Posted on 02/10/2008 6:30:24 PM PST by neverdem
After we do away with the ‘lectoral college, let’s get rid of the Senate too. Why should dinky Rhode Island get TWO Senators?
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
Don't ask me when that that time limit that killed the Equal Rights Amendment happened.
Wonder why “they” want illegal imigrants and prisoners to have the right to vote?
This man hasn’t the first clue what he is talking about - not to mention his plan is blatantly unconstitutional (specific prohibition against compacts among the states) and hence illegal. He doesn’t understand the basics of this nation and its Constitution, but yet thinks he knows enough to push something like this.
The standard they use is “whatever it takes to win”.
a popular vote is the goal of socialists.
Having 435 EV's split up by congressional district would probably benefit more than 38 states.
Of course this violates the Voting Rights Act and is probably an illegal covenant between a group of states. The states not part of the covenant could probably sue for disenfranchisement.
The Electoral College is the basis for our republic form of government over that of a pure democracy (majority rule based on mobs and the passions of the moment). The entire country will be ruled by 7 or 8 populous cities.
There are many conservatives who don't understand this important concept.
At any rate....I hit the nail right on the head although no one has to be a Karnack to see this coming.
Yep, be sure to sit out the general election, or write in "Mickey Mouse" at the top of your ballot.
Leni
This would be great! Why should Florida be the only state to benefit from the election controversy? The scramble to find, create, manipulate, lose, alter and, of course, fold, spindle and mutilate ballots for months after an election should be available to ALL states!
Any state with 1 Representative gets basically triple representation in Presidential Elections. One Electoral vote for the representative and two more for the Senators. I agree with you. Changing the system will NOT give them more clout.
Uhhh??? That is the current system. If someone gets just over half the votes (270), they win.
I realize I agree with you on this. There was no point in replying to the Rocket Scientist who originally posted it...
You need to re-read your Constitution. It takes 2/3 of each house of Congress to pass and 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify an amendment to the Constitution.
And Hillary says Bush is shredding the constitution!
It would be nice if one of these guys who wants to chuck the electoral votes actually took the time to learn why they were put into place. They represent along with the senators why we are a republic and not a democracy (which is often also mistated over and over). A pure democracy, which is what electing a president by popular vote would be, means that the top ten to twenty urban centers pick the president and the rest of the country is meaningless. Seeing as how the blue states are really blue blobs representing these urban areas, one quickly sees the motivation behind this latest scheme of the liberal left.
You obviously don't understand the origin of the phrase panem et circenses, if that's all you think it means.
Check out Juvenal's Satire X and you'll find it refers to the abdication of duty by citizens, and the selling out of one's vote...similar to what is proposed in this article--replacing the will of the electors with a mechanistic vote.
petro45acp was right on target.
...ex quo suffragia nulli uendimus, effudit curas;
nam qui dabat olim imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, panem et circenses...
Tip of the iceberg. There is also talk of fiscal parity-— where each state gets back from the Fed what they pay in by way of taxes.
I often use the example they give, and suggest that the World Series be given to the team that scores the most runs, even if they win only one of the games. Then, after the absurdity gets pointed out to me, I point out how absurd the popular vote would be instead of the Electoral College. Of course, that doesnt' point out that the Electors weren't even originally pledged, but it does illustrate the problem with the popular vote.
Well, if this plan is adopted, those of us in the “fly-over” states might just as well not bother voting. Only the states with high populations would end up electing the President>
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.