Posted on 03/17/2006 6:23:33 PM PST by ncountylee
In a recent article entitled, Flunking The Electoral College Once Again, Daniel Sobieski writes about a proposed election reform, “The Campaign for a National Popular Vote” in which, “a group of states would agree to award their state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of who carried their state.” Sobieski effectively dismantles any justification for this “scheme to improve” the electoral process by pointing out that if this was actually implemented, it would be the, “ultimate in voter disenfranchisement.” By asking the question, “How can it be fairer for a state’s electoral votes be given to the loser of that state’s popular vote?” I should think that he puts an end to any more discussion about this.
If anyone wants to continue arguing about it, he throws out a few more bones to chew on.
“If a presidential election is considered illegitimate because the winner of the popular vote is not the winner of the electoral vote, is legislation passed by the Senate also illegitimate because it was passed by senators representing a minority of the population? Wyoming’s two senators can cancel out California’s senators, who represent 69 times more people. Is that “fair”?
It seems like yesterday that Al Gore and the Democrats called foul after President Bush won his first term in office, based on the electoral vote. With all of the attention drawn to the issue of being able to win an election without a majority of the popular vote, I would have thought by now, in 2004, there would have been some substantial election reform in the offing.
(Excerpt) Read more at magic-city-news.com ...
At this point I'm ready to Force our senators to ride horses to DC for a month long session then they can return home and face their constituents as private citizens.
Yeah, square miles, not people. What wrong with those "loonies".
Most people would consider electing Presidents by popular vote unachievable and unnessessary...you've one upped them.
So how are gonna get that done? I suggest we enlist Congressman Paul (TX) to introduce a bill.
- Sancho
They are so obvious. Who do they think they're kidding?
Yes, but keep in mind state legislatures will most of the time give us more left-leaning senators then the voters would. At least half the GOP Seantors would never have been chose by a state legislature.
Have you ever wondered how people so smart could be so stupid? Hint: If you give up the pretense that they are either well meaning or misguided it starts to make sense. They know *exactly* what they are doing, and it ain't beanbag.
Direct election of Senators via state legislatures was deliberate and indicated, to provide balance against the "hot" house of representatives. The arguments used to discredit the practice and amend the constitution were along the lines of "good ole boy" cronyism and the like iirc. In my view, it was a huge relinquishment of local control of politics, by devaluing state legislators, and the Senators became "supercongressmen", no longer being free to vote their conscience. Probably another 1913 debacle.
Amen. Under the original Senate system, "unfunded mandates" were politically impossible because Senators answered to their respective State Legislature. The genius of the founders was in their exquisite sense of balance between the conflicting goals of maximizing representative government while minimizing the opportunities for power grabs and mob rule. We've lost so much of this we often forget what we had.
"...where 90% of the time, greater Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal tell the other 900 million square miles who's going to run the country."
I hear that! Loud and Clear. In Wisconsin, we have two blue counties (Dane & Milwaukee) telling the rest of us what to think. B@stards.
(I think the tide is turning, though. '06 and '08 will tell.)
The original reason (if I understand my history) for the 17th was a result of corruption of Senators elected by state representatives.
But the pendulum swings both ways. I refuse to believe that the likes of Hillary Clinton and John F-ing Kerry and Ted Kennedy would even attain power, let alone stay in power if the responsibility of electing these people were in the hands of our elected state legislatures. After all, would you want to be associated with keeping someone like Ted Kennedy in the Senate for 30+ years? After Chappaquiddick I doubt any reasonable and sane state representative would have even considered electing him to the Senate.
We the people have enough to do. We elect representatives for our local and state government and should only be asked to elect one person to represent us in Washington.
The 17th created an inherently corrupt, elitist and parliamentary body that only added another layer of governmental redundancy and bureaucracy. I think it interferes with the way our founding fathers wanted our government to work.
Karl Mundt's old plan from about 50 years ago seems better. Each congressional district get 1 EV and each state gets 2 additional EV's. The idea is to stop things like the 1960 election where a small number of (illegal) votes in Cook county tipped the entier state. Under Mundt's plan, most of the cheating in a single district would stay there.
Hillary Clinton would NEVER HAVE BEEN considered for the NY senate if the NY STATE legislature chose senators. I also truly believe that Ted Kennedy would have been tossed overboard long ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
These are the same wackos who want the congress representation to be awarded based on the percentage of won by each party ala a parlament.
This article is the last bastion of the dying party.
IT IS WORSE. THEY KNOW!
They know and that is why they want to change it.
Notice it is not unfair wacky CF (or Mass) can undo Wyoming's red state vote.
These "people" can't gain power with the founding father's opposing them.
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.