[Former Military Chick]

Wow the NY times is 2 for 2. But, wasn't this what Hill was pushing after the last election.

If so the Times will use her to push their agenda. Clinto/Times the agenda is the same.

[Che Chihuahua]

Oh great, now the dems can go crazy with vote fraud.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote. This shocks people in other nations who have been taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy.

The leaders of most other nations are not elected by majorites, but by pluralities (rather like all Democrat Presidents since 1944, except Johnson and Carter). In the parliamentary regimes, the voters don't even get to choose their leaders - the parties do, and then the voters get merely the choice of party or local party representative if they are lucky (as in Canada and Britain).

[Lunatic Fringe]

This nation does not elect any federal officials in a nationwide ballot... why should the President be different?

[Squantos]

Lets abolish mafia errr ahh unions and keep the EC !

[demlosers]

It's hard to tell New York City children that every vote is equally important

Do it for the children. LoL!

[jnarcus]

Apparently the Slimes does not understand the reasin that our founders set up the elecotral college. Small states are NOT over represented if anything they are under represented. If you want to go to a straight popular vite then last time around you would have ended up with Gore. The whole point of the electoral college is to make candidates work for votes from states and areas they would otherwise pass up. Look at the Bush Gore map of 2000....Gore came dangerously close to winning by focusing on the large population centers thus leaving out MOST of the rest of the country. The electoral college is massively better than ANY other possible voting suggestion that I have ever read....Read some history, under stand the nature of a republic, keep the electoral college

[dila813]

Electoral College is great, There should be a limit on the number of electors from a state before a state needs to split into two. California is insane, that monster needs to be split into three states.

[devolve]

"This shocks other nations!" -- NYT


Oh


We just gotta change the US Constitution!

[Dont Mention the War]

A few years ago, this page was moved by these concerns to support the Electoral College.

I bet that one would only have to go back a few months ago to find a Times editorial decrying any attempt to change the Constitution. Just run a search on the "Defense of Marriage Amendment."

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote it actually allows states other than New York, Massachusetts, California and Illinois to have some sort of say as to who gets to be President, and who doesn't.

Edited for intellectual honesty. If they're going to advocate radical alterations in the U.S. Constitution, they should -- at the barest minimum -- be honest as to precisely why they're so desperate to do so.

[demlosers]

The Slimes need a history lesson.

[Experiment 6-2-6]

The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are reasons enough for scrapping the system

Straight from the NY Slimes: Support for Tyranny of the Minority..

[Jet Jaguar]

(The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are reasons enough for scrapping the system.)

scrapping the system? NO WAY!

[claudiustg]

I thought hillary was going to get right on this about 4 years ago.The NYT would be much better off seriously investigating the charges against Kerry rather than batting the air with proposals to change the constitution. As it stands if the NYT likes something I'm against it.

[Leatherneck_MT]

This is the very reason that we should instead go back to the original system where the Senate chose both the President and the VP.

Our Founding Fathers were smarter than we realized.

[Cold Heat]

The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote.

Well, my friends at the "slimes" fail to realize that this is a Constitutional Republic" and not a European style democracy.

New York is not ever going to pick our president of these 50 states. It ain't gonna happen.

Stop repeating this stupid story every four years, ya hear!

[smoothsailing]

Ah, I just love the smell of desperation in the morning.

[Dont Mention the War]

We are hearing far more this year about the issue of storing hazardous waste at Yucca Mountain, an important one for Nevada's 2.2 million residents, than about securing ports against terrorism, a vital concern for 19.2 million New Yorkers.

Yeah, I'm sure port security is at the top of the list of concerns of the average resident of Syracuse.

[Greenpees]

This is, and always will be a ridiculous idea.

The elctorial system simply reflects the desire of the majority of congressional districts within a state, then of states within the country. It prevents mob rule. Of course, not all electors get thier way. If three districts out of twenty in one state voted for greens, and the rest for blues..the state goes to the blue. It is, after all, a republic, not a straight democracy.

It's the same reason that the number three guy in succesion to the president is the speaker of the house. He is closer to the people, by choice, than any individual in congress. He is chosen by majority election within the house. A house that clearly represents each district of the US.