Posted on 08/16/2007 5:53:55 AM PDT by xjcsa
Again, I agree with your assessment of liberal goals and tactics. This proposal, however, is well within the intent of the EC; a few other states already use the same method (i.e. Nebraska and Maine). I don’t think it’s a step toward abolishing the EC, and I would fight it tooth and nail if it were.
The proposals that tie a state’s electors to the national popular vote are horrid, and undermine the whole concept of the EC. This proposal assigns one elector to the winner of each Congressional district, and two electors to the statewide winner; they are assigned in the same manner in which they are allotted to the state in the first place.
Even a casual student of the French Revolution understands the tyranny of a the mob and the anarchy that resulted. So did our founders.
The Electoral College was established to keep the selection process out of the hands of the rabble. It works. Today in California, it prevents our majority Mexican interlopers from selecting the president of the US.
Here is the so-called “Republican” proposal:
http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/2007-07-17_07-0032_Initiative.pdf
“Perhaps you meant what the Electoral College was suppose to be. With it essentially nominating the candidates and the House of Representatives (voting by states) electing the President from those finalists.”
Sorry I stand corrected. This is what I meant.
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.