Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dukakis calls for end to Electoral College
The Boston Herald ^ | July 8, 2008 | Dave Wedge

Posted on 07/08/2008 9:42:48 AM PDT by buccaneer81

Dukakis calls for end to Electoral College Dave Wedge By Dave Wedge Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Calling it “critically important” to eliminate the Electoral College system, former Bay State Gov. Michael Dukakis called on lawmakers to join a growing number of states supporting a switch to a national popular vote to elect the president.

“I think it is high time we got rid of the Electoral College and elected our presidents the way we elect every other elected official in the country - by a vote of the people,” Dukakis wrote in a letter e-mailed to state lawmakers yesterday. “The overwhelming majority of the American people do, too.”

So far, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Hawaii have supported electing the president through a national popular vote. A bill to add Massachusetts to that list is pending on Beacon Hill.

In his missive, Dukakis, who ran for president in 1988, admitted that he focused mainly on swing states during the stretch run of his race.

“Under the current system, running for president means just one thing: focus on the so-called swing states,” he wrote. “I did it. Al Gore did it. John Kerry did it, and our Republican opponents did it, too.”

“A big turnout in Massachusetts and many other states is irrelevant to winning the election. Only winning the swing states matters.”

Dukakis said a national popular vote would help a smaller state like Massachusetts have a bigger impact on presidential politics. States get one electoral vote for each member of their congressional delegation but under the new initiative would give all those votes to the winner of the popular vote nationwide.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: constitution; dopeydems; dukakis; electoral; electoralcollege; usconstitution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last
To: buccaneer81
He isn't complaining that the Electoral College is outdated and outmoded. He's complaining because it's working. It's working perfectly, in fact. It's preventing him and his ilk from subverting the Republic through demagoguery and deceit. That's the general reason why it's there, it's a firebreak as someone else said, and it's no surprise that a big-government socialist has a tremendous issue with it.
41 posted on 07/08/2008 10:01:39 AM PDT by Virulas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djsherin
Why are democrats always against processes that the Constitution lays out?

They can't win otherwise.

42 posted on 07/08/2008 10:01:48 AM PDT by HoosierHawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Dukakis calls for end to Electoral College

Put some ice on it Mike.


43 posted on 07/08/2008 10:03:12 AM PDT by tx_eggman (Privatizing profits and socializing losses is no way to run an economy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

C’mon! We need this because all elections must reflect the WILL OF THE PEOPLE! We also need NATIONAL BALLOT INITIATIVES!!! That’s how we pseudoconservatives in California prefer it. We need MOBOCRACY! WILL OF THE PEOPLE! WILL OF THE PEOPLE! /sarcasm


44 posted on 07/08/2008 10:03:54 AM PDT by Clemenza (You Shoot Me in a Dream, You Better Wake Up and Apologize)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Dukakis said a national popular vote would help a smaller state like Massachusetts have a bigger impact on presidential politics.

Just the opposite will happen. The candidates will focus on the bigger states in terms of population concentrations. Urban areas will receive greater emphasis.

Dukakis: The Constitution already has a procedure to amend it. We all know that you can't pass such an amendment so now you are using state compacts to circumvent the Constitution.

45 posted on 07/08/2008 10:04:15 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

If the EC goes, then so should the Senate.

How often does it happen that a bill passes the House, representing the Will Of The People, only to be shot down in the Senate, with votes representing a minority of the people but majority of the States?

The Seanate is more antidemocratic than the EC by far.

Could it be that we don’t have a democracy here at all?


46 posted on 07/08/2008 10:04:32 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

Then illegal immigrants can vote, and make a difference.

Yeah, what did Dukakii do? Wasn’t he the goofy guy in a tank?


47 posted on 07/08/2008 10:06:07 AM PDT by Tarpon (Ignorance, the most expensive commodity produced by mankind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
In his missive, Dukakis, who ran for president in 1988, admitted that he focused mainly on swing states during the stretch run of his race.

So Duke, how'd that work for ya?


48 posted on 07/08/2008 10:06:17 AM PDT by Badabing Badablonde (New to the internet? CLICK HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
focus on the so-called swing states,” he wrote. “I did it. Al Gore did it. John Kerry did it,

And look how well that worked out for those three stooges.

