No way ... !!
..Ding!
The Dems would love nothing more than to have New York City, LA, Boston, Baltimore and Philidelphia control who will be the president every four years.
That happens and I believe many states would secede...
Amendment XIV
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
If a state decides to allow the rest of the country choose its electors instead of its own citizens, then it should lose all representation in the House per the 14th Amendment.
Anyone who supports this is an assh0le, including Fred Thompson, whom I supported in ‘08.
If it's good for the Rats, it's bad for the country.
Simple as that!
The Rats have been trying to kill the Electoral College for a long time. They want the ghettos and barios controlling who gets nominated and elected. They always have.
When will the RNC address the matter of open republican primarys?
That’s what’s killing us.
Geez...
Too late. Passed in Maryland.
After carpetbagging her way into the erection in the state of New York, then winning, the first bill advanced by Her Thighness Hitlery Ramrod Klintoon was to propose to change the Electoral College to a national popular vote. If you trust Ms. Cankles, vote your “conscience.”
That icky Constitution keeps messing things up.
It's also anti-state. It disenfranchises the majority voters in a given state who voted against the Democrat candidate. It's abusive tyranny, plain and simple.
A state's electoral college votes should reflect the votes of the people within that state alone. Stop blurring the lines. Stop diluting votes.
They're embittered because they happen to be three-for-three historically being on the losing end of Electoral College vs. popular vote.
BWAAAHAHAHAHA! The biggest supporter has gotta a plane to catch!
The founders wisely designed this compromise system of vote accounting. A state gets a certain amount of weight in the choice of a president just because it’s a state. The rest of its weight in the choice comes from the number of people it has. Back in the Gore concede/unconcede debacle of the year 2000, one liberal Chicago newspaper commentator even first said that the E.C. was the best way to choose a “mushy middle” president who had a reason to address his campaign promises to the entire country. (The commentator soon got yanked back onto the orthodox liberal plantation and was stumping vigorously for Gore.) Tiny states, at least, who agree to toss their votes away like this deserve what it gets them in lost local control later. And it would give, say, California politicians a reason to dive into fifty different states’ recount petitions, not just one.
You will have “Democracy” over a Representative Republic, which equals chaos.
It is a very bad idea, why does Fred Thompson support it?
In the baseball world series, a team can win the series by scoring 4 runs and the losing team can score 42 runs.
1-0
0-14
1-0
0-14
1-0
0-14
1-0
It just doesn’t seem fair! Time to reform the World Series to allow the team scoring the most runs in total to win the series.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2705097/posts?page=29#29
Anyone know who the other members of the RNC who were in favor were?
Sure, Al Gore had a nominal electoral vote majority in 2000 of 500,000+ votes. HOWEVER ... while I'm not a close student of the matter, the estimates I've seen of illegally cast votes in 2000 range from around 500,000 up to two million. The dems fight bitterly to block voter verification for obvious reasons (about which they of course lie), but absent the Electoral College, it would be essential to guarantee the integrity of the rolls. I doubt that's a bridge the dems really want to cross.
Take away the illegal votes, and I'm not at all sure that Bush didn't win the popular vote majority in 2000.
Take away the scandalously early network (mis)call on Florida, which suppressed Republican voter turnout in the West, and Bush would almost certainly have won the popular vote majority.
The end game of an election like 2000 would also be different. In 2000, most of the battleground states leaned blue. The bulk of campaign funds were spent on democrat turf, where Republicans were swimmming uphill to try to take away a blue state in an Electoral College-driven strategy. Take away the EC, and those resources could have been spent running up Republican margins in solid red states that, because they were never in doubt, received little national party funding. Bottom line: I don't accept for a moment that Al Gore, absent fraud, would have won in 2000 in a majority vote contest. Too many other factors in play.