Posted on 03/14/2006 1:14:21 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
The Electoral College is an antidemocratic relic. Everyone who remembers 2000 knows that it can lead to the election of the candidate who loses the popular vote as president. But the Electoral College's other serious flaws are perhaps even more debilitating for a democracy. It focuses presidential elections on just a handful of battleground states, and pushes the rest of the nation's voters to the sidelines.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Don't Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Monroe, Washington, Franklin et al just seem more brilliant as the centuries go by???
Leave the Constitution alone. I do not trust any modern politician as far as I can throw pianos. It is not broken. In retrospect I am so very grateful that the election of 2000 went as it did.
Well, but then why wouldn't CA and/or NY dwellers legally move to those battleground states in time for the next election? Red-staters from the safe red states could consider the same maneuver
Hellary: Tell your minions it won't work.
This so 2000'ish.... Get over it, you're a loser NYT.
If the electoral college hadn't existed in 2000 then the campaign would've been totally different, and there's no way to guess who would've won.
Yep.
And doesn't the scumbag Democrat New York Times seem more desperate and irrational as the days go by???
I think California and New York, obviously enlightened and advanced states, should take the initiative, unilaterally, and award their electoral votes proportionately to the popular vote in their respective states.
That'll show that anachronistic electoral college!
"Uhhh.... Oh yeah. Never thought about that. Hmmm...." - The New York Times
I vote for changing it to one state, one vote. That will get them.
Note to the times: We're not a freakin' democracy.
It's hardly a fair comparison when one only has idiot democrats to compare them to.
How about this for a plan...the "blue" states can release their electoral votes in direct proportion to the vote. Of course that way a dem would never be elected to a national post...which sounds pretty good to me since they can't seem to locate any candidates who aren't idiots, insane or both.
"Everyone who remembers 2000 knows that it can lead to the election of the candidate who loses the popular vote as president."
The NYTs is so stupid. Everyone with a brain knows that if the popular vote determined the winner, both candidates would have had different campaign strategies in 2000.
"Democracy?"
Two wolves, one sheep, vote for dinner...
Know what else is undemocratic? The US Senate (one State, two votes). Not to mention rule by the judiciary.
If the EC were abolished, everyone would campaign differently and the result might stil be the same. But it is just stupid for the NYT to call for changing the rules AFTER the game is over as a previous poster pointed out.
Government by California and New York? Why take half-measures! Let's just appoint Pinch Sulzburger King of the United States, and return the nation to the sort of hereditary monarchy that governed before the Revolution. There's no doubt he feels he's more suited to the job than George III ever was, and loathes anyone who doesn't share his views.
One change is badly needed; REPEAL THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT.
Absolutely.
Lead by example or shut the pie-hole, New York!
Ditto for California.
In both states conservative majorities outside the urban areas are routinely disenfranchised by the very winner-take-all system that the Times is complaining about.
People should clean up their own yards before complaining about their neighbors'.
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.