Plan Would Sidestep Electoral College

Townhall.com ^ | February 10, 2008 | NGUYEN HUY VU

[neverdem]

Here's another populist scheme from the "progressives."

[RangerM]

Government education at its finest.

[Sig Sauer P220]

I know, get rid of super delegates. Now!

[Ouderkirk]

Until a a republican gets the popular vote and loses the electoral college. Then this whole mess will be a tragedy, etc.

Pal just say it already, you don’t want anyone elected to the presidency who is not a socialist/communist.

[Paleo Conservative]

This proposal won’t get enough states to make the 270 electoral vote mark necessary to invoke the compact. Also, this would be an an unconstitutional pact between states, because it not approved by Congress.

[Army Air Corps]

Constitution? Tosh, who needs that ratty old thing.

[NonValueAdded]

But it appears to be easier than the approach tried previously _ amending the Constitution, which takes approval by Congress and then ratification by 38 states.

Yeah, why deal with that pesky old document when you can work around it.

_{of course it's sarcasm.}

[ThomasThomas]

What would Dewey DO?

[Always Right]

Good luck doing a recount.

[newbie2008]

same plan they cycle every election, cue not this s%%* again pic

[oldtimer]

Can we bring back literacy tests too?

[oldtimer]

Can we bring back literacy tests too?

[Nervous Tick]

>> States forge an agreement to change the way they allocate general election votes. The agreement would take effect once it’s been approved by states with a majority in the Electoral College, or 270 votes

uh... how would you “forge an agreement” if certain states disagree?

The constitution spells out how electing the President works. There is no room for such an agreement, and no way to enforce compliance from states that say “screw you, we’re not playing along”.

What a maroon.

[Ann Archy]

This is HILLARY’s plan....she mentioned it the day after the last election!! HER PLAN in case Obama beats her!

[RangerM]

We already have them.......in Spanish!

[Jewels1091]

well, then i guess california and new york get to pick the president every time. That’s the EXACT reason the founding fathers made it this way, so the big states can’t run over the little states!

[TommyDale]

Interesting that they feel the Constitution that has worked for 232 years is no longer of value.

[Tanniker Smith]

There are critics. The downside, they argue, is that a close presidential election would require recounts not just in one or two key states, but throughout the entire country.

And corruption in, say, Chicago could have national implications far beyound what could happen today.

[petro45acp]

stand by for “bread and circus”

Ruefully

[fhayek]

If this were to happen, candidates would ignore the sparsely populated states of the heartland. They would cater to the heavily urban areas of the country. No wonder New Jersey, Maryland and Illinois are interested in this.