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

Skip to comments.

Activists celebrate blows to Electoral College
WorldNetDaily ^ | 04/07/2009 | Drew Zahn

Posted on 04/07/2009 8:21:38 AM PDT by GoldStandard

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: RC2; GoldStandard

There’s no Constitutional mandate that tells electors how they have to vote, the only mandate is that they do meet and vote.

So, legally, a state can dictate that it’s electors vote any way the law perscribes.

Tradition has held that they’ve always voted to represent the desire of their states’ constituents.

If these states choose to change their laws mandating that their electors ignore the will of their own consitituents, there’s not much those of us in the other states can do about it.

The idea of a Representative Republic is basically being flushed down...


61 posted on 04/07/2009 10:19:55 AM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

Once the electoral college goes, you’re just about guaranteed being an aphid in this ant farm...


62 posted on 04/07/2009 10:26:06 AM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeebee

IMHO it should since it is part of the Constitution. I don’t udnerstand how states can regulate legally what the federal constitution mandates?


63 posted on 04/07/2009 10:41:54 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

I have to admit, I’m lost. I’ve always had a hard time understanding the benefits of the electoral college. Can someone explain in simple terms, why this would be a bad thing and how it would lead to more chance of corruption?


64 posted on 04/07/2009 10:44:43 AM PDT by mojitojoe ( Idiots elected a Marxist ideologue with narcissistic personality disorder & America is dying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

The only flaw in the Electoral College is that by being a winner-take all system:

1. It gives false mandates. A POTUS with 50.1 percent of the popular vote could theoretically win an electoral vote “landslide”, thus making his victory appear bigger than it really is.

2. It suffocates third parties, turning them into nothing more than spoilers if they get any real votes at all.

3. If you are a Republican in Mass. or RI (for example), there’s little point in even voting for POTUS, as your lonely “red” vote will drown in a sea of “blue.” I suppose ‘rats living in TX or some southern states may have a similar problem (in reverse).

A PROPORTIONALIZED elctoral college would remedy all of this.

1. False landslides would be eliminated.

2. It would breathe new life into third parties. They would no longer be spoilers, and, if neither “demopublican” candidate hit 270 EVs, the third party candidates could be empowered as “kingmakers” (”I’ll turn my EVs over to the candidate who pledges to push at least some of my platform”)

3. The forlorn voters I mentioned earlier would have a reason to get out of bed on election day, since their votes would actually count (i.e. dem might get 61 percent of votes in RI, but Republican might get 37 percent—with 2 going to indy candidate).

Problem is, what formula do you use? Going by Cong. district has its own problems.


65 posted on 04/07/2009 10:48:01 AM PDT by seatrout (I wouldn't know most "American Idol" winners if I tripped over them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

Biggest advantage - it isolates voter fraud.
Second advantage - presidents have to be president of small states instead of just two or three of the most populated.


66 posted on 04/07/2009 10:50:56 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, Bowman later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey

Honolulu, Chicago, Baltimore and the NJ west bank of the Hudson. These states, and all others, should be cognizant of their urban centers dragging their respective states around politically by the nose. The electoral college was so conceived to preclude undo influence of ‘larger’ states over the ‘smaller’. States, themselves, would benefit from a similar electoral concept, as Chicago clearly demonstrates to the hinterlands of Illinois, as well as to all the rest of us.


67 posted on 04/07/2009 11:00:02 AM PDT by corvus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
The arguments which you advance about the statistical probabilities of having your vote be decisive are exactly the kind of thing which might move four liberals on the supreme court. Appeals that I have been making on this thread about what the original meaning of the framers are virtually irrelevant to these four.

The four liberal justices will work backwards from what they think is good for the country which, although they will never admit it, means what's good for liberalism and the Democrat Party. The only way to overcome their backwards syllogism is to try to infuse race into the issue and claim that the decisions respecting voting and civil rights apply here and that to deny the application of those cases here is to deny those cases. These are the kinds of arguments that these liberal judges might find persuasive because you are actually arguing for democracy and turning the tables on the rats.

