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

To: dead
Eventually, they'll come to understand that it would mean the 10 or so largest cities in the US will pick the president.

And that is exactly why the Left is pushing for this. Because they know they will control the White House until the nation is driven into bankruptcy.

It amazes me how stupid many Americans are on this issue. I got into it with my sister-in-law on this very subject over the summer. She felt that it just made sense to choose the president on the popular vote instead of that "complicated" electoral college.

She lives in Alabama so it was easy to point out to her the flaw in his logic. I stated that if we elected presidents on a direct popular vote, that no future president would care about Alabama or any of the other states that don't have a huge population center.

You can forget about Iowa caucuses and NH primaries. They won't matter anymore. Nobody will care about Cedar Rapids or Nashua or anywhere else with a population under a million. Candidates will focus on NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, Atlanta, etc., and screw the rest of the country and what they might have to say about things.

The founding fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they came up with the Electoral College - they protected the rights of all states by giving them a voice, regardless of geographic size or population. (That is also why each state has exactly two senators each.)

69 posted on 10/24/2011 10:11:08 AM PDT by SamAdams76 (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: SamAdams76

Minorities “should” be most aware of the importance of the electoral college and our representative form of governance.


77 posted on 10/24/2011 10:16:31 AM PDT by cripplecreek (A vote for Amnesty is a vote for a permanent Democrat majority. ..Choose well.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: SamAdams76
I got into it with my sister-in-law on this very subject over the summer. She felt that it just made sense to choose the president on the popular vote instead of that "complicated" electoral college.

Another effective ploy: Ask your SIL if the World Series scoring is "complicated". Instead of best-of-seven, should they just total the runs scored by each team and determine the outcome that way?

Winning games is obviously the objective. By the same token, the presidential election is about winning states.

86 posted on 10/24/2011 10:23:23 AM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

To: SamAdams76
And that is exactly why the Left is pushing for this. Because they know they will control the White House until the nation is driven into bankruptcy.

We should get rid of the electors (the people, that is) but keep the electoral votes. We should also do away with carrying a state based on its overall popular vote and, instead, allocate the votes mechanically, based on the popular vote in each congressional district, with the two at-large votes going to the winner of the congressional district(s) or split in the event of a tie in congressional districts.

That would restore the voting rights of residents of rural districts in big states, who are currently swamped by population centers in those states. It would also firewall vote fraud to the districts in which it occurs.

131 posted on 10/24/2011 11:05:20 AM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies ]

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