Posted on 11/05/2004 9:26:26 PM PST by neverdem
This week the United States came within about 136,000 ballots of having another president who was not the choice of the most voters. If John Kerry had done a little better in Ohio, he would have won even though George W. Bush got about 3.5 million more votes. It was another wake-up call to the nation that it's time to throw out the Electoral College.
It's very important to have a president who is the popular choice. Since his victory, Mr. Bush has stressed the significance of having the will of the people behind him - words, of course, that were absent after the election in 2000.
Defenders of the current system, in which virtually all states have a winner-take-all method for awarding their electoral votes, say that if the election was determined by the popular vote nationwide, rural areas would never get any attention. While it's true that there might be fewer campaign visits to Iowa, there would be more for places like Kansas and Oklahoma, which got cut out of the 2004 race because, like most states, they were consigned by both sides to secure red or blue status and ignored from the conventions until Election Day.
The spectacle of Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry all but setting up housekeeping in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida while they acted as if California and New York were barely in the Union, should have driven home the irrationality of the system. California and New York undoubtedly had more undecided voters than New Mexico, but no one really cared if they failed to make up their minds.
Campaign stops aren't the point of a presidential election anyway. Whatever system a democracy uses should encourage the candidates to develop programs that consider the needs of all citizens. The idea that it's only the Electoral College that forces American politicians to worry about rural areas is ridiculous. President Bush won the popular vote because of a strong outpouring of support from rural America, and the Democrats are wringing their hands over Mr. Kerry's failure to come up with a message rural voters wanted to hear.
Allowing the president of the United States to be chosen by popular vote wouldn't deprive any segment of the population of power. It would deal a body blow only to some special interests that currently luxuriate in being able to wield disproportionate influence in swing states: the sugar lobby, the Cuban refugee bloc and the gun lobby, to name just a few. It would be a small acknowledgement that the United States really does believe in one person one vote, even though the United States Senate allots the same quota of two seats to a state with fewer than half a million people and to a state with 34 million.
Another modest proposal: Dumping your subscription to the New York Times.
We hear this every four years, and it never goes anywhere.
Why in the world would anyone in Free Republic even still have a subscription to NYT? Like getting your news from Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Hunter S. Thompson.
It's not going to happen.
Boy, I'm sure the NY Times is out there looking out for my best interests. Sorta like letting Lybia chair the terrorism forum at the U.N., it just gives me warm fuzzies. (Appologies to the patient escapee Terreza)
Ohhhh. Nowww, the New York Times, wants to dump the Electoral College. Haaaa haaa, that is so funny.... heee hee.
Why in the world would anyone in Free Republic even still have a subscription to NYT? Like getting your news from Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and Hunter S. Thompson.
Keep your friends close... and your enemies closer...
For me it is easy. If the New York Times is for it, it is not in the best interests of the United States.
And of course most of the country would get ignored while the Dem machine racked up 85% majorities in the huge cities they would be busy buying off. Crazy, and a slap in the face of the federalism that has made our country great.
NO check onphilly fraud---no thanks
LOL 'meathead editorial'
How about NOT dumping the Electoral College because it works!
Never ....we would be under the urban blight thumb in short order.
The founders knew that.
btw:...I'm reluctant to point out the social modruts here but there are plenty.....I'm not in the mood to fight the neverending battle here...again and again...right now.
They are a small posse here but very vocal though a bit muted today.
Regards
If the NY Times is against the EC then it must be working against their interests.
That's enough for me to want to keep it.
The Gray Lady endorsed John F*ckin.' Someone ought to ask them how much influence they weighty endorsement had with the American people.
The current electoral college system is there to prevent 3-4 states from electing the president and all other smaller states from not having a voice in the matter. New York City has a greater population than all of North Dakota. Talk about not having your vote count. While the current system is not perfect, it's the best one out there.
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.