Posted on 07/08/2008 9:42:48 AM PDT by buccaneer81
If you know history you'd know that the ELECTORAL COLLEGE was put in because Connecticut wanted to make sure that small states would have a VOICE in the ELECTION!
Can you NOW STFU!!
The argument for popular vote is pervasive, but it entails removing one of the pervasively important balance of power checks inherent in the Constitution.
In other words, it is not a good idea.
I think this is the best idea I’ve heard in a long, long time. Since there is NO WAY a Constitutional Amendment would be passed to bring this about, it would require passage in the individual States. Since only the ‘Blue’ States have an issue with the EC, if only THEY switch to representative EC votes, and the ‘Red’ States stayed with ‘winner take all’, the Democrats would suck wind for a century, or more.
Good plan.
~faith.
or was we used to say, “What is a Dukakis?”
The electoral college is another protection method for our way of governing. It needs to stay. If you went totally by popular vote and communists took over you would be dead. Our present system would protect against that.
Mathematical proof of the legitimacy of the Electoral College.
Repeal the 17th Amendment instead. This ain’t a democracy.
Every time there is an election the Democrats call to end the electoral college.
You misspelled it....
I think you meant “ Doo-kock-itch...”
There...that’s better...:D
“Badlaa” episode I believe. Watch out for that squeak.
"Dukakis For What?!"
I saw on that said:
MY DOG DUKAKISED
ON THE CARPET
A constitutional amendment is the proper mechanism. If a few states changed, it could radically alter the results. California and New York could hand the White House to the GOP by switching to a district by district allocation. If a few large conservative states switched, it would hand the White House to the dems.
Exactly. Can't help but find it pretty funny these ***hats call for an end to the Electoral College while claiming they want "every vote to count".
We already do - in each of the 50 separate but equal states, numb nuts.
The people in power who want to get rid of it know exactly how it works, I think. This is one step closer to Federalizing the elections and further diminishing the power of states.
We used to appoint senators at the state legislature level, however a state chose to do it, they'd send two senators. Now it's popular vote in the state, per amendment, and that took a chunk of state power and changed the balance of power.
Democrats want “democracy” as long as it's run from a monolithic powerful central point.
Last time I figured it out, if we went strictly by popular vote, candidates would campaign in about 100 counties (maybe it was 150) and the rest would not count or matter.
If you added up several of the Western states the population there would not equal that of LA County- get 80% of the vote in LA county, and NM, MO, WY, ID, UT couldn't match that at 100%.
We amended the constitution to directly elect senators, with a similar chack-and-balance shift. It could happen again.
I really like your graphic at Post #43.
I guess Dukakis is still bitter at losing 49 states.
That was a deadly ad...I remember it well.
Great....then a handful of cities get to decide the ruler of the free world and thos eof us in smaller states will have no say in the matter......YAY!!!!!
You have to think that they are just playing to the dupes in their constituency when they spout BS like this.
One, it would require a constitutional amendment in which at least 10? states would have to vote against their own interests.
Two, they know that the Senate and House are apportioned based on the same concept that the EC is apportioned.
(It was funny when I made this argument to a lib, and they didn’t have a CLUE as to what I was talking about.)
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.