The wise old Ben Franklin replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”
Not much longer, Ben, if the Liberals get their way.
This can only serve to hurt the blue states. It could end up costing them an election.
Wouldn’t dropping the electoral college require a Constitutional amendment? I see this as another attempt by liberals to circumvent the Constitution.
Once again the Progressives will push and push until they get what they want and most here on Free Republic will whine and complain, moan and groan, but let the “blue” states have their way because it might interrupt their afternoon smoke.
Most people don’t understand the electoral college and feel this is a great idea.
In short, you will allow the largest of states with the most population dictate who your president will be. Most likely a Democrat . A Progressives wet dream.
Guess its time to let each state have two votes, period, in the Presidential election.
We do truly have two Americas. It will not end until "a crisis shall have been reached and passed."
The Elector Hunt Begins [Election 2000]
"One battle-tested Democratic consultant has even begun a quiet intelligence-gathering operation that could aid a last-ditch Gore strategy in the Electoral College. Bob Beckel, who managed Walter Mondale's 1984 Democratic presidential campaign and has close ties to [Warren] Christopher, has been checking into the background of Republican electors, with an eye toward persuading a handful of them to vote for Mr. Gore. If Mr. Bush eventually prevails in Florida but wins none other of the most closely contested states, he would have 271 electoral votes. Three GOP defections could make Mr. Gore president . . . The Gore camp itself has disavowed any intention of seeking to sway GOP electors."
Even Slate published stories about it. At least it made it that far into the MSM.
And if the spoiled brats can't win that way there's always race war..
Race war? Al Gore himself stopped the effort by the Democrats to start one in 2000 during the election dispute. That's the way I read the quote from his daughter Karenna.
A quote from one column (November 19, 2002) of Frum's I post often contains this (the quote is by Karenna Gore) and it's about the 2000 post-election day turmoil. It sure seemed to me that the Dems were ready to spark race riots -- which IMO the MSM would have demanded that Bush concede and bow to the "will of the people" (a phrase often included in MSM reports on the turmoil).
"He [Al Gore] said, 'We have to do what's best for the country, and it is not good for the country to have this kind of divisiveness.' And he was on the phone, really calling off the dogs. There were people who wanted to fan the … the flames of the racial issue and have real unrest. And he was on the phone asking them not to, because of what was best for the country not because of what was best for him politically. And that's really who he is."
Looks like the link to the Frum article was 404ed and most of the others are expunged also except for FR and a couple of others. The original source was an ABC 20/20 Nov. 15, 2002 B. Waters interview. This part was deleted from the air but Frum had it in (National Review?) now also disappeared. google in quotes, "the flames of the racial issue and have real unrest"
History being "adjusted"? American Stalinism at work? Stalin was a kind of spoiled brat who managed to kill 60 million fellow citizens, I believe.
The state legislatures will direct the electors as to how they cast their votes.
I guess rogue votes could still be cast.
I find this whole movement puzzling.
How could a state legislature think it would be a wise thing
to direct the electors to vote against the will of the voters?
Democrats will be for it until the GOP wins the next election and New York finds itself voting Republican.
Actually, they will be for it until the first time they perceive it costing them an election.
Aside from that, I can’t imagine why any state would voluntarily dis-empower itself. Strange.