Posted on 06/03/2004 8:00:39 PM PDT by Dont Mention the War
Didn't read the entire article. Do they know that it's up to each state to decide how to allocate their electoral vote? I vaguely recall one NW state that splits their votes proportionately or by Congressional district.
"Only a left wing demagogue would equate slavery and sufferage with the electoral college."
They always bring up that same tired crap every time a conservative resists changing something that works.
Since the last Presidential election was certified with only 0.52% difference in the popular vote, we would have required a NATIONAL recount in EVERY county to determine who won. Yeah. That would have been peaceful.
Let the major cities forever decide the direction of this nation? I don't think so. Bush Country spoke and showed how much difference of opinion there is in "flyover country".
Anarchists like chaos. They don't agree with our constitutional form of government.
Maine and Nebraska give one electoral vote to a candidate who wins a CD. The balance go to the state winner. Thus in Maine, there is one electoral vote per CD, and two for the state winner. In Nebraska, two for the state winner, and one for each CD. Bush came close to nabbing one of the Maine CD's. This system adopted nationwide, would reduce the potential chaos by a whole bunch, but still it has the potential of multiple jurisdictional litigation.
It takes a 2/3's majority to pass a constitutional amendment in Congress. However, it takes ratification by 3/4 of the states before it becomes law. There is no way 3/4 of the states will vote to surrender the power the electoral college gives them. The big ones like NY, CA, IL, OH, PA, and MI might along with some of the hard core leftist states but beyond that, most would not.
Business Week Letters To The Editor
http://www.businessweek.com/custserv/letters.ed.htm
Not only that, but a supermajority of the state legislatures must also ratify it. The later is true even if the amendment is proposed by a Constitutional Convention, the alternative method specified by the Constitution. The Con-Con itself must also be called by a super majority of the state legisaltures. (2/3 majority in both cases). Like you said, that ain't gonna happen.
If every Repub could/would cancel - if only for a short time even - their subscriptions to NYT's; Business Week and other Lib mags.; their lib newspapers; and stopped writing the check to their liberal alma mater; would it help?
I don't know; probably not; but might make a big enough statement to shake them a bit.
Seems like it could at least make a threatening statement. Wish everyone could/would do their part and stop paying for the Left's efforts to refashion America to their image.
We could call it 'write off a Lib' week . . .or month. . .a year - or forever.
Or just call it America's Liberal weight loss program. Where every anti-Leftists goal is to 'drop ten liberals' in ten days or less.
This knee jerk supremacy issue makes for poor government, not sound government. It is precisely the diverse varieties of electoral usages of representational selection that gives our government sound strength, not weakness.
Read what was said when it was created in Federalist 68
If the United States elected its President by simple nationwide popular vote, the nation wouldn't survive ten years.
The leech majorities would enslave and impoversh the working minorities to the utter ruination of all.
The dominance of Iowa and New Hampshire -- two small and not-terribly-representative throwbacks to Norman Rockwell America -- distorts the entire race, forcing contenders to shape issues designed to catch fire with the locals.
One county is the same as any other at that point. Federal judges are mandating to states what the laws must be.
The United STATES is not long for this world.
No, I mean it's a huge special section within that issue. Not just one little column.
One elector from DC withheld abstained in 2000; an elector from Washington voted for Ronald Reagan in 1976; and an elector from Virginia voted for Libertarian John Hospers in 1972. That shouldn't happen. We're playing with fire. Ditch the electors, but keep the electoral votes.
The founding fathers were right. Pure Democracy is the rule of the mob.
Contrary to Business Week, I'll recommend the other direction. Restrict sufferage to those over 25 and honorably discharged veterans. Remove popular election of Senators - we don't need two Houses of Representatives.
Ya, the electors are a dangerous anachronism, and should be bounced. I agree. We seem to agree on a lot. :)
Instead you will see a flood of negative editorials and news articles that Bush will be prohibited from answering.
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.