Save the Electoral College - By Paul Greenberg

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Save the Electoral College::By Paul Greenberg (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/PaulGreenberg/2007/04/04/save_the_electoral_college)

How strange: Legislators here in Arkansas, or at least those in this state's House of Representatives, have just voted for a bill that would cast the state's six electoral votes for whichever presidential candidate won the nation's popular vote.

That's right: This state's delegates to the Electoral College would no longer follow the wishes of Arkansas voters. Instead, they'd go with whichever candidate got the most popular votes nationwide.

Can this bill be constitutional?

[The_Elucidator]

This would be cool, just one more step closer to having elections like Saddam use to hold. Vote for me or die! Didn't he win like 99% of the vote with the 1% who voted for the opposition ending up in mass graves. Communism here we come; then we can talk about an "Establishment" candidate!

[BuckeyeMike]

This will be one of The Bitch's first priorities should she, heaven forbid, gain the Oval Office....elimination of the Electoral College!

[The_Elucidator]

This will be one of The Bitch's first priorities should she, heaven forbid, gain the Oval Office....elimination of the Electoral College!

I think they are trying to get rid of it prior to '08 so as to get the Queen of the Third Reich elected. They can mine enough fraudulent votes from New York, New Jersey, Cali to help her win but that doesn't translate to fly over country where she can't win.

[DeclinetoState]

That's kind of why the Electoral College is useful. A Democrat can't stuff the ballot boxes in a state where his or her party is in control of the legislature, courts, and elections and have the votes offset those of a Republican state where the opposite may be true. Only in states where there is close to a 50-50 split is there any incentive to commit mischief.

[The_Elucidator]

That's kind of why the Electoral College is useful. A Democrat can't stuff the ballot boxes in a state where his or her party is in control of the legislature, courts, and elections and have the votes offset those of a Republican state where the opposite may be true. Only in states where there is close to a 50-50 split is there any incentive to commit mischief.

Not sure what you are saying here chief? I would think you would be hard pressed to uncover equal voter fraud from Red states vs Blue states. But in an election where only the popular vote mattered, it would be quite easy to gen up a few hundred thousand votes in highly populated urban communities in Blue states to put a 'Rat candidate over the top.

[Eagle1]

Can this bill be constitutional?

no it is not, that does not stop states from passing it though. I think nebraska has something like that.

Historically, electors have always gone with the state winner or voted in the percentage of the state results. There have been a couple cases where one or two electors have changed, I think the last case was the late 70s or early 80s.

If an elector did change their vote to go against the state result and was prosecuted for it the supreme court (if it made it that far) would have no choice but to overturn.

[DeclinetoState]

I think one of Algore's electors from D. C. in 2000 had a hissy fit and abstained. One of Ford's electors from Washington State in '76 voted for Reagan.

None of these changes has ever affected the outcome of the election in the EC, however.

[Rhino]

no it is not, that does not stop states from passing it though. I think nebraska has something like that.Actually, the Constitution does not specify how electors must vote, and no, Nebraska is not like that. Their electors are allocated based on what each congressional district votes. The remaining two electoral votes go to the winner of the popular vote for the state, but in no case do they base it on the national vote. Maine does the same thing.

[Naturalized-Texan]

A Constitutional Amendment would be required to abolish the Electoral College. There is no way that such an amendment could get a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress AND the ratification by 38 states. The smaller states and their senators and representatives would never vote to give up the power that they have to control the election of the president.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: The 2000 election provides the exact reason to keep the Electoral College system as it is. Can you imagine the popular vote being razor-thin, & an aßhole like Gore demanding a nationwide recount? It's bad enough that a whole state had to go through that.

[The_Elucidator]

:unsmile: The 2000 election provides the exact reason to keep the Electoral College system as it is. Can you imagine the popular vote being razor-thin, & an aßhole like Gore demanding a nationwide recount? It's bad enough that a whole state had to go through that.

LP you aren't suggesting that the libs would circumvent the system and only gen votes from predominantly urban 'Rat areas during a recount.

Man that 2000 election still brings back bad memories. It was scary to watch how they tried to steal the election in plain view. Can you even imagine what goes on behind the scenes...? sheesh

[DesertFox]

I want a Constitutional amendment outlawing modern liberals, Leftists and other sick-minded bastards from holding office.

[BuckeyeMike]

or citizenship!

[Rhino]

A Constitutional Amendment would be required to abolish the Electoral College. There is no way that such an amendment could get a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress AND the ratification by 38 states. The smaller states and their senators and representatives would never vote to give up the power that they have to control the election of the president.True, but I think the fear is that, if more of these such laws pass, the EC will be rendered ineffectual whether it is abolished or not.

[Wyatt_Junker]

The eventuality of course is that the corn-fed red states will have less & less of a voice as the entire country is taken hostage by the blue urban centers, which is why we had the electoral college in the first place. It already sucks enough just in my own state of California where we are held hostage by LA & Frisco, let alone that happening to the entire country.

I never thought I'd see the day that this would even be debated. I certainly never thought I'd see states passing ghost legislation like this. Its antithetical to the basic civics I was raised on and the foundation of this republic. Its like we have adults in positions of authority who never even took basic US history and every decision they make is the result of what happened in the 2000 election. Not very wise to be so trendy with our fragile democracy. Things can change quickly, even in one generation. America is only as good as the next young crop of its citizens, which isn't looking all that promising.

[cerberus]

The smaller states and their senators and representatives would never vote to give up the power that they have to control the election of the president.

Don't fool yourself NT, they don't have any power to elect the President now. How many times did a candidate from either party visit Wyoming, Alaska or North Dakota in the last few elections?

[The_Elucidator]

Don't fool yourself NT, they don't have any power to elect the President now. How many times did a candidate from either party visit Wyoming, Alaska or North Dakota in the last few elections?

Don't fool your self. Ten to fifteen electoral votes either way could have made a big difference in both elections. Just because the candidates have a particular state locked up doesn't mean they don't count. They may be a small piece of the puzzle, but make no mistake about it, they do help make up THE puzzle.

[Rhino]

The candidates don't need to visit there for a state to have an effect. It worked quite well in 2004, for example. The high populace states went for Gore, while the lower populace states like Wyoming, Alaska and North Dakota gave Bush the victory. Many other elections have also proven this. Who is fooling themselves?

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/pe2004.png

[The_Elucidator]

Yep, what the Rhino said!

[Timberwolf]

Don't fool yourself NT, they don't have any power to elect the President now. How many times did a candidate from either party visit Wyoming, Alaska or North Dakota in the last few elections?
Bush came here twice in 2000 and once more in 2004...that's the North Dakota portion of your question.

[cerberus]

The candidates don't need to visit there for a state to have an effect. It worked quite well in 2004, for example. The high populace states went for Gore, while the lower populace states like Wyoming, Alaska and North Dakota gave Bush the victory. Many other elections have also proven this. Who is fooling themselves?

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. One of the arguements deployed in favor of the EC is that is protects "state" interests and allows them to have a greater impact, but this is not the case. The vast majority of states, and therefore voters are ignored before the first vote is counted. New Jersey, Wyoming, Delaware, Alabama, these states didn't "matter" in the sense that they were not competitive; they were "safe" and both the Dem and the Rep candidates could, for the most part, ignore them because they weren't in play. This doesn't enhance "small state" stature, it diminishes it. The better, strategy, and the candidates know it, is to focus you resources, efforts and pandering to the few places that matter.
What you end up with is a small handful of swing voters in a very small handful of states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida etc) basically deciding who wins the election. No wonder voter participation is so low. Why vote in Conneticut if you are a Republican? Why go to the polls in Mississippi if you are a Democrat?

[Rhino]

Point taken. But the so called battleground states can, and often do, change from election to election. They've also had some surprising results from 'safe' states before. It doesn't bother me that they focus most of their efforts in states where it is needed the most. Another thing you have to consider is that in being a 'safe' state, they are having a great impact. Their 'safe' status not only gives their favored candidate an edge, it also allows said candidate to focus their efforts in places where it is more needed, thus furthering the goal of the voters in that state. In other words, a candidate can focus efforts in battleground states because of the greater impact that those safe states gave him. They aren't being ignored. On the contrary, they are facilitating better election chances for their chosen candidate.