Posted on 08/26/2007 3:06:50 PM PDT by melt
The fact is, however, that without the electoral college it would have been an entirely different campaign right from the start. Just to limit the discussion to the endgame, the closing days of the 2000 campaign had Bush up by 3-5% across most of the country, except for the septic parts. Gore was in the position of having to sweep all the relatively close states to have an outside chance of winning. (And he nearly did, thanks mainly to the late hit on the DUI, but that's another story.)
Democrats, in fact, were investing some considerable time and effort in October 2000 in reminding people that Gore could lose the popular vote and still win in the electoral college. That went down the dems' infinitely capacious memory hole the moment the shoe turned out to be on the other foot.
This dynamic led to the closing weeks of the campaign being fought almost entirely on democrat turf. With a direct popular vote, Republicans could have concentrated in running up the totals in safe GOP havens instead of slogging it out in Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc. My theory is that the Republican victory in 2000 would probably have been easier with a direct popular vote.
Moral: be careful what you ask for, as you may get it.
...so are two foxes and one chicken voting on what to have for lunch...
yeah and hillary has the ugly balls to talk about invisible americans in her ads.
up to her last gasp, scratching away with harpy claws at what is good and right and proper in America
Feinstein: And while I’m at it, I’m also introducing a bill for proportional representation in the Senate. Why should Hawaii get 2 Senators and California get only 2, as well? It’s not fair!
-PJ
Better idea, Dianne: Only those who own property and pay income taxes may vote in any election. Keep the electoral college and prepare to be out of office soon, very soon, commie-mommy.
Interestingly, she probably couldn't do that even by constitutional amendment, let alone by ordinary legislation. According to Article V of the Constitution, it's the one thing in the Constitution that can't be amended ("no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate"). Assuming that at least one state is against it, the amendment would fail.
I guess I'm also assuming that this limit in Article V would be respected. I wouldn't put it past them to just amend Article V, though.
I like the reminder in a post up-thread that the states would have to ratify any such measure. I feel better after that little reminder :)
And the beast thinks she's smarter than the founding fathers? lol!
She’s not even smarter than a box of rocks, which doesn’t say much for those who elect her :D
If I live to be 100 years old I'll never understand that.
Outrageous!
It would be very good for the country to go through this fight. I doubt she could muster the 2/3 majority in either house of Congress. But if she did it would flounder on the 3/4 of states. Only 13 states would need to vote no to stop it, just like the ERA. Actually they don’t even have to vote no, just don’t take action on it.
Pretty much any state with 3, 4 or 5 electoral votes does much better in the current system then they would under the DiFi-Direct plan.
It would be fun to see New York and San Fran defeated by recalcitrant red-necks in Wyoming, Idaho, South Dakota, North Dakota and a few other blue states.
It would be a nice wind up for using the rest of the Constitution and disassembling the illegal welfare state of FDR. One more good Supreme Court justice and it becomes possible.
I agree...let’s do it...while we are at it let’s abolish Senators too...the electoral college and the Senate are related.
Ugh.....degrees in what?
“And the current system enables a handful of states to become battleground states, and disenfranchises tens of millions of American voters”. This is much like California. Los Angeles and San Francisco control the elections here. The state needs to be split in half. San Francisco could be part of Southern California.
Interesting angle. Thanks.
For example,a Wyoming voter was actually given 2 votes by the founders to one vote given to the gang banger pedophile dog abuser from California (just getting into the spirit). To vote for this idea proposed by a California lefty (for open borders) would be like giving up half of that individual Wyoming voters power. Politicians will never come to these thirteen smallest states ever again if the Constitution gets amended and gives direct election.
Computer forensics and criminology.
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.