The other five justices (including Kennedy) need the kind of arguments I have been making and Kennedy needs both kinds.


68 posted on 04/07/2009 11:08:30 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: zeebee
"Wouldn’t it require a constitutional Amendment?"

Why bother to amend a speedbump?

69 posted on 04/07/2009 11:33:08 AM PDT by redhead (Don't look at ME! I voted for SARAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
“50 out of 270 isn’t that special.”
Actually, it is special. These states are now irrelevent from the perspective of political campaigns. This is a decision they will regret come 2012.

Actually, it is NOT special. These four states remain relevant because of a provision which says the new system will only take effect when states having a total of 270 electoral votes have signed up to it. Until then, those states will continue to cast their electoral votes based on the current system.

I don't find it at all surprising that four states would agree to this idea. You're always going to find at least a handful of states that will adopt practically anything, no matter how foolish. I'll be more worried when the number of states passing legislation in support climbs to a dozen (with 150 electoral votes).

70 posted on 04/07/2009 12:08:51 PM PDT by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

So that means the voters of those states will be disenfranchsed and their votes won’t count if they don’t agree with the voters in other states?


71 posted on 04/07/2009 12:28:55 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener

Darn, I should have read the fine print. I was looking forward to these blue states making themselves irrelevent.

I guess the libs only believe in unilateral disarmament when it comes to America’s military. :-(


72 posted on 04/07/2009 12:29:42 PM PDT by WOSG (Why is Obama trying to bankrupt America with $16 trillion in spending over the next 4 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: mojitojoe

Current system: No matter how corrupt the machine is in Philly, it can only change the election outcome in PA.

Future System: Possible corruption in Philly, Chicago and New York dictates the result of a national election.

If its a close election, you need to recount THE ENTIRE COUNTRY. That’s a huge huge task and a huge huge mess.


73 posted on 04/07/2009 12:31:36 PM PDT by WOSG (Why is Obama trying to bankrupt America with $16 trillion in spending over the next 4 years?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

Clearly unconstitutional.


74 posted on 04/07/2009 12:34:39 PM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

Excellent quote-

“Majority tyranny is just as bad as any other kind of tyranny,” said Deist. “It makes no difference whether your liberty and property are taken by a king or a majority of individuals.”

This is really tragic. It’s so sad to see our once great nation degenerate every day.


75 posted on 04/07/2009 4:55:49 PM PDT by ReformationFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; george76; ...

Massachusetts Dems: “Let Illegal Immigrants VOTE!”
(Dems Despoil Democracy)
Boston Herald | April 7, 2009 | Michael Graham
Posted on 04/07/2009 5:28:14 AM PDT by suspects
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2223996/posts

A Dose of Reality Turns DREAMs into Nightmares
(Amnesty at Taxpayer Expense!)
NumbersUSA | April 7, 2009 | Rosemary Jenks
Posted on 04/07/2009 8:52:35 AM PDT by GOPGuide
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2224131/posts

Senator urges govt. to enforce law aimed at voting
Breitbart | Apr 7 2009 | LAURIE KELLMAN
Posted on 04/07/2009 1:42:18 PM PDT by KarenMarie
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2224328/posts


76 posted on 04/07/2009 7:56:14 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

I’ll believe it when I see it. I only time the Electoral College was successfully reformed was with the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, after the 1800 election produced a tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr.


77 posted on 04/08/2009 2:43:50 AM PDT by Berosus (No more Kennedys, no more Clintons, no more Bushes, no more political dynasties. Deal?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

This will be the final blow that shatters the Republic.


78 posted on 04/08/2009 2:55:07 AM PDT by Kozak (USA 7/4/1776 to 1/20/2009 Requiescat In Pace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Berosus

Thanks Berosus, I’ll link back to that when I post the topic about the 12th Amendment (three, four weeks).


79 posted on 04/08/2009 3:27:21 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

I would hope so. Eliminating the Electoral College should be done by Constitutional Amendment, not manipulating the electors.


80 posted on 04/10/2009 8:28:12 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Barack Obama: in your guts, you know he's nuts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 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