Yep, can't miss it.
Posted on 11/07/2004 8:24:48 AM PST by redfish53
No it isn't efficient. Neither is a three branch government. It isn't about efficiency or direct Democracy - it is about protecting the individual freedom of each and every American citizen. If you want direct Democracy, go join a lynch mob. If you want efficiency, go to a nation run by a dictator. If you want individual liberty, stick with the divinely inspired Constitutional system framed by our founding fathers.
Keep on tokin' that hookah, Tribune.
LOL
Yep. What these idiot don't understand is the the country was setup as a republic. The people in each state vote for representatives to choose the president. It's the states that actually choose the president based on each states popular vote. The Dems would love the popular vote since most of the country doesn't agree with them. It'll never happen though.
Yep...
Kerry wouldn't have won even without the electoral college. In fact, without it the election would have been over way earlier than it was.
All that said, abolishing the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Amendment, something the Dems say is unecessary when protecting the legal definition of marriage because "it's a states rights issue". The same argument applies to all 50 states, most of which would be disaffected by such a Constitutional amendment.
Bunch of hypocrits. Bunch of fascists.
Well, that depends...That depends on whether the United States is now one State (singular) or whether the United States is still 50 states (plural)...
I'd like to think each State is still a sovereign State whereby each State has a vote...Unfortunately, in the current scheme of thing in the New World Order and our race to Globalism, the United States is perceived to be one State...A nation State...Just like the EU is now one State...
We won't have the electoral vote much longer...
Spent all afternoon talking with family about this...they took 3000 years of mistakes and learned from them
Over my dead body (I'm not kidding)
They won't change it, because they can't change it. It's all navel-gazing in the press, because there will never be 35 states that agree to change it. Articles like this one are useless and unproductive for anybody (not questioning the posting of it, just the content).
Yep. Dividing a state's electoral votes is nothing more than a popular vote.
Navel gazing...they just want to be the center of attention at the next cocktail party...come coke-fest
These newspaper that require you to sign up before your can read them are as stupid as those arguing the elctoral college must go.
Guess that make the Chicago Tribune 2x stupid.
the chicago tribue is one that has outlived its time....
to further your thought, there is no such thing as an efficient government. we just happen to have the best that has ever served mankind.
Yep, can't miss it.
Or put another way, the president would be chosen by the people of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, Las Vegas, New York...and not one vote in one place outside those cities would count.
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.