Posted on 08/31/2012 10:54:28 AM PDT by Victory111
Former vice president Al Gore is calling for an end to the Electoral College the system that cost him the presidency in 2000.
Gore said that many voters who live outside the dozen or so battleground states are cheated by the system that allocates delegates from the state level on a winner-take-all basis. He called for presidential elections to be determined by the popular vote.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Al Gore calls for an end........horny again Al?
I keep telling my lib friends that if the good people of TN had voted for him, the whole hanging chad thing would have been a moot point.
If you can’t carry the state where you were born and a Senator and your daddy was a Senator....then you don’t deserve to be the Prez.
Still crazy after all these years.
AlBore Theme Song.
There are already a few states already allocating electoral college delegates to votes from individual Congressional districts, and if memory serves those are Nebraska and New Hampshire or Maine.
That change could be made at the state level without a Constitutional amendment, and would put in play many rural counties in states like New York, Illinois and California.
Better men dedicated their "lives, their fortunes & their sacred honor," to achieving the State sovereignty that Britain recognized by the Treaty Of Paris--1783.
William Flax
If only Al had borrowed John Kerry’s lucky hat he may have won.
That dumbas$ couldn’t even win his home state.
You failed to steal the election 12 years ago, Algore, give it up.
If it were a choice between eliminating the Electoral College or the historically criminal Democratic Party, I’d choose eliminating the historically criminal Democratic Party on the grounds of unconstitutional misconduct, high crimes and misdemeanors, and treason.
Al Gore’s desire to eliminate the Electoral College is just another attempt to deny the state governments and individual citizens the right to exercise their sovereignty and thereby their ability to have any effective voice in local, state, or Federal government. He is simply wanting to eliminate another potent obstacle to his imposition of despotic tyranny.
Al who?
jmho....
Absolutely! I have argued for the Congressional District [CD] method for years, with the winner of the state getting the 2 electoral vote [EV] bonus.
It reflects the way we elect Congress, gives every CD an equal voice in the vote, and cuts down on recounts [only CDs with close results].
MD [where I live] has passed the National Popular Vote [NPV] law, which won’t go into effect unless enough states with a cumulative total of 270 EVs also sign on - VERY FOOLISH!
MD would overturn the results of its election if the winner of the state lost the NPV. It is quite likely unconstitutional since it allows voters from other states to determine the award of its EVs.
That is why I am hoping Romney wins the election - because [had MD’s NPV law been in effect] MD’s 10 EVs would be switched from Obama [a certainty] to Romney.
Then, these sore loser DEMs from 2000 in MD would realize what an assinine law this is, that their votes were “robbed” from them, and will demand the NPV law’s repeal ...
algore = Bloated, crazy POS
Of course the many voters who live outside the top 20 major population centers would be cheated otherwise and campaign expenses would be even higher if candidates had to compete in major tv markets like NY, LA, Chicago, Dallas, etc. that are not presently in play because of the states they are in.
The Electoral College was a brilliant design for its time which is still producing benefits today. I’d rather see candidates campaign in Iowa, Ohio, Missouri and Colorado than simply jetting from coast to coast which is what would happen if you remove the Electoral College.
Yes, the man with 0.51% majority of the certified (but not complete tallied) popular vote speaks!
We’d STILL be recounting the 2000 election if it had to be done NATIONWIDE, county by county, precinct by precinct.
The absentee ballots were not all counted in Gore “popular win”. In some states, there were not enough outstanding ballots to make a difference. In Floriduh, the Florida Supremes ruled in favor of the 3,000 military ballots but Katherine Harris kept to her ORIGINAL tally and did not add them.
Al Gore is a fool, an accused rapist, and a crazed sex poodle who plays on our fears. Get lost Al (like you did when you went for a hike once).
This is personal for him. He'll never cease to be angry about the 2000 election.
“Maybe it would be a better idea to do it by square miles.”
Actually, it would be best in the long term (for both the Republican party in particular and Euro-Americans in general) for states to switch from a “winner take all” system of assigning electors to the “assignment by congressional district” that the states of Maine and Nebraska currently use.
This would go a long way toward protecting conservative influence in the next several decades. Let me give you a soon-to-be example: Texas.
Right now, Texas is staunchly Republican, but that is going to change as the demographics of the state change (and they are changing rapidly NOW). The lion’s share of babies born in Texas are now Hispanic, both legal and illegal (possibly more of the latter). These “new Texans” aren’t voting now, but in 18-20 years, they will, and to believe that they’re politics will be the same as the gringos they’ll eventually replace on the voting rolls is a fantasy bordering on delusion.
What this means is that the 55 winner-take-all electoral votes of Texas will eventually “tip” from the right to the left. Once that happens, the presidency will become out-of-reach for Republicans, as there already are enough high-electoral-vote “blue states” to give them a significant “starting advantage” in presidential contests. Without Texas, it will be all over for the G.O.P.
I’m older, and may not live to see Texas tip, but it WILL happen. There’s nothing complicated about it, it’s the relatively simple math of demographics, and it’s inevitable.
The only solution to stop it will be to “change the system”. If Texas moves to a “congressional district” scheme of assigning electors, this will go a long way to dilute the growing numbers of Hispanics within the state. No, Texas won’t keep all 55 electoral votes in the “red column”. But it WILL keep enough of them so that the Pubbies will still have a chance at the presidency.
It’s obvious why the ‘rats want to throw out the electoral college.
What isn’t so obvious is that if we don’t re-structure the selection of electors as they are currently assigned in the red states, the growing demographic numbers of non-Euros may tip enough critical states leftward enough to make it mathematically impossible for the Republicans to win the presidency again.
So, my slogan re the Electoral College is, “mend it — don’t end it”.
If we are unwilling to fix it at the state levels, if we refuse to understand or acknowledge what’s coming, we are eventually going to end up with a situation that, by then, will be impossible to fix, and will forever guarantee the ‘rats the presidency.
That change could be made at the state level without a Constitutional amendment, and would put in play many rural counties in states like New York, Illinois and California.
ME and NE do this. Perfectly constitutional since the award of the electoral votes is determined by the people within state boundaries.
Unlike the National Popular Vote law [which some states have enacted] that awards the electoral votes based on the votes of people OUTSIDE of state boundaries.
Th NPV laws [which are not yet in effect] are quite likely unconstitutional.
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.