Abolish the Electoral College

NY Times ^ | August 29, 2004

[EveningStar]

bttt

[NavySEAL F-16]

The true colors of the NYT are now coming out.

I think the NYT needs a refresher course in "The Federalist Papers".

This country was specifically founded against "mob rule". It's why we are a republic and not a true democracy. Of course with that stupid redistricting, incumbents can hardly be booted out even when they die.

Our Founding Fathers were a lot smarter and had the foresight to protect this great country from the idiots at the NYT -- fed by the Billaries of the world.

[MeekOneGOP]

Yep!

It's Bush-Cheney 2004, btw. You can bet on that. :^D

Here is the FULL version of that.

[Remember_Salamis]

I could have streamlined my directions like that too, but I went into detail.

[edsheppa]

The small states that benefit from the Electoral College will never vote to abolish it.

I'm not as pessimistic. If it were part of a populist reform package to "take back our government" they might.

[Gelato]

Why doesn't New York just secede from the union?

Then it can use its own wiser-than-the-Founding-Fathers plan, and spare the rest of us the headache.

[Republican Wildcat]

The New York Times does not understand what it is to live in America. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of Americans don't understand the Electoral College either because basic civics education ceased to be a priority in the schools a long time ago.

[Republican Wildcat]

Passing blame to others. How Democratic. :-)

(j/k)

[farfromhome]

Oh man. If Aanold could get that passed in California it would be great. I think it is a good idea. Like the balance in the EC, bigger voting groups get more votes, but smaller voting groups are still represented. If my vote could make the difference in the selection of an elector, that would mean a lot to me.

[Remember_Salamis]

"Thanks for posting the EV count for that method, I did not know them.
In a way, such a method would make the Presidental race overly populist.
Whereas candidates now focus on a handful of "battleground" states and said states issues in play;
EV by cong dist would mean that each cong dist is worth the same so populist themes would go farther - esp. in urban districts that have only 40,000 voters

that's my $0.02"

-- Populism would do down because the State Legislatures would become "Kingmakers", drawing the congressional district lines. This would put the emphasis on controlling the legislature to control the presidency to some extent. And it's pretty hard to use mass media and pupulism to win a state rep. distict.

[SBprone]

You can deliver mail or perform federal government services anywhere in this country without having to use detachments of soldiers to provide security. This is not true in most countries in the world and the electoral college is an important reason why our country is so peaceful compared to elsewhere.

When residents of small states have Presidential candidates come visit them to kiss their rural butts and beg for their votes it keeps these small states residents involved with national politics. If you cut these people out of the process and rule them with majority tyranny they WILL take up arms against their government. As it is they get a lot more clout from those three electoral votes than they could ever hope to get from violent resistance.

NYT knows this, and what they don't say is that when push comes to shove they want rural malcontents put down with all the terrible might of our United States Armed Forces.

Same to you NYT!

[bert]

A far, far better course, a course that would be of extreme benefit to the Republic would be to abolish the New York Times.

[americanbychoice2]

I should have said that pure democracy is CLOSE to anarchy.
Just like the saying Genius is very close to Lunacy. All that can be disputed since it is completely opposite from each other.
I kept my response very limited and simple on purpose. Of course, you are correct.

[Sandy]

If three districts out of twenty in one state voted for greens, and the rest for blues..the state goes to the blue.

Not necessarily. If a state wants to give 15% of the electoral votes to green and 85% to blue, it can do that. Maine and (I think) Nebraska both allocate electoral votes on a district by district basis. Winner-take-all is not Constitutionally required. The Constitution only says,

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.

[Paleo Conservative]

I'm not as pessimistic.

I'm not pessimistic. I'm optimistic. The self-interest of the smaller states will safeguard against repeal of the Electoral College. There may be some sort of reform of it, but I seriously doubt there will be direct election of the President.

[Leatherneck_MT]

thpppppt :)

[Former Military Chick]

I agree with everything you have said, but, I do like the BULL$HIT word.

I have been online from oh early 90s and I have not seen that typed the way you did.

Guess I am just to sheltered.

[farfromhome]

That's why voters should vote their conscience and not let the media decide. I live in CA, but I'm still planning on voting.

[Former Military Chick]

I would suggest that you send a note to the Times to clarify, but, after posting a different article last night, it seems papers are being flooded with fake mail.

Sometimes they catch other times they don't. The real losers, those that live in that area.

[austingirl]

Without the electoral college, the big East Coast and Left cities will elect the President - this can't be allowed to happen.