Skip to comments.
Is it time to scrap the Electoral College?
pMSNBC/MSN ^
| 10/21/08
| Tom Curry
Posted on 10/21/2008 11:14:49 AM PDT by AT7Saluki
...The system is a relic of the early days of the republic when electors were supposed to be independent agents exercising their judgment in choosing a presidential candidate from a list of several contenders.
Today, electors are party loyalists who almost always vote for their partys nominee.
On Friday, a group of legal scholars, political scientists, and systems specialists gathered at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for a conference on the Electoral College. Their focus? How to better engineer the system...
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: election; electoral; voting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-103 next last
To: weegee
I am not a fan of the popular vote idea, but I have to admit that barely winning a state and getting all its Electoral Votes does seem disporportionate.
61
posted on
10/21/2008 11:39:09 AM PDT
by
CatOwner
To: CatOwner
I am not a fan of the popular vote idea, but I have to admit that barely winning a state and getting all its Electoral Votes does seem disporportionate.The title of the office is "President of the United States" not President of the American People.
62
posted on
10/21/2008 11:40:48 AM PDT
by
frogjerk
(Palin's record is on the record, while whole years of Obama's life are engulfed in fog - T. Sowell)
To: AT7Saluki
Is it time to scrap the Electoral College?
If the country was to do that, then it would be something that has to be decided on by the people, and then, the electoral college count would need to be used for that "referendum"; and the decision to scrap the college count would need to be, not just a majority decision, but a super-majority in the range of 66% to 75%.
Another possibility would be for the electoral college to be replaced by a larger college count. In that case, we should go to a county by county count in order to decide who gets the presidency. Thus, in order to win a county, a candidate would be expected to campaign in that county and anyone who doesn't would have to be disqualified from getting that county's "electoral" vote. That would make it very difficult for any one candidate to take a whole state or region for granted. Campaigns would be more expensive, but, hey, at least they would be fairer. There are many counties that might be "red" going into the "blue" count simply because they are part of the bigger "blue" state.
63
posted on
10/21/2008 11:40:53 AM PDT
by
adorno
To: AT7Saluki
How to better engineer the system Wouldn't sound engineering require a system that isolates and limits the effects of local vote fraud? Like the electoral college?
To: AT7Saluki
Of course the liberals want to scrap it. They control the heavily ‘Rat areas and know that with a minimum of effort and money, can dominate presidential races.
Here is a better idea. Get rid of the current Senate and divide the country into 100 geographic regions of roughly equal size which must not be shaped like a banjo (this keeps ‘Rats from dividing up Los Angeles to dictate to residents of the Mojave who their senator shall be), each region must have at least 100,000 people in it. Then the people of that region vote for their senator.
I’ll trade the EC for the Senate because the Republcans will control the Senate absolutely and the ‘Rats will have the WH only ocassionally.
65
posted on
10/21/2008 11:41:04 AM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat. And so is Obama.)
To: AT7Saluki
The title of the office is “President of the United States” not “President of the American People.”
66
posted on
10/21/2008 11:42:25 AM PDT
by
frogjerk
(Palin's record is on the record, while whole years of Obama's life are engulfed in fog - T. Sowell)
To: frogjerk
The title of the office is "President of the United States" not President of the American People. Well said.
67
posted on
10/21/2008 11:43:20 AM PDT
by
TADSLOS
(Put Palin in the White House. Send McCain to Sun City, AZ)
To: MrB
The usual cemocrap cry for mob rule.
68
posted on
10/21/2008 11:43:37 AM PDT
by
Turret Gunner A20
(The FairTax -- the largest magnet for capital and jobs in history. John Snow)
To: frankiep
Okay. Then I get to tell them who received the most votes nationally.
69
posted on
10/21/2008 11:46:55 AM PDT
by
swain_forkbeard
(Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
To: frogjerk
I understand, and given the choice, I would choose the current Electoral system over a popular vote 100 times out of 100.
I keep thinking about blending the Electoral system with the primary system. Winner of a state gets two Electoral votes, and the remainder of that state's Electoral votes would be prorated over the popular count. The only problem with this idea is that a scenario like 1992 (Perot) or 1968 (Wallace) would likely result in an Electoral College nightmare.
70
posted on
10/21/2008 11:47:53 AM PDT
by
CatOwner
To: MeanWestTexan
Typical of the MIT of today - proposing a “solution” for a non-existent problem.
DMS ‘62
71
posted on
10/21/2008 11:48:51 AM PDT
by
MainFrame65
(The US Senate: World's greatest PREVARICATIVE body!.)
To: Steely Tom
Indeed - and time for “groan, here we go again, NO don’t scrap it, anyone who wants to either doesn’t understand it or has ulterior motives” followed by the usual long explanation of how it works and why it’s good, which should have been explained in grade school.
72
posted on
10/21/2008 11:51:00 AM PDT
by
ctdonath2
(I AM JOE THE PLUMBER!)
To: ChurtleDawg
That was then, this is now. We are hopelessly even in popular votes, but the highest population states would control the election.
73
posted on
10/21/2008 11:52:05 AM PDT
by
TommyDale
(I) (Never forget the Republicans who voted for illegal immigrant amnesty in 2007!)
To: AT7Saluki
The system is a relic of the early days of the republic...
I'm amazed to see our proper form of government (a republic) used in an article about the means to end the republic, which is what scrapping the EC would do.
To: AT7Saluki
I think the electorate is almost to the point that it will be dumb enough to go along with this idea.
75
posted on
10/21/2008 11:55:25 AM PDT
by
KansasGirl
(READ MY LIPSTICK, OBAMA IS JUST CREEPY!)
To: MeanWestTexan
Gosh, I remember, back in the day when I went to MIT, how it was a serious school.When was that? I was there through the 80s, and there were sane students enough, but the campus atmosphere was definitely way left.
76
posted on
10/21/2008 11:56:19 AM PDT
by
jabchae
To: AT7Saluki
First you have to scrap the Constitution and federalism.
77
posted on
10/21/2008 11:57:57 AM PDT
by
kabar
To: The_Reader_David
Though it might be a salutory reform to force all states to go onto the Maine/Nebraska systemMy nomination for the dumbest comment on this thread.
78
posted on
10/21/2008 11:59:12 AM PDT
by
kabar
To: jabchae
I was there in the 80’s, as well, albeit in Hillel housing. Perhaps that insulated me.
79
posted on
10/21/2008 12:01:23 PM PDT
by
MeanWestTexan
(A Jew voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders.)
To: CatOwner
but I have to admit that barely winning a state and getting all its Electoral Votes does seem disporportionate.The states decide how their electoral votes will be allocated and distributed. Maine and Nebraska have a different system. Does it seem disproportionate that RI and CA have the same number of senators.
80
posted on
10/21/2008 12:03:15 PM PDT
by
kabar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-103 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson