War on the Electoral College

[FrancisMarion]

I bet this was in many Sunday papers today:

"It's a terrible system," said Paul Finkelman, a law professor at Albany Law School who teaches this year at Duke University. "There's no other electoral system in the world where the person with the most votes doesn't win."

http://www.startribune.com/politics/...1.html?refer=y

So it appears that the Democrats are all for equality in every aspect of humanity. Unless, of course you live in the country. Bumpkin.

[ClydeCoulter]

I see a push for a true democracy coming to a theatre near us

[angelatc]

It isn't just the Democrats. Saul Anuzis pushed hard for the National Popular Vote initiative. IN Illinois, it was passed with almost little or no public discussion.

I consider it a done deal. Once the Democrats decide to do something, they never stop. Republicans might play defense, nothing more.

[farreri]

Good riddance to it. I'm surprised not everybody here is against it. Isn't it just another socialist-like program trying to ensure "equality"? Why should my vote be lessened because people chose to live in the country? And besides, politicians pretty much only concentrate on states or areas that are neck-in-neck in the polls.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

300+ million people, popular vote or electoral college = plain oppression.

Any country that size is a monster and oppressor of its people by virtue of its size alone.

[supermario21]

Why should libertarians be against it? Remember we live in a constitutional republic not a pure democracy.

[farreri]

300+ million people, popular vote or electoral college = plain oppression.

Any country that size is a monster and oppressor of its people by virtue of its size alone.

Proportional representation. Best way, IMO.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Why should libertarians be against it? Remember we live in a constitutional republic not a pure democracy.

Because trying to represent a collective body of 300+ million people is absurd! No system works good enough to do it.

[TheTexan]

300+ million people, popular vote or electoral college = plain oppression.

Any country that size is a monster and oppressor of its people by virtue of its size alone.

Indeed. It's literally impossible. We all have different priorities, want different things. There is no "one size fits all" approach that makes everybody happy. And to attempt that is to guarantee oppression.. for everybody.

[FrancisMarion]

Two things in my opinion.

One, any usurping of states power is a move in the wrong direction. One big argument for the National Popular Vote is that the states that are already decided "red" or "blue" states, do not see attention from the presidential campaigns. Well, guess what, if it was a national vote with no states sending their representation through the Electoral College its going to be even more dramatic. Can we say campaigning in the Northeast, Atlanta, Florida, Denver and the West Coast? That would about do it.

Under that circumstance, the urban areas would get most of the platform and concentration, and subsequent political concessions. Next thing you know, we will have some disgruntled citizens simply based on where they live and the population density (and for good reason). Know that would be just fine and dandy if the federal government remained limited in their scope. But they do not and frankly its not in their nature. They are the Feds. If I lived in the sticks I would still be affected by the laws and appropriations of the Feds.

Now we come back full circle, any powers of the states that are usurped means we are heading in the wrong direction.

[AGRP]

Go ahead and end it. Hopefully the other 48 states outside of NY and CA will throw a big stink over not having the power they thought they did. The quicker people wake up the quicker this country heals.

[Simple]

Article I section 2: "...The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand"

We haven't followed the Constitution on this issue since the 30's if memory serves me correctly. If we want better representation out of the Congress and the Electoral College all we need to do is follow the Constitution instead of trying to find a fix.

[angelatc]

Because trying to represent a collective body of 300+ million people is absurd! No system works good enough to do it.

The point isn't to represent 300 million people. The point is to represent 50 states.

Of course the liberals want direct democracy. They hate the fact that the people in the city can't rule over the rural people.

[erowe1]

Article I section 2: "...The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand"

We haven't followed the Constitution on this issue since the 30's if memory serves me correctly.

Are you saying we do exceed 1 for every 30,000? That would mean we have over 10,000 representatives.

[ronpaulfollower999]

Are you saying we do exceed 1 for every 30,000? That would mean we have over 10,000 representatives.

Clearly the founders didn't' intend on the nation becoming so big.

[dbill27]

Are you saying we do exceed 1 for every 30,000? That would mean we have over 10,000 representatives.

i think he's interpreting it as saying we should have one rep for every 30,000 citizens

[dbill27]

Clearly the founders didn't' intend on the nation becoming so big.

why do you assume that? we could easily have 10,000 representatives. The Dallas Cowboys stadium can fit 100,000 plus people. Why can't we have 10,000 representatives in congress voting?

[erowe1]

i think he's interpreting it as saying we should have one rep for every 30,000 citizens

That's what it looks like. But that's the opposite of what the Constitution says.

I'd be all for a much larger House. But going by the Constitution, that size of roughly 10,000 is the maximum size, not the minimum.

[angelatc]

Article I section 2: "...The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand"

We haven't followed the Constitution on this issue since the 30's if memory serves me correctly. If we want better representation out of the Congress and the Electoral College all we need to do is follow the Constitution instead of trying to find a fix.

I think that means the most they can have is one for every 30,000. But I agree - the House of Representatives needs to be much bigger.

[Keith and stuff]

Good riddance to it. I'm surprised not everybody here is against it. Isn't it just another socialist-like program trying to ensure "equality"? Why should my vote be lessened because people chose to live in the country? And besides, politicians pretty much only concentrate on states or areas that are neck-in-neck in the polls.

There are 50 independent states. The people in the states vote as a whole. It makes sense. This is a Constitutional Republic made up of 50 independent states. This isn't a democracy. This is the United States of America.

[Keith and stuff]

I think that means the most they can have is one for every 30,000. But I agree - the House of Representatives needs to be much bigger.

We have 1 representative for every 3300 people in New Hampshire. They get paid a salary of $100 per year. There is no health insurance. There is no pension. They don't have offices. They don't have staff. It damn sure makes sense to me.

[tttppp]

Good riddance to it. I'm surprised not everybody here is against it. Isn't it just another socialist-like program trying to ensure "equality"? Why should my vote be lessened because people chose to live in the country? And besides, politicians pretty much only concentrate on states or areas that are neck-in-neck in the polls.

I agree. I hate the electoral college. I don't like how my vote doesn't count at all.

[farreri]

There are 50 independent states. The people in the states vote as a whole. It makes sense. This is a Constitutional Republic made up of 50 independent states. This isn't a democracy. This is the United States of America.

Ideally, the feds aren't supposed to do anything that's not authorized in the constitution. The POTUS is only supposed to be a figurehead, more or less.

Why would getting rid of the electoral college that lessens my vote because where I live (a city) matter?

[Keith and stuff]

Ideally, the feds aren't supposed to do anything that's not authorized in the constitution. The POTUS is only supposed to be a figurehead, more or less.

Why would getting rid of the electoral college that lessens my vote because where I live (a city) matter?

National popular vote isn't supposed to matter in the US. There are 50 independent states in the US.

[ronpaulfollower999]

I agree. I hate the electoral college. I don't like how my vote doesn't count at all.

When the country was first founded, your vote wouldn't count in many states where electors where chosen by the state legislator.

[tttppp]

When the country was first founded, your vote wouldn't count in many states where electors where chosen by the state legislator.

I don't support that either.

[AuH20]

Agenda 21 would thrive in a world without that pesky electoral college. Just saying.

[Carehn]

Am I the only one that thinks they should fight to the death like gladiators???

[angelatc]

Am I the only one that thinks they should fight to the death like gladiators???

I'm ok with that. At the very least, a "Survivor" style contest instead of the debate format.

[BlackTerrel]

So it appears that the Democrats are all for equality in every aspect of humanity. Unless, of course you live in the country. Bumpkin.

Equality is everyone's vote counts the same.

I think the best system of government is the one where the President is elected by the most votes.