Posted on 02/15/2014 6:14:40 AM PST by LD Jackson
You’re absolutely right. The Democrats could focus entirely on major metropolitan areas, like Chicago and New York, and ignore states like Oklahoma (and even Texas beyond Dallas). This would also make it much easier for them to win elections by voting fraud.
EXACTLY! This is the dumbest idea I have EVER heard.
If they want to award the votes to the winner of the popular vote IN OKLAHOMA, then.. ok. But, never to the National winner. That's insane.
Oklahoma and you made a huge mistake.
Considering it came from deep-red OK, this a stunner. What in the hell are these OK senators imagining is the greater interest to be served by blowing off the will of the people to be accurately represented in the EC?
The EC is in place to stand as a bulwark against the very thing we’re seeing in the country now... inordinate power shifting to thickly populated metro areas.
This country is completely unhinged.
The Electoral College should be scrapped because the population shift to the large, liberal, urban areas is leading the college to the same point that just electing the President by popular vote would have. Right now if the right combination of just 11 or 12 states came together in the college they would determine the election result. If we can not keep Texas red, and occasionally win Ohio, conservatives will never elect another president.
The answer is to push through a Constitutional Amendment which gives the each state one vote in determining the president. The vote would be cast every four years by the governors of each state. The governors would have the authority to yearly review the president’s performance and remove that president with a vote of 34 minimum votes in favor. No person would be allowed to serve more than 12 years as president. A simple majority would be all that is necessary for the governors to hire the president. Candidates would apply for the position, and campaigning would be prohibited. This is more like a decision to hire or fire someone than the electing of a politician.
Currently there are 30 Republican governors. Think about it.
“Oklahoma and you made a huge mistake. “
Fortunately the bill also has to pass the House and be signed by the Governer to become law. The word I am getting from insiders is that it is DOA in the House.
“We will become like the empires of yore, mega cities which dominated vast swathes of surrounding countryside for their own aggrandizement - kind of like Chicago controls IL.”
That is exactly right. Outside of St. Louis and Chicago, Illinois is fairly conservative. Illinois Republicans are effectively disenfranchised. They have virtually no power or say in their own government even though they are a very large minority with over 40% (Romney = 41.1%) of the vote.
Chicago, a well known center of fraud and corruption, rules Illinois, and there’s not a darn thing the other 40%+ can do about it. THIS is what Oklahoma senators want on a national level??? It’s insane.
I’m sorry, but you’re dreaming. Just push through a constitutional amendment, eh? LOL!
How the hell do you determine the true “national popular vote”?
Al Gore Junior got 0.51% of the so-called popular vote. That does not include the 3,000 military ballots that the Florida Supremes approved (yet were not in Katherine Harris’ certified total as she held to her original figure).
There are states that never tabulate all of the absentee ballots because they “won’t make a difference” in determining which candidate would win the office in that state.
But if you are going to hold it to NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, you are holding it to a different standard that makes every one of those absentee ballots (and every stolen vote in other precincts) count so much more than they did in the past.
Get ready for never knowing the results of an election until 2 weeks after election day and countless challenges for recounts (as Rats can ballot stuff inner city votes in Philly and Chicago to sway the Kansas electoral college vote).
I’d prefer that my Congressman was required to cast an EC vote for the winner of the popular vote in his district. Senatorial votes should go to the popular vote candidate also.
Getting rid of the Electoral College would turn the United States into a larger version of New Jersey.
NJ has several urban areas (Jersey City, Newark, Paterson, Trenton, Atlantic City & Camden) and they effectively control the way the state swings in statewide and national elections. With rare exceptions, their combined population is just too much for the many rural and suburban Republican areas in NJ to overcome.
I could not possibly disagree more. Instead, I propose abolishing the 17th Amendment.
Think I’ll ask Brian Bingaman about how this travesty even survived to a floor vote.
In 2012 Obama beat Romney in CA by 3 million votes and in NY by 2 million votes. So Obama won nationally by 5 million votes and he had a cushion of 5 million from just CA and NY.
In contrast, Romney won Texas by 1.2 million votes.
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's electoral votes are effectively chosen by voters from other states, then the voting power of the citizens of that state have been severely diluted, or "abridged" according to Amendment XIV. Thus, their representation in the House will be reduced to a very small fraction of what it was originally. For example, a state with a voting population of 13 million, representing 5% of a national voting population of 260 milion will have their number of representatives reduced to 5% of what it is currently since the voting power of its voters have now been reduced to 5% of what it once was.
I hate to see Oklahoma go this route, but I would love to see California do it.
You say that, even though the Electoral College is what produced a victory for GWB over the popular vote in 2000.
There are three good reasons for keeping the Electoral College:
1. That's the system our Founding Fathers designed and embedded in the Constitution.
2. It isolates the impact of vote fraud in one city to just one state. Given a popular vote, the final decision could hang on a single precinct in a single city (e.g., Philadelphia).
3. It is more reflective of the wishes of the various stakeholders -- which includes the states themselves and, most especially, the inhabitants of the smaller states -- than a popular vote would be.
Finally, the Electoral College is every bit as rational as the popular vote -- the winner being selected on the same basis as, e.g., the World Series -- a winner of competitive units rather than total score.
“I wouldn’t expect to see any presidential candidates even to show up in states like South Dakota or Wyoming during the campaign.”
In two presidential campaigns, the only time Obama set foot in the state of TN was for a debate in Nashville. So much for the 57 states comment
If all the states adopted legislation that gave their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, the states themselves would no longer matter. The country could be ruled by whoever could control the largest cities, most of which are solidly Democrat of course. Large scale voter fraud in just one big city could possibly change the course of an election. Theoretically, very small majorities in 49 states could actually vote against a candidate, but he or she could still win enough votes from a single large city in a single state to change the result.
There are 8.175 million people in New York City. Politics aside, there is no way those people can possible reflect or even understand the aspirations of citizens across a nation as large as America. Nevertheless, 38 states have populations smaller than New York City!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
I never meant to imply it would be easy. We all know what the alternative is going to be if we do not find a way to curtail this growing tyranny. Obviously there is not much chance of getting new amendments enacted, but it is worth trying so that if it does fail we will have demonstrated that we sought peaceful measures first. As we all understand, on this forum, surrendering our liberty peacefully and passively is not an option.
The future may get really ugly, and it is important to do those things that are necessary to do with a clear conscience.
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.