It's Time to Junk the Electoral College We don't need an amendment to do it. -Jonathan Soros
Two problems (among others) Fred:
1. The electoral college confines the damage of fraud to a local area. For instance, if unions are packing the ballot boxes in Chicago, the most damage they can do is to the Illinois electoral vote. But under this plan, if they can control Chicago ballot boxes, they can control the nation.
2. This is just a precursor to a federal voting rights standard. Right now, your state can check voter IDs or ban violent felons from voting, etc. If this electoral college override scheme is implemented, you can bet the ACLU will quickly file suit to require “uniform national” voting laws.
One more blow to the federal republic.
This is the progressive response to the 2000 election.
Every time they don’t like the results, they try to change the rules. They’re constantly tinkering with the system to get the results they want.
Trust me, the first time this “National Popular Vote” scheme fails to elect a Democrat, you can bet the progs will be in court complaining that it “isn’t fair” and needs to be “modified” by a court ruling.
Okay, kids. One more time. We need a second party!
The electoral college,like the Senate, is a tool to ensure the small states and rural populations are not dictated to by the big cities.
Pure democracy is simply mob rule.
Fred, WTF are you thinking????????????????????
This makes no sense what so ever.
Has Fred started new meds?
That is pure insanity
While I do not support the “compact” I would favor a constitutional amendment to make the Presidential vote a popular vote. I understand that this works somewhat against the concept of a republic of sovereign states, but the fact is the Electoral College is already a corpse, having no actual decision-making ability. All we have left is a messy useless vestigial curiosity that encourages our sadly uneducated population could be a big monkey wrench.
The current system invites voter fraud, because we invariably have multiple states that are extremely close where a few thousand stolen votes can flip an election. It's a constitutional crisis waiting to happen.
I would like one other constitutional reform:
A two-round election in which the top two finishers in the first round face off in a second round, to diminish the possibility of the third party screwing up the works and giving us a President who is opposed by a strong majority of the voters (under the current system, it's mathematically possible in a 3-way contest to win the popular vote for the presidency by 34% of the vote, and to win the electoral college with as little as 17% of the popular vote (in a 3-way race).
I hate all from Washington ping
Electing the President via cumulative popular vote would simply enslave the nation to a few huge cities.
We are so screwed if we lose the electoral college”””
AMEN. IF we drop the Electoral College, we will have the following locations selecting our President, VP.:
New York City
Miami
Chicago
Dallas/Fort Worth
Los Angeles/San Diego
San Francisco
No one else will get any campaigning or attention. A one size fits all policy on everything will be based on CITIES needs, not the rural needs.
Following such an election, only those locations will get any support from the Federal government & they will control the country.
Wyoming-Kansas-Nevada-Alabama, etc, won’t be considered in any way, shape, or form.
Ping
Fred Thompson???
The rats and rinos are determined to have a one-party corruptocracy.
Several good posts. Don’t miss info in post #32 and #35.
Wow! That boy ain’t right in the head.
I certainly am pleased that this guy’s presidential run was nipped early.
I certainly am pleased that this guy’s presidential run was nipped early.
The application of this idea will disenfranchise the voters in the states that adopt this measure, utlimately ignoring and replacing what might have been the choice of the voters of the state with a choice dicated by the law.
Our nation is a federal republic, not a democracy.
The president is not “the president of the people” of the United States. The president is the president of the federal government of “these United States” - the states.
The people in the states choose electors in their states. The states, through their representatives among the electors choose the president.
The only greater element of democracy that might be appropriate might be to hold, under law, the votes of the electors to the choice as expressed by the voters that selected them.
A “national popular vote” is not a well-represented choice of the nation.
“The nation” is not simply a count of the people in it or a count of the people voting in it.
The nation is lived and experienced in its towns, cities, regions and states and the identity of the nation is more bound up in the combination of the identity of all those different communities (of varying sizes and dimensions) than it is some number of persons added up from all of them.
I analyzed the last eight presidential elections. In each of them the winning candidate, in electoral votes, was the candidate chosen by a majority in a majority of counties all across the nation. The loser(s) did not achieve as broad of a national support.
That kind of coverage of “the nation” to collect the electoral votes it represents, is a greater expression of the choice of “the nation” than the mere “most number of people” vote.
The “national popular vote” is another nail in the coffin of this republic that progressives want to pound into the body politic.
Just a quick heads up all. Poster mvymvy is nothing but a pro popular vote troll reading from a script.
Want proof, look at his posting history. Want more proof, grab a key phrase out of one of his pre written responses and put it in a search engine and look at how many times its been posted elsewhere. We have our very own Ellie Light.