Posted on 10/30/2004 10:34:44 PM PDT by TBBT
I was just watching CNN. The topic - Do we need to dump the Electoral College? I've seen a lot of discussion on this issue in the MSM lately. Campaign Finance Reform used to be the MSM's love. Will it now be replaced by the idea of replacing the ECV with the Popular Vote?
Kill the ECV and all of the folks and the votes in the rural states will no longer matter. Of course all the metro areas are all Blue. No doubt the reason behind the facination of the MSM.
plus no check on the voter fraud. the cities will dump votes
IN their DREAMS!!!
Dumping the Electoral College would require "meddling with the Constitution," which I think the MSM came out against during the gay marriage debate.
The MSM would love nothing better than to sh*tcan the flyover states, which they perceive as full of no-nothing rubes.
Interesting. Would DNCNN be advocating such a change if the potential outcome was reversed? It seems to me that this is a tantamount admission that Sen. Rice-in-the-ass is going to lose.
I believe much of this media ruckus vis-a-vis the electoral college is predicated on the assumption that their guy Kerry will lose the electoral vote but win the popular vote.
I just don't see enough states going for the idea.
I think Colorado's ballot initiative to split it's electoral vote based on the popular vote in that state is dead. However, I think we have not seen the last of this idea. I expect we'll be seeing other states coming out with ballot initiatives like this one in the future. I don't see this as a good thing either. It still gives the cities in this country too much power...
Barack Obama, soon to be the next socialist Senator from the people's republic of Illinois, said last week, his first mission once he gets to the Senate is to abolish the electoral college. Hillary knows this is the only way she can win the Presidency. I smell the Clintons behind this and we all know the MSM worships at the feet of the Clintons.
Alas, this idealism is appearing only an impotent fantasy.
Hitlery floated this turd of an idea back in 2000 or 2001.
I've seen a few polls that indicate that Bush may take more than 50% of the popular vote. Looks like bad weather along the East Coast on Tues. That will actually be a negative to kerry. democrat turnout is lower when the weather is bad.
FAT CHANCE! The yokels of Fly Over Country are going to stiff arm any manuvering by the coastal elites.
Any idiot who wants to dump the electoral college merely needs to call for an amendment (which the majority of senators and states must approve), or call for a consitutional convention. Both of these acts create the atmosphere for other events.
Lets look at the impact of going popular vote. Forget about Iowa and New Hampshire...no one will care what they think. You want massive votes....then you go to Texas, Florida, California and New York. If you have 65 percent of the voters in each of those states lined up...then half of the election is over. All the millions that used to pour into Iowa and NH...gone...won't come back. Does anyone care for Alaska? No...so there won't be any political advertising there whatsoever. Same for North Dakota...don't even worry about South Dakota.
Under popular vote...big states count big...and little states count very little.
It takes just 13 states to block a proposed constitutional amendment when it goes out for ratification. (It takes 3/4ths of the states to ratify.) Add to those two points that there are 13 states which have only one, two or three Members of the House. Those are the ones which gain the most by having two more College votes added for their two Senators.
In short, both the Senators and the state legislators from small states which benefit from the existence of the College would have to vote to abolish it. Ain't gonna happen. The talking heads are talking through their hats on this one.
Congressman Billybob
How someone with that little understanding of our system, gets any air time anywhere is beyond me.
Dumping the electoral college would disenfranchise most of the country and elections would be decided by few states while all the rest were ignored. Easier for politicians because they could focus more money of fewer states and Dems could ignore much of what they feel are those braindead fly-over states. Anyone belive that Kerry would give a crap about people in Iowa, Wisconsin,Indian, Nebraska, etc.. if not for electoral college?
And that is why these small states would NEVER ratify the constitutional amendment it would take to do away with the electoral college. It takes 3/4 of the states, it's not gonna happen period.
What about replacing the winner-takes-all of the states with a district-based appointment of all but two electors from each state (leaving the legislature to decide the method of allocation for the last two)? I'd think that such a change would increase the power of more than 37 states.
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.