Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FEINSTEIN WILL MOVE TO ABOLISH ELECTORAL COLLEGE - (They'll never give in or give UP!)
USGOV.INFO.COM ^ | DECEMBER 27, 2004 | ROBERT LONGLEY

Posted on 12/29/2004 5:15:20 PM PST by CHARLITE

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-191 next last
To: kaxemma
Sure...but minus out the two senators' EC votes and it is a distinction without a difference. Each state is still in the same position relatively. That's my point (if not clearly stated!!)

No, to the small states, it is most certainly an important distinction. They wield significantly more power at the presidential level than their population alone would suggest.

141 posted on 12/29/2004 7:17:19 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: kaxemma
The EC votes the popular vote.

No, it does not vote the popular vote. Each state casts its own electoral votes based for the winner of the popular vote in that state alone.

142 posted on 12/29/2004 7:20:58 PM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
*** Radical Idea Alert ***

Another way to alter the dynamics of the Electoral College is to change the limit on the number of Representatives in the House. Originally, there was a formula for determining the number of representatives based on population per district. The early sessions of Congress had far fewer representatives, thus fewer Electoral College votes, thus a smaller target number to win the Presidency. At some point, the number of Representatives in the House was locked in at 435 (creating the 270 EV threshold), but the nation's population continues to grow.

Maybe we should rethink the 435 limit. How would increasing the size of the House of Representatives affect the Electoral College?

-PJ

143 posted on 12/29/2004 7:25:51 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kaxemma

Because a state where there is a huge number of "dead voters" will have the impact of those voters limited to that state.

Say CA has an extra 50000K fraudulent votes many of which I'm assuming go Dem - dead voters, illegal aliens, duplicated registration etc (I have NO idea if that's a rational number or not I just picked a number).

CA doesn't even need all those votes since it's going Dem anyway...if it were a "national popular vote" think of the impact that would have on a tiny state of say Wyoming. Those 50000 invalid votes are now not confined to CA and dilute the vote of tiny states.

Might there be voter fraud in Wyoming too? sure. But not likely to the same degree as in a more populus state. The numbers wouldn't support it.

As mentioned above, also consider a very close popular vote. Instead of recounting only the close states where it might swing the EC vote we'd be recounting in all states looking for an extra couple of hundred votes. Trust me - I'm living through this in WA state right now and it's a mess. Partsain canvassing boards allowing "christina rossi" votes, whiting out marks on original ballots, adding more votes after initial counts....the nation does NOT want to go there.


144 posted on 12/29/2004 7:26:03 PM PST by not_apathetic_anymore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Snickersnee

read my post #78


145 posted on 12/29/2004 7:27:41 PM PST by Hu Gadarn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: kaxemma
kaxemma said: "However, why does the EC protect againt fraudulent votes more than a straight popular vote? The EC votes the popular vote."

Because its harder to steal votes in a state which voted a majority for your opponent. Their is a likelihood that the opposition controls the voting process and will act to prevent fraud. Whereas, in Kalifornia there would be little to prevent fraud to help Kerry, there would be much to prevent such fraud in Texas. The winner-take-all system eliminates the effect of fraud beyond a majority vote in a state which is won.

I outlined above how the EC would still vote for Bush even if Kalifornia supplied an additional five million fraudulent votes. Imagine how hard it would be for the Demoncrats to generate such fraudulent votes in Texas or Alaska or Utah.

146 posted on 12/29/2004 7:31:55 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: kaxemma
why does the EC protect againt fraudulent votes more than a straight popular vote? The EC votes the popular vote.

Because the EC vote is not proportional to the popular vote.

If a million fraudulent votes are cast in North Dakota, for instance, the winner will still only get 3 EC votes. If the president were determined by the popular vote, those million fraudulent votes would make a big difference.

I know my example is absurd because there aren't a million people in North Dakota, but you get the idea. If a million fraudulent votes are cast in California or New York, the winner will still only get about 50 EC votes. Even if the winner wins by only 1 vote, he/she still gets only the 50 EC votes.