Typical Democrat, if you cannot win by the rules, change them or cheat, or both!

49 posted on 07/08/2008 10:06:46 AM PDT by Michael.SF. ("They're not Americans. They're liberals! "-- Ann Coulter, May 15, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

“The current policy of “winner take all” for each state”

These are state policies, not federal, this is one element of a republic of independent states with sovereignty.


50 posted on 07/08/2008 10:06:52 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

Mr. Dukakis is not only stupid, politically, but he is also cheap.

Wow. What a superb combo.


51 posted on 07/08/2008 10:08:14 AM PDT by RexBeach ("Americans never quit!" Douglas MacArthur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: djsherin
Why are democrats always against processes that the Constitution lays out?

Because the very definition of a liberals like "Dorkus", Hussein, and McCain means they want to change the constitution on only apply it when they feel like it.
52 posted on 07/08/2008 10:09:36 AM PDT by TexasGunLover ("Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."-- President George W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
This does not require ANY action by the US Congress. Each state legislature would choose the method by which the Presidential electors were selected.

The only problem is that doing it the way you suggest would be resisted by the party having the edge politically. Why would the Dems in CA or the Reps in TX agree to a system that would split their electoral votes and in essence, decrease their influence on who gets elected? Maine and Nebraska have decided on a different way to allocate their electoral votes, but they really are not that significant in terms of their impact on the election process.

53 posted on 07/08/2008 10:10:05 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

True. Maine and Nebraska award electoral votes based on congressional district. Every other state could do that if they wanted to. Each state decides how to award their electoral votes. 48 of 50 states do it winner take all, but there no requirement that they do so.

It would be nice if people knew what they were talking about and how the system works before they call for getting rid of it.


54 posted on 07/08/2008 10:11:15 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: TexasGunLover

Yes. Benjamin Franklin told us that the convention gave the United States a Republic, only if we could keep it. I fear we have not kept it.


55 posted on 07/08/2008 10:11:23 AM PDT by djsherin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: MediaMole
The only logical change to the law would be to apportion electoral votes by congressional district. A presidential candidate would receive an electoral vote for each district he won and the statewide winner would receive two electoral votes representing the state’s senators.

Even that change would require a constitutional amendment. Article II, Section 1 specifies that the method for appointment of electors is to be determined by each state's legislature.

States are already free to do what you propose. I believe that there are two that do. The states can't, though, be forced to do so without an amendment.

56 posted on 07/08/2008 10:11:29 AM PDT by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: tx_eggman

Mike Mondale?


57 posted on 07/08/2008 10:11:48 AM PDT by Michael.SF. ("They're not Americans. They're liberals! "-- Ann Coulter, May 15, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

As soon as the President is elected by popular vote, and it may happen, this country is kaput. Done. Over.


58 posted on 07/08/2008 10:13:57 AM PDT by Doohickey (SSN: One ship, one crew, one screw.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

Maybe Dukakis forgot, or maybe he never knew, but the states formed the Union, nor the other way around.

And the agreement to have a Senate with two from each state, and a House with representation from districts based on population, that agreement was necessary for the Union to be formed in the first place.

And, from that the Electoral College was formed with the same number of delegates as each state had Senators plus Representatives. So simple, and an arrangement that was necessary for the USA to come into existence.

So, while you’re at it Dukakis, start a campaign to also turn the Senate in representation based on population. Hardee har har.


59 posted on 07/08/2008 10:14:41 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81

““I think it is high time we got rid of the Electoral College and elected our presidents the way we elect every other elected official in the country - by a vote of the people,” Dukakis wrote in a letter e-mailed to state lawmakers yesterday. “The overwhelming majority of the American people do, too.””

I think that line of thinking should have died when they made Senators a direct vote instead of having the State Legislatures do it, like the founders set up. The founders knew what a runaway federal congress could do and set the Senate to be elected by State Legislatures so that the states would have a say in the federal government...a check against a tyrannical fed. Now the the states have lost that power, look what we have.

It would only be worse if this comes to pass.


60 posted on 07/08/2008 10:15:29 AM PDT by MissouriConservative (Never pick a fight with an ugly person; they've got nothing to lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson