Our forefathers were brilliant to put the electoral college in place. Without it, Philadelphia, NYC, Chicago, LA would choosing the President.
Your right and those boobs out there that htink it should be done away with spend way to much time listening Hitlery or in college somewhere having thier minds filled with crud by some liberal profeser.
Nah - let's make ALL the states equal representation almost just like the socialists want - One State, One vote :>)
The conservatives would CRUSH the leftist slugs then!
So, LA, you can't get an accurate count of your illegal aliens. Well, those in jail, getting ER treatment or public welfare constitutes 38% of the total, therefore, we will deduct 38% of your population for congessional reapportionment-- one of your congress seats goes to Oklahoma, two to Pennsylvania and one to Utah. Now, let's move on to the next large metropolis and count their illegal alien population.
I remember when Hillary Clinton was elected as Senator of New York. The first thing she suggested was getting rid of the Electoral College. It was enough for me to know we should keep it.
And maybe even LA wouldn't count. Elections would be over by the time the polls closed east of the Mississippi.
Just as the World Series is broken up into five of seven *games* that must be won-- the effect of the EC is to force a particular strategy on the players. It is quite possible that one team could get more runs in a series, and yet lose the series. But we want them to build their strategy around winning games.
It is a complete myth to even suggest that there is such a thing as a "popular vote" that can be counted. It cannot. Nobody actually knows those numbers for sure. There are (supposedly) states where ballots will remain uncounted if the total remaining cannot possibly change the outcome.
But more important than that: campaign strategy is wholly built around the EC model, and campaigning does affect the voting patterns. To compare a so-called "popular vote" count without recognizing that the campaign strategy was designed around key battleground states is to ignore the gorilla in the room.
If, God forbid, Kerry were to win the electoral vote and Bush the popular vote you won't hear a peep from libs/Dems
about getting rid of the Electoral College. They just whined about it because it didn't go THEIR way...and their
views just don't cut it in "flyover country" (aka the Real
America).
I still believe in the Electoral college even though my home state happens to be the People's Republic
of Mass.--and you know who'll probably win there. (BUT a reminder to those of you who live in states that "will probably go Democratic": don't be so sure! YOUR VOTE DOES COUNT. YOU NEVER KNOW!! Ask the folks in N.H. who came out to vote for Bush in '00. If more than a few of them stayed
home, figuring Gore would win the state, it would have pushed Algore over the top. It's the "little states"
(population-wise) than can push W over the top.
The electoral college is evidence of a belief that the states are actually states and not some sort of grossly subordinate subdivisions of political power.
The founders were indeed wise. "States rights" as something other than a code for racism should be a rallying cry. Then again maybe "Honest Abe" was just as much responsible for the current lamentable state of the Republic as FDR.
The electoral college is evidence of a belief that the states are actually states and not some sort of grossly subordinate subdivisions of political power.
The founders were indeed wise. "States rights" as something other than a code for racism should be a rallying cry. Then again maybe "Honest Abe" was just as much responsible for the current lamentable state of the Republic as FDR.