[snowman1]

As much as I hate to say it "I agree with this DemoRAT". The electoral college has long outlived it's usefulness. With todays communications setup we don't need it.

[johniegrad]

You are highly confused. It is needed more now than ever.

[processing please hold]

You might outta rethink that.

[CougarGA7]

You are highly mistaken sir. With no electoral college, campaigns will only focus on the 20 most populous cities. States with smaller populations will never even get the slightest look or the slightest consideration when a president that is thinking about reelection is making decisions.

Our founding fathers were against Democracy because they believed that what they called "mob rule" would be detrimental to the country. They are just as right today as they were back then.

[JoeV1]

As much as I hate to say it "I agree with this DemoRAT". The electoral college has long outlived it's usefulness. With todays communications setup we don't need it.

I believe if you had sat and thought about something to say that was as inappropriate as it could possibly be given the times we live in today, you could not possibly have come up with something better then this to accomplish the task.

[Squawk 8888]

It wasn't created to overcome communication difficulties. It was set up to ensure that the low-population states had some influence on the presidency.

[frog_jerk_2004]

With todays communications setup we don't need it.

What does this have to do with Mob rule? Removing the electoral college will eventually accomplish that. If we are going to remove the electoral college we need to rename the United States of America to the United People of America...More apathy will set in because voters not in the majority would matter less.

[tom h]

Begging your pardon, the Electoral College has little to do with communication and more to do with ensuring that small and rural states have an influence on our national leaders. One commentator observed that the Electoral College, in effect, carries out the Founding Fathers' desire that "ties go to the winner of the most states," thereby preventing electoral dominance to candidates who just roll up huge majorities in large cities.

I wrote of this in another post a few weeks ago. Without LA and SF, Bush ties Kerry in California. Without 4 boroughs in NY, Bush wins NY state. Without Detroit and Pennsylvania, respectively, Bush wins Michigan and Pennsylvania, by larger margins than Kerry won those states. Without Chicago, Bush easily sweeps Illinois.

Straight-up direct voting was deliberately not chosen. I like things the way they are. Apportioning the votes based on congressional district isn't a bad idea -- it would preserve the basic intent of the Founding Fathers, also.

[Just mythoughts]

"As much as I hate to say it "I agree with this DemoRAT". The electoral college has long outlived it's usefulness. With todays communications setup we don't need it."


WHOA! Todays communications are the exact reason why we must never ever end the electoral college. Think about it, we have 50 states the state are equal, I personally do not wish to be dictated to by the likes of LA, NYC, Philly, Chicago, Seattle, and the rest of the BLUE Zones of this nation.

[DJ MacWoW]

This was posted 11-10-2000, you know, the last time democrats lost:

MIT PROFESSOR DEFENDS ELECTORAL COLLEGE (GREAT BASEBALL ANALOGY TO USE ON THE DEMS)

Was just listening on the radio and, at the top of the hour here in Chicago, they interviewed an MIT professor who made a great, easy-to-understand, recitation of why the electoral college system is the best and how it should be viewed by the public. In short, he said that the popular vote gives Americans "equal voting power" but the electoral college system provides "MAXIMUM voting power". He then went on to make a very interesting comparison that I am going to be using on all my Dem friends:

His analogy was to the World Series which, he explained, isn't decided on total runs scored in seven games but instead on the number of runs scored in EACH game. His reasoning is that a team can win by a single score in a single game (electoral) or, conversely, could lose even though they score more runs in six of seven games if they get beat badly in that seventh game (popular).

I realize we're all aware of these facts, but I thought it was a pretty straightforward way to explain why this popular vote angle Gore is trying to push - besides being unconstitutional - is flawed.

It was posted by lowteksh here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a0c1b1e3a53.htm

[b4its2late]

I disagree. With the concentration of liberals in the big cities and without the Electoral College, NYC, Chicago, LA et al would be electing our President. I sure as hell wouldn't want that to happen. IMHO, the Founders foresight on this matter is truly amazing....

[RinaseaofDs]

You think the EC is about commmunication, and not about ensuring that the diverse interests of each state are addressed?

Presidential politics would boil down to serving the interests of large metropolitan and urban areas. Farming and rural communities would be like children in Presidential politics, present but conveniently silent.

Back to civics class with Mrs Feinstein on Saturdays.

[THX 1138]

...and can you imagine the nightmare of a national recount in a closely contested election?

It could take months, even years to accomplish.

[Bring Back Old Sparky]

Do you remember the 2000 election mess in Florida? How would you like to see a court case in every precinct in the country? We would have to push the inauguration back for a year to wait until the dust settles.

[jcb8199]

Do you really want NY and CA deciding who the president is?

[calex59]

As much as I hate to say it "I agree with this DemoRAT". The electoral college has long outlived it's usefulness. With todays communications setup we don't need it.

BS. The electoral college is still needed. It is the only way to have fair elections that represent all the states. What your saying is the same old tired argument that the constitution should "change with the times", which is just another way of doing away with it. We are a republic not a democracy, we do not have majority rule. We still need the electoral college.

[nothingnew]

The electoral college has long outlived it's usefulness. With todays communications setup we don't need it.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. May God have mercy on your soul.

Merry Christmas

FMCDH(BITS)

[GOP_1900AD]

The electoral college is part of the basis for a union of states rather than a homogenized federal republic. So, I take it you are against states' rights as well?

[Military family member]

See Post 130. I agree with you. The original intent as I see it was concern over communications. Mr. SHERMAN thought that the sense of the Nation would be better expressed by the Legislature, than by the people at large. The latter will never be sufficiently informed of characters, and besides will never give a majority of votes to any one man.

[guardian_of_liberty]

Obviously you have no understanding of the function of the Electoral College.

[usadave]

As much as I hate to say it "I agree with this DemoRAT". The electoral college has long outlived it's usefulness. With todays communications setup we don't need it.

Our country is called the United States of America for a reason.