Posted on 05/22/2008 5:29:41 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
As we see Barack Obama winning certain cities, regions, and demographics by wide margins, and yet also having a tough time in some states with a lot of electoral votes (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida), it's not unthinkable that he could do what Al Gore did in 2000: Win the popular vote, but lose in the Electoral College.
James Boyce examined a plausible scenario at the Huffington Post:
Barack Obama will win California and New York and all the blue coastal states by huge margins - he will be millions of votes ahead on the basis of New York, California, Illinois and Massachusetts alone. Barack could be as much as 5,000,000 votes ahead out of those four states and what will prevent it from being even larger is minimum focus on those states by the nominee in the fall. But remember, you win by one, you win by a million, you still are limited in your electoral college votes.
He will win these states by margins that may well give him a popular vote victory. He also will get more votes in states where Kerry was non-existent, like Alabama, but he won't win those states, or their Electoral College votes.
So if Obama wins the popular vote by five or ten million votes, he wins the White House right? Well, no. Because he hasn't picked up the needed 18 Electoral College votes.
In the edition of Time magazine hitting stands tomorrow, we will read:
In an interview, Democratic Party boss Howard Dean calls for the end of the electoral college: "It’s unrepresentative of where the American people are. It was fine for the days of the Pony Express, but it’s not necessary to avoid a popular vote on Presidents now.”
(First reaction: Hey, guys, fix your own nominating rules so that you count all 50 states before you start mucking around with the Constitution.)
I wonder if we're witnessing a new Democratic strategy for well beyond the 2008 election — scrap the electoral college (a challenge, obviously) and nominate a candidate who can "run up" the vote totals in the areas Democrats already run well — big cities and university towns.
Rhetorical question. They are globalists/marxists.
Actually, most Americans want to scrap the electoral college, for they do not understand the purpose of the electoral college. Alexander Hamilton is quite above the reading level of the typical American. nN othr words, Americans don’t really understand true federalism; what they understand is “big government” which they increasingly favor.
Only through their physical presence. Beyond that, Marxists all the way.
King Dean wants to abolish the electoral college, The Bill of Rights and the Constitution. It’s all for our own good. YEEEEAAAAGGGHHHH!!!
Of course they are not Americans. And they’re counting chickens before they’re hatched. Especially since gay marriage is likely to be a serious issue on the ballot in California. Last time that ran 60/40 in support of traditional marriage.
These kooks had no problem with the College when BJ Clinton won. He had 8 yrs to do away with it.
Not surprising. This is just one of the many inconveniences of the Constitution that these types would like to change.
This one would most certainly make their dead, illegal alien or elderly vote frauds much more meaningful.
As if there is more than one person in this country who gives a snot what Howard Dean wants.
Sadly........I agree.
Any good socialist like Dean would want to scrap the electoral college! That means more rural areas would lose their political clout while more urban areas would gain political clout. It so just happens conservatives tend to congregate in the former and the socialist Democrats congregate mostly in the latter. What a coincidence! He might as well call for the elimination of the Senate since it was formed to represent all states equally regardless of population size.
If Hillary wins the popular vote but loses the nomination, too bad.
If Barack wins the popular vote but loses the election, the election was stolen.
Got that?
Schulman describes the purpose of the electoral college. Without it a popular vote can easily be bought by the whole world in the US today without the electoral colleges protective mechanism. Here is the piece by Schulman with ref to the federalist papers...
http://www.multied.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html
Why Was the Electoral College Created?
by Marc Schulman
The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.
The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
(See All of the Federalist 68)
Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.
The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states.
One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a receipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.
While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing.
Howard Dean would scrap our Constitution and replace it with the Communist Manifesto.
Funny,there are a lot of people in both parties that want to scrap Howard Dean.
Fortunately, this would require amending the Constitution. While it might make it out of Congress, I can’t see any of the smaller states willingly giving up their influence on the election process.
Since when have democrats cared about the constitution?
*whistle* Judges! Line up!
Keep dreaming, leftards.
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.