Funny they would use the Civil War as a history marker here. Abolish the Electoral College and we will have another Civil War.
A state like wyoming shouldn't have 2 Senators either even if they are GOP.
If you don't agree with me then you don't agree with abolishing the EC !
NY Times vs. the Constitution BUMP
Let's do away with state lines while we are at it. No need to give every state (including Rhode Island and Alaska) 2 Senators. Why do we need 50 governors'? With the federal courts dictating laws to the states, let's just get the whole shebang overwith...
Small wonder the New York Slimes endorses this sort of change. It would cement their anti-American Leftist stranglehold on the Presidency.
The Slimes wants to abolish the EC for one reason only, and it's not because "every vote would count", it's because Al Gore fell victim to the EC. If this country did away with the EC, it will only allow this country to move quickly toward Socialism, whereby all the urban areas would control the policymaking. The EC was put into place for a purpose, each state has two Senators, and the Founding Fathers realized all this. Liberals have never been fans of equality.
Without the Electoral College, New York City would be able to use massive vote fraud to increase its influence over the election. With the Electoral College, once a candidate has a comfortable margin in a particular state (perhaps 5%+) there is no incentive to increase that margin by pandering to the extremes within that state.
Well for one, 500,000 votes is miniscule for an American election. It says nothing of who's more popular. That's an attempt by the writer to use a big looking number to make his point look better. Second, Gore didn't the majority, so that doesn't work either. A runoff would probably have been necessary, and Bush could have won a runoff.
With our country divided into states, something like the Electoral Collage is necessary. Without it, a few big cities would decide the close elections.
Most ridiculous is this idiot trying to make the electoral college look like a few hundred people deciding the outcome of the election. I'm sorry, but that's hilariously stupid. The electors are decided by the results from each state, and going state by state, each state getting a say, is the best way to go.
Let's see now. kerry wins 49 states by 50,000 votes each. Pres Bush wins Texas by 3,000,000 votes. BUSH WINS!
Let's see now. kerry wins 49 states by 50,000 votes each. Pres Bush wins Texas by 3,000,000 votes. BUSH WINS!
So what's the problem?
No matter how many times history has proven the danger of "pure" democracy, aka mob rule, the NYT just won't give up on it.
Wanna stop the "dump the electoral college" people in their tracks?
Ask them if they wanted a Florida-style recount in ALL 50 STATES in 2000 because the two candidates came within the margin of error that should require a recount. Can you imagine the chaos and dirty tricks that would happen? Or would they want NO recourse for a narrow loser in the national popular vote?
Sorry. One state of that sort of hokum was plenty enough for me.
The electoral college is one of the most ingenius things our founding fathers have devised. Once in a blue moon it creates a controversy like it did in 2000 but most of the time it settles arguments rather that starts them and we should be grateful for that.
Thought you might be interested in this thread.
The NYT should check into states rights. If New York wants to apportion its vote, it's free do so, as a couple of other states already do.
The really easy way to win the popular vote without winning the electoral vote is to win very high margins in a few states. Each state has two senators, and the electoral vote for each state is the number of senators plus congressmen. If a candidate wins big in the large states while losing small states or just wins big in one region, the extra votes allocated to for senators will add up rather quickly. That happened in 1888 when Grover Cleveland ran for reelection. His main issue was free trade which was very popular in the South but unpopular elsewhere. Cleveland racked up 60-80% of the popular vote throughout southern states. I might also add that the black vote was suppressed in those states. If it had not been, would Cleveland have won the plurality of the popular vote? In fact only in 1876 did a candidate winning a majority of the popular vote lose the electoral vote.
In 2000, Al Gore won just 20 states plus the District of Columbia. Bush won 30 states. That means Bush won nine more than Gore yielding 18 more senatorial electoral votes. That's the same number of electoral votes as Michigan in 2000. It was as if Bush had won an additional medium large state. In the 20th century only two winning presidential candidates won the presidency while not winning in the majority of states, Kennedy in 1960 and Carter in 1976.
Hey DEMs......... da rules is da rules!!!!
The NYT is not ignorant. They are playing to the ignorance of the multicultural morons who vote Rat.
We who understand history can not be fooled by their propaganda.
>>the president is chosen not by the voters themselves, but by 538 electors. It's a ridiculous setup
It is not!
It's a built in check and balance against Dem propagandists.