Posted on 11/02/2012 5:33:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
I hear you. Same for Las Vegas/NV, Philly/PA, and every other state dominated by the Democratic-run metropolitan areas. It would surely break the power of those cities, but you'll never see the Pubbies do anything about it, even with a super-majority.
There was a reason the founding fathers have started with the electoral college and it should be coninued
In 1960, John F. Kennedy narrowly beat Richard Nixon in the popular voting, 49.7 percent to 49.5 percent, a smaller margin than Cleveland had over Harrison. But wait: Nixon won more states (Nixon 26, Kennedy and others 24). But no: Kennedy, who won bigger states, went on to win the electoral balloting, 303 to 219. This time we, the people, did not strike out. The popular-vote winner became president.
That puts the lie to what has oft been stated, that vote fraud in Chicago, won the election for Kennedy. Illinois electors would not have changed the out come, even if they had gone for Nixon.
Consider the election of 2000 and we had direct popular vote elections. Had J. "I was in Viet Nam" Kerry, won 49 states by a margin of 50,000 votes each and Bush had only won Texas by a margin of 2,500,000 votes, Bush would still have won the election. I know that is a highly unlikely scenario but it illustrates the point
Of that, I have no doubt.
And I know it's not a popular opinion in these parts, but I've always favored elimination of the Electoral College.
A big part of the reason is because I abhor the two parties but a third party/parties will always have trouble getting a foothold in presidential races while the EC is in existence.
I'm in Illinois too Bob. I believe that Quinn won only two counties and carried the whole state last time. Hard to live with isn't it?
Imagine if every county (Parish in Louisiana) had one elector each. The rats would never win another election.
So many good comments here! Thanks fellow FReepers.
The EC a great idea for the reasons you mention. The Framers got it right.
What they also got (mostly) right was allowing only landowners to vote. The reason for that was that they wanted to prevent non-contributing members of society from voting themselves benefits that they would take away from the contributing members. Land ownership is probably not a good measure these days, but I would definitely like to bring back the spirit of this idea.
I’d like to see a drastic reduction in the voter rolls. I have no problem with retirees voting if they are retired from productive careers. But there are sound reasons why those on welfare and those who have never worked should not have a vote. It’s basically the same reason that children don’t get to vote. I would also give the vote to spouses of productive workers because they support a working spouse’s career.
What you said. Only Maine and Nebraska do it the way it really should be done.
Nope. Not me anyway. The electoral college prevents the domination from being dominated by the coastal mega-cities. And, if Obama wins the College, we’ll deserve it.
Repeal the 17th Amendment.
With those two changes, we'd be back on track to having the Republic that our founders envisioned.
Congress capped the size of the House in 1911 to 435 seats. The population of the United States has tripled since 1911, but the number of Representatives has not.
It would be interesting to analyze how an increased House would affect the balance of power in the Electoral College.
-PJ
When 100% of electors vote in lockstep on behalf of potentially only 51% of voters in a state it most assuredly keeps third parties down.
If you want to increase the chances of 3rd party chances you need to look at ballot access rules within the states.
I agree. I never said the EC was the *only* barrier.
The flip side is the election is dominated by states like Ohio at the expense of states like Texas & California.
Don’t really see it that way, but I’d rather have the election dominated by Ohio, than by the Boston-DC megalopolis.
Eliminate the EC, and in one generation (maybe less) you will see the USA break up into three or more separate confederations. And it won't be an amicable separation either.
So outside of the limitations of the 15th Amendment and poll taxes, and the 26th Amendment, states still have wide powers to decide who can vote for Congressmen and Senators.
And . . . State legislatures can still appoint Presidential electors.
We have only ourselves to blame for this dangerous drift into democracy.
I agree. If you look at the county map during an election, most counties in California vote Republican, but the big city coastal areas always vote Democrat bringing down the rest of the state.
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.