-PJ

147 posted on 12/29/2004 7:37:00 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: speed_addiction
As it was, 100,000 votes in Ohio could have given John Kerry the election even with a 3+ million vote defecit in the popular vote.

Old Ed Rendell is skating all around the blather that he and other dems spewed about algore being the real winner with his 500,000 votes over what GWB.

But now Rendell cites, "if only that 100,000 votes in Ohio would have gone to Kerry" completely ignoring the nearly 4 million votes Bush won over Kerry. Also ignoring the nearly year long yammering from the rats that algore really won with his 500,000 vote margin that American citizens had to hear ad nauseam.

Children aka democrats try to grasp this simple concept, rules are rules, you can't change the rules when you don't like the out come. Didn't you mother teach you this valuable lesson Ed?

These dems could benefit from Midnight Basketball by learning about RULES and sportsmanship. And they're little teenie bopper brains will fit right in with the other misguided youts.

148 posted on 12/29/2004 7:41:02 PM PST by BigWaveBetty (Merry Christmas!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: syriacus

The Electoral College also serves the purpose of isolating fraud in elections, so that a place like New York City or Los Angeles cannot swing the national election by stuffing their own ballot boxes. With the EC, the worst that can be done by those cities is to swing their state. Without the EC, every city and county would likely feel that they would have to protect their own interests through their own approaches to election fraud. Yes, the Founding Fathers were very wise.


149 posted on 12/29/2004 7:41:15 PM PST by n-tres-ted (Remember November!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

That's what I was trying to say in 144 but you said it better:)


150 posted on 12/29/2004 7:41:30 PM PST by not_apathetic_anymore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Hu Gadarn

>A true democracy is something that is achievable with todays technology.>

The US is a republic, not a democracy. Do you really think people in states like North Dakota or Rhode Island want to be dragged along by the whims of the masses in Los Angeles and New York City?

If this country was run as a true democracy, all a candidate would have to do to win would be to campaign in NY, LA, Chicago, etc. To heck with the little people in Podunk Idaho. Who would care what they think, or about their needs?



151 posted on 12/29/2004 7:42:57 PM PST by Darnright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: n-tres-ted
The Electoral College also serves the purpose of isolating fraud in elections, so that a place like New York City or Los Angeles cannot swing the national election by stuffing their own ballot boxes. With the EC, the worst that can be done by those cities is to swing their state... Yes, the Founding Fathers were very wise.

An excellent point, well made.

152 posted on 12/29/2004 7:52:56 PM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw

"Its a sure way that they can enshrine their party as nothing but a party of the city."

Interesting analysis and prediction. Seems reasonable and logical to me.


153 posted on 12/29/2004 7:57:21 PM PST by Dat Mon (will work for clever tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
File this under: "Windmills, tilting at"
154 posted on 12/29/2004 8:03:09 PM PST by finnigan2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #155 Removed by Moderator

Comment #156 Removed by Moderator

To: CHARLITE

Oh goodie. I want to play to. How about we amend the Constitution to say we don't need two liberal nuts from California proposing amendments to the Constitution?


157 posted on 12/29/2004 8:12:58 PM PST by harpo11 (Happiest New Year Greetings Brave USA TROOPS!! God Bless You All)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #158 Removed by Moderator

To: CHARLITE
Go For it Diane ... it will just distory your party even more

Do you think We The People will let the Big Cities like Chicago and Philadelphia pick our Presidents???

If so .. YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND!

159 posted on 12/29/2004 8:16:22 PM PST by Mo1 (Should be called Oil for Fraud and not Oil for Food)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kaxemma
Still not sure why EC is better....fraud is fraud.

Because the Electoral College limits the extent of fraud to the state in which it occurs. The most you can achieve from fraud in a state is that state's electoral votes; the margin of victory is irrelevant. But in a purely national election, the effects of the fraud would be felt nationwide in the total popular vote count.

160 posted on 12/29/2004 8:18:45 PM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-191 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson