Without Electoral College, we'd live in real-life 'Hunger Games'
The Chicago Tribune.
Posted on 11/12/2016 6:50:03 AM PST by C19fan
The only way to do this is through the Amendment process. I don’t think 2/3 of the state legislatures are going to agree to have their only power to compete with the huge urban centers eliminated.
Eric, buddy, your time is up. Go away.
Why should the Large cities get to tell the rest of the country (not to mention the rest of their own states) what to do while sending us the bill.
Hey you d*ck, we are a republic not a democracy. GFY!
I understand your points. For the most part, I agree. The electoral college does indeed have a valid constitutional purpose. The only thing about it I would change is not allow electors to vote however they wish. They should be bound to represent their districts and vote for the winning nominee. Period.
Perhaps it should be changed to the number of electors assigned to each state represented by the number of senators it has: two, and none for DC.
This POS should have stayed in his hole. He’s just reminded us to add him to a long list to investigate.
The Constitution and the Electoral College: “Convict Eric Holder for treason and imprison him”.
The effect of the electoral college is derided as ‘giving dirt a vote,’ because it amplified the potency of sparsely populated states. It turns out to do even more. The EC dilutes the strength of heavily populated states, forming a barrier to various Californias who would otherwise impose their leftism on red state America by a simple majority.
The republic as envisioned is dead. Get used to it. It was killed off in the end by Dubya Bush’s USSC decision Gonzales v Raisch. The electoral college is a barbed wire fence holding back the howling northern winds. Urban masses are experiencing the Founders’ poison pill.
Since (apparently) absentee ballots aren’t counted, how could we know what the popular vote really is?
abolish eric
I think an important point, nobody is making, is that Hillary did not exactly “win the popular vote”, in that, she got about 47.5% of the vote. She did not get a majority of the vote. She got a plurality. Big difference, in my opinion, if you want to talk about electing someone via popular vote.
Al Gore also, while getting more popular votes than “W”, also got less than 50% of the vote.
If we did go to a popular vote for president, we should:
1. make sure we have the same standards, such as voter ID, same regulations on early voting, etc. everywhere.
2. make sure that we have a runoff, if the leading vote getter has less than 50% of the vote.
3. make sure that there are uniform standards for counting absentee ballots, mail ballots, provisional ballots. As of now, some places don’t even count absentee votes if there aren’t enough to make a difference in an election results. But if you have a national popular vote, you aren’t going to get an accurate number if you don’t standardize and federalize these processes.
Fair enough. It could be discussed.
Gosh - what a surprise. I wonder if he realizes that, if they only counted votes from living American citizens, Trump would have won by several million....
The unsustaniables should never rule.
I don’t want to be dominated, enslaved to the Left Coast or the big urban areas! Period! Honest election or not!
It’s interesting to see, that Hillary got only 50 electoral votes from states in the interior of America. The vast majority of her support came from the liberal northeastern states, and liberal Pacific coast states.
Trump has an absolute landslide across America, except for the bicoastal liberal areas.
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.