It would be easier to abolish the states than to do that.
Posted on 08/28/2004 11:34:36 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
-PJ
Save for later read.
It would be easier to abolish the states than to do that.
I think they understand very well.
Spoken like a true socialist Democrat...
We do know, without question, that the losing candidate outpolled the winning one in the nation at large. In modern times this was unprecedented, but it had almost happened three times within living memory: in 1960, when J.F.K.'s plurality was barely a hundred thousand votes;
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:aKZv3w0Rk8EJ:www.newyorker.com/talk/content/%3F011224ta_talk_hertzberg+1960+JFK+lost+the+popular+election,Electoral+College&hl=en
That's precisely what they want; however there are two problems with that. First the constitution only allows the state legislature to determine the method by which electors are chosen (not referenda). Second, even if referend were allowed, this one is on the date that the electors are chosen. According to federal election law, the method by which a state selects electors must be written in staute at least six days prior to the date the electors are chosen. This referendum could be designed to create even more controversies by creating the potential of Supreme Court decsions affecting how the state allocates its electors.
One article I read indicated that the proponents might decide whether to apply it to the 2004 election depending on whether it helps Kerry or not. Abviously if Kerry carried Colorado, DemocRATS would be shooting themselves in the foot if they applied it this year, and might cause Kerry to lose the Electoral College. If Kerry doesn't carry the state, the DemocRATS would be likely to want the law to apply this year. Of course that would be strange, because if Bush wins, it is unlikely for the referendum to pass.
... It is not my reputation that is crossing Jordan River on Nov 3rd ... Hope, the popular vote goes to the winner!
See my tagline.
In a direct election, every vote counts the same as every other vote for President. Sounds good on paper, but that also means every fraudulent votes counts as much as every legal vote.
In the Electoral College, because the Electors of the President on selected on a state-by-state basis, if one state has a corrupt election system, the votes in the other states are not affected.
Case in point: California has over 10 million voters. In the 2000 election is has been estimated that more fraudulent votes were cast in California than all of the the votes in several individual states. California does not require any identification or citizneship papers to register to vote - only the registrant's affidavit that they meet the requirments. In fact, an illegal alien case obtain a driver's license and receive a voter registration in the mail. That illegal alien could mail in the registraion and an application for a permanent absentee ballot, cast a vote, and never be confronted by a living human being!
Gore's popular nationwide vote margin in the 2000 election was largely provided by his margin in California.
If you want your vote to be cancelled out by one of possibly over 1 million fraudulent voters in California, then work hard to get rid of the Electoral College.
Our Republic is in serious trouble if the electoral college gets thrown out.
Thanks much. What's annoying is how the Democrats can conceivably nullify a lot of Republican states by 2008, the next Presidential election. They are relentlessly into rabid dog politics since they consider themselves the party of government.
GOP pols are more laid back and don't look at politics and government jobs as careers. Not the way the Dems do.
You and I are agreeing more and more.
It's making me nervous.
I don't buy the notion that Gore necessarily actually won the "popular vote". He carried some states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsisn due to vote fraud. There were precints in Philadelphia in which over 130% turnout. Gore's campaign manager was the son of the formere mayor of Chicago and the brother of the curent one. Chicago is known to have some of the most crooked elections in the US. The Electoral College is deliberately designed to thwart vote fraud.
The electoral college is one of the last vestiges of the old republic. You can see why Hillary and the NYT want to get rid of it. Think Rome, bread and circuses.
The only way we should change the system, if at all, is to have an ever MORE federalist electoral college:
Instead of winner-take-all states, how about the following:
A victory in a single congressional district = 1 EV.
A victory statewide = 2 EV.
This would open up areas within states to political competition. For example, in California there is a large number of conservatives, but the state they're slightly outmnumbered by libs. Same goes for upstate NY, southern illinois, North Florida, Western Pennsylvania, and many other places.
I've heard a lot of conservatives propose this idea, and the common counterargument is a growth in gerrymandering. My response: so what!
If congressional district lines were more important, wouldn't that make who controls the state legislature more important? And if that were the case, wouldn't that in effect devolve power away from the Federal Government and back to the states???
It would bring us back closer to the days when control of the state legislature was more important than federal seats! That was before the 17th Amendment, when senators were appointed by the legislatures.
If this happened in the last election, Bush would have won by by more votes.
30 states voted for Bush, which would give him 60 EV from state-wide races (senatorial representation). Al Gore would have gotten 40 EV. If everybody voted according to their congressional district, Bush would have 228 EV from the Congressional EVs.
That's 288 EV for Bush, 250 EV for Gore. If democrats wanted to increase their electoral prospects, they would have to strengthen their appeal at the LOCAL level. No longer can a presidential candidate put a slick gloss on a campaign, bite their lip, promise to "feel their pain", and ride on positive media coverage. Support would have to be built from the ground up. The executive branch would be weak, like the constitution intended. States would have more power as well.
Thoughts???
There are still the states. If you really want to eradicate the "old republic," you might as well do away with states entirely and have just one humongous national government over everyone.
-PJ
Awesome map. Where'd you get that from???
I imagine the logical next step is Hillary and the NY Slimes calling to abolish the entire U.S. Constition.
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.