from – InsiderOnline.org
Right now, there’s a well-organized, below-the-radar effort to render the Electoral College effectively useless. It’s called the National Popular Vote, and it would turn our presidential elections into a majority-rule affair. Would this be good or bad? Author, lawyer, and Electoral College expert Tara Ross explains.
WASHINGTON DC, June 2 — Special counsel John...
AMAC Exclusive – By Andrew Abbott Nate Silver, founder and...
AMAC Action’s week in review Memorial Day This Memorial Day,...
AMAC Exclusive – By Shane Harris The most important U.S....
I made a comment before without thinking more on the Electoral votes purpose. On 12/19 Republicans should not sway from what this country can do for all Americans in a positive and “right” way despite what the radicals have to say by throwing tantrums and threatening peoples lives. I feel they have lost their right and credibility when they speak only for themselves not for all Americans. They should leave the country and live in the most deprived countries to find out how good they have it here in America. Electoral votes on 12/19 can seal what true Americans are about.
I forgot one.if they don’t like it all they have to do is amend the constitution .all that would take is 1.a two thirds vote “290” in the house and two-thirds” 67″in the senate. Can’t see that happening.but if by some fluke it it gets by that it goes to the the states the number 2.it would go to the states.there it would have be ratified by 38″75 percent”of the states.go for it.you would think attorneys would have read the constitution
Can’t imagine what they have in mind 1.the state has absolutely nothing to do with the make-up or operation they are dictated by the parties involved the electors of the winners of the party that win te popular vote in the state vote.what’s this contract business ? They only vote accordingly.they or the state cannot contract anything. Read the constitution.
Like the UN each state should have one vote to cast for the president.
The system we have now, the electoral college, works well and gives each state a fair weighted representation in electing the president.
the part of the electoral college we can do without is the representatives casting their vote in January. If the presidential election just went by popular vote, we could see a president elected by just 3 or 4 states with the largest populations, like New York, Florida, Texas and California. Those 4 states could elect the president. Would that be fair? or it could require the popular vote but have to carry 26 states, that is 50% + 1.
Almost every reply seems to be: There are more liberals than conservatives therefore conservative votes should be weighted more heavily. Don’t let big cites choose our president because they have disproportionately more people? Does anyone hear what they’re saying? That their vote should count for more if they live in a less populated area. That their vote should count for more being the key wtf.
The founding fathers knew what they were doing. We can’t be changing things because someone lost an election. I’d personally like to go back to having governors appoint Senators, now that the Republicans hold the majority of governors. But democrats wouldn’t go along with that, because it wouldn’t be to their advantage like abolishing the Electoral College would be! Leave things alone!
This time it’s some democrats (not all) wanting to abolish the EC, in the past it’s been some republicans (not all) who want to. Whoever loses wants to change the rules. Kind of like kids playing baseball or football wanting to change the rules.
What we need to fix is the gerrymandering within each state. We should be building voting districts so all people in the same geographic neighborhood or rural area vote for their representation. Stop cherry-picking homes, streets, and parts of counties across your state in order to get votes for the ruling party to stay in power. United in communities we stand, divided we fall prey to manipulation.
***people vote, not cities, not states, not land areas, not (yet) corporations. Giving an equal single vote to every citizen is simply logical and fair. Small state interests are well protected structurally not only by their having an equal two Senators each, but low population states are guaranteed at least one representative, even when they have less than 1/435 th of the U.S. population. Rural interests don’t do too badly – check the farm bill. You may worry about the increased influence of California, I that of Texas, but people are people wherever they live and deserve to have their vote counted the sam
It doesn’t matter how many Representatives or Senators the smaller states have because those congressmen do not determine what party is elected to the WH. The founding fathers knew what they were doing to make sure every state was given a fair chance in choosing the president. Oh, and keep in mind when Obama told a journalist who was interviewing him that illegals could vote & no one would prosecute them. This is on tape so he can’t deny it. Makes me question how many “ILLEGAL” immigrants voted in the last few elections, using dead people’s names. Or used their drivers licenses or ID where they DID NOT have to prove citizenship.
Our Founding Fathers were aware of the unequal distribution of populations in the states. The industrial North, the West Coast, and now the East Coast have the great number of people. A Popular vote would give these few states a majority, and the president they prefer. Ignoring those states with the least votes would be unjust.The Electoral College permits states with less people, and thus less votes, an equal say in who should be president.
The wisdom of our early elected officials, in setting up the Electoral College, appears to be lost on American citizens. It is NOT lost on those citizens of the European Union. Those citizens envy our sane, and sound manner of transition of power. The Iranian university student read our Constitution, and admire the fairness of every individual’s vote counts.
This is why the World looks up to America. It is truly the land of the free. Citizens of all countries would desire this freedom, and struggle to immigrate to our wonderful country.. .
right. less votes equaling more is just what i would call equal. perhaps check that definition.
This would be fine at two votes per state. Then Iowa, Nevada, Wyoming, Oklahoma and others would have equal status with the slums of Los Angeles and New York. Seriously, don’t even think of it. We most certainly do not want some counties in California and New York, together with Chicago, selecting our President. The Founding Fathers were right.
The founding fathers of our country set the electoral college in place so every state had a fair say in the elections regardless of the population of that state. I would want to keep it the same.
Do away with the Electoral College and the US will end up like California. The big cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento run our state and the small inland, mountainous areas do not have a vote because of the disproportional population. Those of us who are more conservative do not have a chance for our vote to count.
All national elections would be determined by the big city vote placing the future in the hands of unions and money intertests
All this proves to me that the Democrats are sore losers! Leave the Electoral College alone! It’s doing the job our forefathers designed it to do!
Would only work if they found a way to avoid voter fraud and were able to change the Constitution. Would need to purge voter lists on a regular basis, ensure that people didn’t vote in more than one state, have a voter ID program that matched voter lists requiring everyone to register at least a month before an election, ensure that people who register are actually citizens, have everyone vote during the same time period so that everyone was done at the same time even though there are different time zones. However, the states with smaller populations would have very little say, and this is why the Constitution won’t change because you won’t get the number of states to ratify eliminating the Electoral College.
Why don’t we do a recount and ensure that only live citizens and non-felons voted. I bet the democrats will shut up. The democrats have become a mafia like organization that would like to see all of the U.S. like Chicago, no job, run down, lawless, and only a few elite living it largely.
Right on Mary.
Without the Electoral College, only the heavily populated cities would elect our presidents. Since cities are heavily dependent on government entitlements and are heavily liberal Socialist Democrats who support “sanctuary cities”, this would be a very bad thing for our country. Just look at their record over the past 8 years! The good news is, our founding fathers saw this coming when they instituted the Electoral College so they made it almost impossible to repeal. It would take 2/3 vote of the Congress (House and Senate) to repeal it and Democrats would NEVER agree with anything a Republican would propose. That’s a good thing because real Americans will continue to have a voice in the election, even though they are busy raising our food, making lumber, and attending church. Rural Americans are protected under the Electoral College. Let’s keep it!
With the electoral college, the sties with the greatest populations have the most votes. But the smaller states still get represented. With popular vote, our president would be elected by the five or six most populous cities in the country. Who would the president work to please? Rural America would virtually have no say in the policies that affect them most.
The voting process is questionable. There has not been any mention about the amount of voting twice or illegal alien voting. They sure had it broken down in other categories.
Amazing how the dems change their tune when they lose. When a republican suggested this years ago it was no go because they would have lost a couple of presidential elections for the same reason Clinton lost. Now that it’s their turn to suck it up theirs ready to change the law makes me sick