Posted on 12/20/2016 2:32:13 PM PST by Olog-hai
The New York Times is calling for an end to the Electoral College.
Americans would prefer by overwhelming majorities to elect a president using a popular vote system, the newspaper’s editorial board said in a piece published Monday.
“They understand, on a gut level, the basic fairness of awarding the nation’s highest office on the same basis as every other elected office — to the person who gets the most votes,” the editorial said. …
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
NY first. let NY award delegates proportionally.
California too.
I call for an immediate end to the New York Times.
The puzzle editor takes a lot of flack for not being PC enough.
And all five subscribers agree.
Have you SEEN a NYtimes? It is a thin shadow of its former self.
It is FAR smaller, and FAR thinner.
It is approaching pamphlet status.
I’m predicting the NYT is going to be swarmed by new and accurate #realnews outlets.
I expect the old grey lady to pass in the next 4 years with no one to carry the casket.
Well, of course they do!
If I lived in New York and supported Democrats I would be in favor of eliminating it as well. It would make it easy for me to win - forever.
They must think we are idiots...
Well, of course they do!
That’s great.
Now get a constitutional amendment together and get it passed by 3/4 of the States.
If it’s as popular an idea as they say ... Easy peasy
No problem. Two-thirds of the house and senate or two-thirds of the state legislatures can propose an amendment or a Constitutional Convention.
Then, three quarters of the state legislatures can approve and make it law.
There is no way they will get more than ten states to go along with elimination of the electoral college. It disadvantages all of the states with low population.
So... Keep whining and tilting at windmills. It’s never going to happen.
An editorial with (1) very flimsy reasoning and faulty assumptions, proposing (2) a plainly doomed attempt to amend the Constitution. This, New York Times, is one of the main reasons you are going bankrupt.
If I wanted California to elect the President, I guess I would move there.
I wonder how many Senators each state should have according to the NYT’s.
The closest this came to happening was in 1969. An EC-abolishing amendment was passed by the House and had a majority of the Senate backing it, but could not get to the two-thirds mark in the Senate. At the time it was thought 30 States would quickly ratify the proposed amendment. Since then, the States and the People have wised-up regarding the reasons for the Electoral College. No chance of getting anywhere near that level of support for EC abolition now.
“They understand, on a gut level, the basic fairness of awarding the nation’s highest office on the same basis as every other elected office — to the person who gets the most votes,” the editorial said.
OK. Why not just govern the country by popular vote on all issues? Who would be OK with that? Just have referendums for everything. All those people making less than $200,000/year want everyone who is making $200,000 or more to pay $50,000 a year to a fund to be distributed to those making less, just have a referendum and make it the law.
Tyranny by the majority is tyranny nonetheless.
NY Times. what a rag they are. Get rid of something which helped to create this country, a system which has been fair, and there is a good reason why we have it.
Now the NY Times might want to get rid of it, but I refuse ot be ruled by NY City, Chicago, and CA , and of course millions of illegals voting.
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.