Posted on 06/07/2008 8:38:32 PM PDT by Flavius
WASHINGTON, June 7 (UPI) -- Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., citing the 2000 presidential election, has introduced an amendment to abolish the Electoral College.
Nelson, in a release, pointed to the election of President George W. Bush, even though former Vice President Al Gore had more popular votes, The Hill reported. The election was decided in Florida after the U.S. Supreme Court blocked a recount, giving Bush the state and a majority of the Electoral College.
Nelson's bill includes the creation of a rotating primary system to avoid disputes like those this year over the Florida and Michigan votes. The Democratic National Committee recently decided to give delegates from those states half a vote each at the party's nominating convention in Denver in August.
Both states violated party regulations by holding early primaries.
The bill would require voting machines to have paper records and allow early presidential voting across the country.
Just a way to reduce the power of small (that is Red states), and give it to the populated (Blue) states. Isn’t going to fly.
you know without reading it that if they want to
abolish the electoral college,
that they are democrats.
Nelson must not have taken Civics in school and he doesn’t understand how the system is designed and WHY it was designed that way. On the other hand, he might just be and ignorant moron that doesn’t care.
Bad idea. The founding fathers knew that the only leverage the smaller states would hold in the executive decision was through an 'electoral' structure which gave the combined efforts of 'several' states more 'power-per-person' in the delicate equation of 'separate and distinct' balance as per Federalist Papers #51.
Katherine Jenerette for U.S.Congress http://www.jenerette.org
...I thought this was Hillary’s big idea....
Nelson has been space walking without his helmet again.
That's exactly why it was a good thing Hillary wasn't able to pull a win off based on the popular vote. Now the rats have no argument when it comes to abolishing the electoral college.
Al Gore had 0.51% more of the certified totals which ignored cases of vote fraud where the state electoral votes were not going to be affected anyway. It also ignored thousands of absentee ballots where the state electoral votes were not going to be affected.
It even does not include the 3,000 military ballots that were appoved by the Supreme Court yet not added to the Floriduh 2000 tally because she held to her original number for the certification.
And in 2004, the entire fraud of “Kerry won” would’ve been a non-issue as Bush beat Kerry by millions of votes.
We’d still be recounting EVERY COUNTY IN AMERICA to determine who won in 2000.
Gore lost. DEAL WITH IT ALREADY.
How many times has the House, voice of the people, passed a bill by vote- representing the majority of the people by representative government, only to have the bill voted down in the Senate, by a majority of less populous states? A 70% House vote can be negated by a 51% Senate vote from low population states.
If we are to become a true democracy without the electoral college the Senate must also go so that the will of the people, not the will of the states, carries the vote.
And the concept of a presidential veto is likewise undemocratic. Let us have a president without the power to veto the will of the House, the voice of the people.
We should also give deep consideration to eliminating the House, now that communication is much faster than a man on a horse, do we need representatives in Washington when we can be anywhere electronically?
I think you’re all missing the point.
Democrats know exactly what the Electoral College is for. That is why they want to get rid of it. They know that socialism and socialistic ideals are more likely to gain support in heavily populated urban areas that would benefit from having the EC abolished.
After all, they don’t see why the “bitter Americans clinging to their guns and religion with antipathy towards others” should have such an influence on who leads this country. Flyover country full just full of a bunch of redneck, racist, rubes as far as they are concerned.
Ugh, this $#$#@ again??? For the love of God, we have the EC in the Constitution for a reason people...
Nelson is an absolute disgrace, unfit to hold elected office. He’s every bit as repugnant as the RINO Martinez. He makes me thrilled that I’m leaving the schizophrenic state called Florida.
These anti-EC people infuriate me almost as much as the judicial activists. Their positions are so ignorant and illogical on so many levels, as any semblance of rational thought would show.
I want to live on a magical island with a forever young Shania Twain and rivers of ice cold beer.
Doesn't matter what they want. They have as much chance of getting 2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the states to ratify it by popular majority, as I do of getting my wish.
They float the idea out there because it makes the morons of the world mumble, "Yeah they oughta!" and it keeps them disgruntled and voting for the loser party who champions their ignorant grievances.
This is the part of American history that few Americans grasp.
In the 1760s...there was a significant perception that big future-states and their populations might end up running America. The big states? Virginia, Penn, and NY. Several of the smaller future New England states had big issues about how a central government functions and how it would be fair. So this electoral college was the only way to ensure a balance.
There is also this idea that in this period, that you really didn’t know anyone beyond the state you lived in. The majority of Americans didn’t read newspapers and usually got news by word of mouth. The concept of a primary period wasn’t something that existed at that point...so you’d vote for a couple of guys from your state to meet in DC...and elect someone that they felt was “national”.
Looking at how this change things if we deleted the electoral college....you’d have to assume that five to ten of the big-states of the US...would eventually control the political process in America. If I could concentrate my funding strictly on NY and California...getting 80 percent of their vote, then I could forget about spending a penny in states like Alaska, Utah, Montana or Iowa. In fact...we could very well have a candidate who agrees to only visit 20 states during the election and telling the residents of the other 30 that I don’t really care what happens in your state, knowing I’ll get my 30 percent of the vote in each of those...thus turning this into a very different kind of election.
The possibility of a 3rd party guy coming out and winning in such an environment? I would suggest within three elections after you make this effective...a third-party guy would win. It makes this much simpler and cheaper for me to win such an election.
I haven’t had a chance to check but isn’t the electoral college part of the Constitution and therefore would require all states to ratify any changes????
The masses are disappointing and dumber every day. Nelson should be called out. This is so stupid.
Another Demorat Moron trying to tear the Constitution apart in order to destroy Our American Democracy for their concept of Nervana: The Soviet Gulags!!!
p.s. Nervana= Demorats believe Heaven is a dirty word.
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.