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 party’s 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 ...
No, it’s just time to split up California into three states: California Bay (D), Middle California (R), and Southern California, where SD and OC will try to drown out LA.
First of many, I should say.
A McPalin victory will cause a veritable blizzard of similar articles, all noticeably absent any understanding of how a representative democracy, i.e. republic, works and how the EC is a significant cog in that machinery. The writers of such articles merely expose their woeful lack of education.
What hubris. They will be among the first to be sent to the re-education camps come the BO revolution?
In 2004, one elector from MN voted for John Edwards, instead of Kerry.
I keep wondering if there are a handful of democrat electors who, like Lieberman, might vote for McCain (or even Hillary.)
The democrats would have a great advantage if there were no college.
NO
We can’t just “scrap” the electoral college. It would take a new Constitutional amendment, which is no easy task.
no, the largest number of voters would win the election. It would not matter what state they lived in. The are Republicans in blue states...heck there are Republicans in Washington DC
Sort of like how when a team barely wins a World Series game 11-10, they still get credit for one-quarter of the games needed to win the Series, just like if they win 10-0? That hardly seems fair.
Just so we're clear, I am in no way saying that I would want the president to be decided by a national popular vote.
Since the largest numbers of Democrats reside in New York, California, Illinois, etc. they will dominate the elections.
That is why the founding fathers instituted the Electoral College.
Yeah, just great, now in a close election, instead of recounting ballots in one state, we get to recount every single ballot in all 50 states. Whoopeee!
“we gave you a republic, if you can keep it” - Ben Franklin.
This is time to protect the Constitution - not make a new one.
And rampant voter fraud in Philadelphia affects the entire election results, not just the 21 EVs that belong to Pennsylvania.
The Drive-Bys want the president elected by a few large, very liberal, urban areas. The Electoral College prevents this and gives the rest of the country a say.
We instituted the electoral college [and the Senate] because it was the only way the smaller states would agree to join the union. The states gave up part of their power and autonomy to form the United States of America. Federalism is the basis of this Republic.
You said it much better.
I mean like it was back around 1787. It took some hits during the War Between the States. Took some more hits during the progressive era. More hits during the Depression. Again during the LBJ days. Nixon. etc. It’s been under assault for a long time. Hell, even back to Marbury v Madison. The anti-federalists were probably right about a lot of things.
everytime it looks like the dem might lose, they trot this out.
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.