Well, they're at it again

[davidtx]

Has anybody else seen this?

[youtube][/youtube]

[Purplehood]

Correct me if I am wrong (and I know you will), but I don't recall the Electoral College being addressed anywhere in the Constitution. So I don't understand the claim that Massachusett's and 5 other states intend to "bypass the Constitution".

[davidtx]

I don't know either. I saw this posted on Facebook this morning and was puzzled. I posted it here to get commentary from folks that are far more knowledgable than me. I've got to get on the road now and won't be able to respond until this evening.

[Wrightwing]

Article II Section I

[Purplehood]

Article II Section I

LOL, I do stand corrected. Thank you, Sir (Ma'am?).

[ninemm]

So let me get this straight. In a given presidential election, Massachusetts votes 80%-20% in favor of the Democratic nominee. Meanwhile, the total popular vote in the country goes 50.25%-49.75% in favor of the Republican nominee (because of exceptionally large Republican voter turnout in the south and mid-west) but the Democratic nominee won a majority (however small) in enough states to otherwise win the election on the basis of electoral votes (counting Massachusetts) . But all Massachusetts electoral votes are thrown to the Republican nominee because of the new law and the Republican wins. This certainly makes every vote count and rewards the party who does the best job of getting out the vote. Wait a minute, I think I get it now. The Democrats really think they are better at community organizing. And why not? This makes perfect sense to me.

[Purplehood]

I prefer the Neolithic idea of a simple majority vote. States would have nothing to do with it.

There are X number of eligible voters in the US who cast ballots. Candidate A got the most votes from the entire US, so that candidate wins.

That is my silly pipe-dream.

[fickman]

It won't happen. Only the high-population states would be for it, as it would strip the smaller states of their importance during Presidential elections. Essentially, politicians would only campaign in New York City, L.A., Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, etc.

Too many states benefit from the electoral college to ever get an amendment ratified. And I'm glad.

[Purplehood]

I know, I know. It is illogical that I feel such sentiments.

[b322da]

I am unable to find reference to the "Electoral College" in the Constitution. "Electors" are mentioned in Art II, Sec. I, but not the "College," unless I have some mental block here. The Congress picked up the customary practice of using the term "Electoral College," and put it in the statutes at Art. 3, Sec. 4, U. S. Code.

The serious move to have the majority vote in any state send 100% of the state's electors to vote for that candidate was a result of frustration after Geo. W. Bush was declared the winner, receiving more electoral votes when the Supreme Court decided they wanted Bush to be president rather than Al Gore, who received more individual votes nationwide.

In my humble opinion the legislation under discussion does no damage to the Constitution, which does not address the issue as to how the individual states allocate their electoral votes.

"States Rights," remember?

Elmo

[mgood]

It won't happen. Only the high-population states would be for it, as it would strip the smaller states of their importance during Presidential elections. Essentially, politicians would only campaign in New York City, L.A., Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, etc.

Or at least the less populous states would believe that it would work against them. Whether it would or not, you can debate either way, but you'd never get enough states to agree on it to amend the Constitution.

[b322da]

It won't happen. Only the high-population states would be for it, as it would strip the smaller states of their importance during Presidential elections. Essentially, politicians would only campaign in New York City, L.A., Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Atlanta, Philadelphia, etc.

Or at least the less populous states would believe that it would work against them. Whether it would or not, you can debate either way, but you'd never get enough states to agree on it to amend the Constitution.

I have to ask: just what in the Constitution would have to be amended to make this possible?

Elmo

[bnc]

Going to a straight popular would not help fix the problems of this country, and in fact, would make it worse. Our government has systematically become more democratic (more voting, not the D party), and has also become systematically more oppressive. We are already in the situation where people like Obama get the votes because they promise to the majority the spoils of raping the minority. Old Franklin would be saddened to find out that the people have realized they can vote themselves into the property of others, and that our republic is well on its way to an end. With millions of illegals pouring over the border, I would put a popular vote at the bottom of my wish list.

Professor Hans-Herman Hoppe has done a huge amount of work covering the pitfalls of democracy and how it tends to lead to a popular tyranny. I'll try to dig up some links later on.

[Kythas]

I am unable to find reference to the "Electoral College" in the Constitution. "Electors" are mentioned in Art II, Sec. I, but not the "College," unless I have some mental block here. The Congress picked up the customary practice of using the term "Electoral College," and put it in the statutes at Art. 3, Sec. 4, U. S. Code.

The serious move to have the majority vote in any state send 100% of the state's electors to vote for that candidate was a result of frustration after Geo. W. Bush was declared the winner, receiving more electoral votes when the Supreme Court decided they wanted Bush to be president rather than Al Gore, who received more individual votes nationwide.

In my humble opinion the legislation under discussion does no damage to the Constitution, which does not address the issue as to how the individual states allocate their electoral votes.

"States Rights," remember?

Elmo

Removing the Electoral College will, in effect, nullify State's Rights. Elections will be decided solely by the more populous states, with the less populous rural states being all but ignored.

As it must be stated again and again because people don't get it: we don't live in a Democracy; we live in a Republic. The Electoral College was devised by the founders as a way of ensuring the smaller, less populous States still had a proportionate say in electing the President, much as the intention behind the US Senate. If people think democratic mob rule is the way they want to go, then let's also abolish the Senate, as the House is the legislative body that is proportioned according to population.

By the way, the Senate was originally intended to represent the interests of the individual States and Senators were elected by the individual State legislatures. The House was to represent the interests of the People and were elected by popular vote. This was changed in the 17th Amendment

[The Annoyed Man]

This is not directed individually against members who may belong to the democrat party....

...but the leadership of the democrat party, at both the state and national levels, is fundamentally evil. I mean it. They are satanic. They are out to crush America and change it forever. I hope they all catch a lingering, painful, and incurable venereal disease.