myself, like the Constitution the way it is. I think having an overrepresentation of sparsely populated smaller states is a stabilizing influence on our country and ensures that more traditional rural values have a place in our national debates. But saying so is like saying that I like the fact that the sky is blue. It is what it is.

34 posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:35 PM PST by gridlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
We don't appear to disagree one iota. I was merely pointing out that liberals are congentially incapable of being logical.
35 posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:43 PM PST by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: monocle
My apologies. My disagreement is not with you, but rather with the "Opinion Leader" from CBS news.
36 posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:52 PM PST by gridlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Though there was no way he could have lost Texas or won New York, he would have worked hard to get out every vote in his own state and to shave Al Gore's vote in his best state.

And the rest of the States would have been irrelevant, proving our point.

37 posted on 11/16/2001 1:23:53 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper; Uncle Fud
Now a worthwhile reform would be to simply assign the electoral votes automatically and abolish the office of "elector" as a person.

And what if between the election and the day the electoral college met that the Pres and V.P. elect were killed? Or it was disclosed that they had sold themselves to our enemy and fooled the electorate? The real people electors are a backup, and I think we need to keep them.

It's worked for 212 years, and we shouldn't discard it lightly. And I still think fraud would be far more prevalent if we didn't have this system.

I am still sure we won the legal popular vote, meaning one vote per eligible voter, minus felons, minus dead people, minus no shows that a Democrat stuffed a ballot for, minus noncitizens, plus armed forces voting that was interfered with.

If you read the fine print of the media recount in Florida, you find that the only blacks disenfranchised were Republican black voters, and that Republicans cast far more ballots that were disqualified than Democrats
because they had "double votes", meaning the partisans grabbed handfuls of ballots and ran a thin rod through the Gore hole. If already a Gore vote, no problem. If a vote for anyone else, like Bush, then it was disqualified. If the ballot had no vote, the voter feeling neither candidate was appealing, then all of a sudden, it becomes a Gore vote.

I have gobs of information on all the fraud in a lot of other states. No, it would be a Democrat free for all fraud fest if we abolished the Electoral College.

38 posted on 11/16/2001 11:08:19 PM PST by patriciaruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: patriciaruth
You have made a very good point.
39 posted on 11/17/2001 4:31:15 AM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
why do the words eat dung come to mind
40 posted on 11/17/2001 4:36:22 AM PST by The Wizard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
There is no way in this world that 2/3 of the states are going to agree to do such a thing. It only takes 17 states who currently have disproportionately large representation in the Electoral College to prevent this from ever coming to pass. Wyoming, Rhode Island, Deleware, Montana, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Maine, Vermont, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, North and South Dakota, Idaho, Nebraska and Minnesota would never ratify such an amendment. To do so would be to exile themselves into permanent politcal oblivion.

Actually it only takes 13 states to block a constitutional ammendment. You were incorrect about a 2/3 majority of the states. Ratification requires approval by 3/4 of the states or 38 out of 50.

41 posted on 11/22/2001 5:19:33 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

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.

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