Activists celebrate blows to Electoral College

WorldNetDaily ^ | 04/07/2009 | Drew Zahn

[bamahead]

There’s no Constitutional mandate that tells electors how they have to vote, the only mandate is that they do meet and vote.

So, legally, a state can dictate that it’s electors vote any way the law perscribes.

Tradition has held that they’ve always voted to represent the desire of their states’ constituents.

If these states choose to change their laws mandating that their electors ignore the will of their own consitituents, there’s not much those of us in the other states can do about it.

The idea of a Representative Republic is basically being flushed down...

[PzLdr]

Once the electoral college goes, you’re just about guaranteed being an aphid in this ant farm...

[chris_bdba]

IMHO it should since it is part of the Constitution. I don’t udnerstand how states can regulate legally what the federal constitution mandates?

[mojitojoe]

I have to admit, I’m lost. I’ve always had a hard time understanding the benefits of the electoral college. Can someone explain in simple terms, why this would be a bad thing and how it would lead to more chance of corruption?

[seatrout]

The only flaw in the Electoral College is that by being a winner-take all system:

1. It gives false mandates. A POTUS with 50.1 percent of the popular vote could theoretically win an electoral vote “landslide”, thus making his victory appear bigger than it really is.

2. It suffocates third parties, turning them into nothing more than spoilers if they get any real votes at all.

3. If you are a Republican in Mass. or RI (for example), there’s little point in even voting for POTUS, as your lonely “red” vote will drown in a sea of “blue.” I suppose ‘rats living in TX or some southern states may have a similar problem (in reverse).

A PROPORTIONALIZED elctoral college would remedy all of this.

1. False landslides would be eliminated.

2. It would breathe new life into third parties. They would no longer be spoilers, and, if neither “demopublican” candidate hit 270 EVs, the third party candidates could be empowered as “kingmakers” (”I’ll turn my EVs over to the candidate who pledges to push at least some of my platform”)

3. The forlorn voters I mentioned earlier would have a reason to get out of bed on election day, since their votes would actually count (i.e. dem might get 61 percent of votes in RI, but Republican might get 37 percent—with 2 going to indy candidate).

Problem is, what formula do you use? Going by Cong. district has its own problems.

[MrB]

Biggest advantage - it isolates voter fraud.
Second advantage - presidents have to be president of small states instead of just two or three of the most populated.

[corvus]

Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey

Honolulu, Chicago, Baltimore and the NJ west bank of the Hudson. These states, and all others, should be cognizant of their urban centers dragging their respective states around politically by the nose. The electoral college was so conceived to preclude undo influence of ‘larger’ states over the ‘smaller’. States, themselves, would benefit from a similar electoral concept, as Chicago clearly demonstrates to the hinterlands of Illinois, as well as to all the rest of us.

[nathanbedford]

The arguments which you advance about the statistical probabilities of having your vote be decisive are exactly the kind of thing which might move four liberals on the supreme court. Appeals that I have been making on this thread about what the original meaning of the framers are virtually irrelevant to these four.

The four liberal justices will work backwards from what they think is good for the country which, although they will never admit it, means what's good for liberalism and the Democrat Party. The only way to overcome their backwards syllogism is to try to infuse race into the issue and claim that the decisions respecting voting and civil rights apply here and that to deny the application of those cases here is to deny those cases. These are the kinds of arguments that these liberal judges might find persuasive because you are actually arguing for democracy and turning the tables on the rats.

The other five justices (including Kennedy) need the kind of arguments I have been making and Kennedy needs both kinds.

[redhead]

"Wouldn’t it require a constitutional Amendment?"

Why bother to amend a speedbump?

[dpwiener]

“50 out of 270 isn’t that special.”
Actually, it is special. These states are now irrelevent from the perspective of political campaigns. This is a decision they will regret come 2012.

Actually, it is NOT special. These four states remain relevant because of a provision which says the new system will only take effect when states having a total of 270 electoral votes have signed up to it. Until then, those states will continue to cast their electoral votes based on the current system.

I don't find it at all surprising that four states would agree to this idea. You're always going to find at least a handful of states that will adopt practically anything, no matter how foolish. I'll be more worried when the number of states passing legislation in support climbs to a dozen (with 150 electoral votes).

[Question_Assumptions]

So that means the voters of those states will be disenfranchsed and their votes won’t count if they don’t agree with the voters in other states?

[WOSG]

Darn, I should have read the fine print. I was looking forward to these blue states making themselves irrelevent.

I guess the libs only believe in unilateral disarmament when it comes to America’s military. :-(

[WOSG]

Current system: No matter how corrupt the machine is in Philly, it can only change the election outcome in PA.

Future System: Possible corruption in Philly, Chicago and New York dictates the result of a national election.

If its a close election, you need to recount THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. That’s a huge huge task and a huge huge mess.

[Labyrinthos]

Clearly unconstitutional.

[ReformationFan]

Excellent quote-

“Majority tyranny is just as bad as any other kind of tyranny,” said Deist. “It makes no difference whether your liberty and property are taken by a king or a majority of individuals.”

This is really tragic. It’s so sad to see our once great nation degenerate every day.

[SunkenCiv]

Massachusetts Dems: “Let Illegal Immigrants VOTE!”
(Dems Despoil Democracy)
Boston Herald | April 7, 2009 | Michael Graham
Posted on 04/07/2009 5:28:14 AM PDT by suspects
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2223996/posts

A Dose of Reality Turns DREAMs into Nightmares
(Amnesty at Taxpayer Expense!)
NumbersUSA | April 7, 2009 | Rosemary Jenks
Posted on 04/07/2009 8:52:35 AM PDT by GOPGuide
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2224131/posts

Senator urges govt. to enforce law aimed at voting
Breitbart | Apr 7 2009 | LAURIE KELLMAN
Posted on 04/07/2009 1:42:18 PM PDT by KarenMarie
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2224328/posts

[Berosus]

I’ll believe it when I see it. I only time the Electoral College was successfully reformed was with the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, after the 1800 election produced a tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.

[Kozak]

This will be the final blow that shatters the Republic.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Berosus, I’ll link back to that when I post the topic about the 12th Amendment (three, four weeks).

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

I would hope so. Eliminating the Electoral College should be done by Constitutional Amendment, not manipulating the electors.