Posted on 12/23/2004 10:46:30 AM PST by johnny7
You are sooo funny, I don't think Dianne would like your idea though.
I also told her that while we were discussing the electoral college,we might examine in detail the 17th amendment,and why we should repeal that.I asked her to imagine a senate that had been chosen by the state houses rather than the electorate.
BTW...
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Since the working poor are distributed all over the map, I'm not sure exactly what secession would mean for them, other than moving to Canada. Hard to declare your apartment block a sovereign state. In the case of States, large, contiguous regions of the country might feel disenfranchised in the absence of an EC. It would be easy for them to consider drawing a new border and declaring themselves a separate country. It's happened here before, for other reasons. Not very pleasant.
TRANSLATION: "The Red States are gaining population, and electoral votes along with them. The RATS in the blue states will be marginalized unless we can steal enough votes to win the election through fraud, which we can't do if it's spread out over 50 states."
Alaska will not go for this.
Without the deal, there would have been no Constitution, so the point is moot.
I am not one who thinks that everything the Founders did was automatically good, but I have to say I like the Electoral College. I would rather have the national election duked out in Ohio than have it won by somebody who carried NYC, LA, SF, Chicago and a handful of other major cities, and nothing else.
Massachusetts lost three thousand residents last year. At this rate by the 2010 census it will lose another Congressional Seat. HA HA HA...I hope its Ed Markey!
I am against eliminating the Electoral College, and I even endorse going back to letting state legislatures pick their US senators instead of a direct election. But then I'm SO 19th century antway!
Traditionally, the working poor selects a champion from the idle rich to advance their interests. Never seems to work out quite the way they intended, though. In the US, the Federal system and the House Of Representatives give the hoi polloi more of a voice. The US system, at any rate, seems to do better in practice than any other I know of.
It would not even pass in blue states.
John
An excellent idea, the 2000 election notwithstanding. John Kerry came within 60,000 votes switching of winning the presidency despite losing the nationwide vote by over 3 million. That is a travesty.
It's sad that this obsolete relic can't be discarded because one or the other party always imagines an advantage from it.
You are an advocate of mob rule. You might as well wear the scarlet letter "D" around your neck.
Oh please. Every office in the nation but the presidency is elected without the electoral college and you're worried about "mob rule"? The electoral college is an inane, silly 18th century anachronism and it amazes me that anyone could defend it with a straight face.
What would be different if we changed it? Nothing except campaigns would be genuinely nationwide - no more of this "battleground state" bull**** - and eliminating sentiments of illegitimacy.
You made my point. Picking "Susie Q of the month" in the office is mob rule, as well as electing Senators.
However, our founding fathers knew what they were doing. Besides, anybody who advocates another chip be knocked off our Constitution and our founding principles must come from the left side of the tracks.
Well, I'm not going to argue over it because I think it's pointless anyhow. The constitution won't get changed so long as either party thinks the EC gives it some kind of advantage. When it switches back to the Dems, then they will back it and the GOP will oppose. Same old story.
Are you from NY city, Boston, Philly, Chicago, Seattle, San Fran, or Los Angeles? If so, you are the ones abolishing the electoral college would benefit. We out here in flyover country are not so fond of your position.
I am from the mountains of North Carolina, and the "flyover country" argument is an empty one. Most of "flyover country" got totally ignored in the past election. The places that got the attention were cities and suburbs in the battleground states. Go find an itinerary for Bush and Kerry this past year and you'll see where the attention went..
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.