|
|
May 25, 2013
|
|
The End of the Electoral College as We Know it?Posted on Jun 1, 2006The California Assembly passed a measure to pledge the state’s Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote (as opposed to giving its Electoral College votes to the winner of the California popular vote).
Advertisement Previous item: Paper May Take Legal Action Against Bush Aide Next item: Iraqi Leader Accuses U.S. of ‘Daily’ Attacks Against Civilians New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By Gary Coutin, April 11, 2007 at 8:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Dear Sir,
It is very simple. All men are created equal. Therefore, the weight of the vote of all men is equal. Therefore, the candidate with the most votes wins the election. These are the principles behind every election in the United States EXCEPT THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. Why is this election different from all other elections???
Abraham Lincoln said that the Declaration of Independence of 1776 was the supreme law of the land. The Republicans of that time agreed. See the Party Platform of 1856 and 1860. Republicans have led the effort to abolish the Electoral College. Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, Oliver P. Morton, Henry Cabot Lodge, Everett Dirksen, Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, and Richard Nixon supported an end to the Electoral College. Even George Bush (Sr) voted for direct elections.
Are the “Republicans” of today even “republican” at all??? The Electoral College is a relic of feudalism. The Electoral College of the Holy Roman Empire was a device of the aristocracy to choose a King.
Gary Michael Coutin
Report this.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
By john harris, June 3, 2006 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
hey i got an idea,make the candidates write an essay,do it in such a way that they cant cheat(like an s.a.t test)then make the raw,unedited version available to ALL voters..just think of the kinda shit ol’dumbya would have written…
Report thisBy Konnie, June 2, 2006 at 6:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
How about spliting the electoral college vote of each state by the percentage of votes received, instead of winner take all. Wouldn’t that solve the problem?
Report thisBy Brad, June 1, 2006 at 9:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I’ll say it’s about time. I did some math, last election and realized someone’s vote in Wyoming was worth about 14 times more than mine here in Washington state.
Report thisBy R. A. Earl, June 1, 2006 at 9:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Pardon my naivete, but it seems to me the ONLY fair way to run an election in a democracy is to ENSURE two things: each individual gets only ONE vote, and, whichever candidate gets the most individual votes, wins first place.
In my utopia, other candidates who attract a relatively “significant” number of votes, regardless of party affiliation, are in some meaningful way engaged in government. If 50,000,000 people vote for Joe and 49,999,999 people vote for Mary it doesn’t seem fair to me that Joe wins all the marbles and Mary is never heard from again.
Nothing is quite as dispiriting as to realize that it doesn’t matter how you vote… the system is rigged from the beginning enabling cunning or connected candidates to win even if they don’t get a majority of the votes. That’s not democracy… I don’t know what it is, but it’s not democracy.
And as far as financing political campaigns is concerned some system needs to be devised whereby votes cannot be “bought.” The representatives in governments of the people are far too important to be selected on the basis of slick ad campaigns, hype and blanket media blitzes. All candidates’ values, visions and ideas need to be fairly heard by all voters.
As I said, I live in my own mental utopia… the real world is unfair, biased and corrupt. Somehow I just can’t get used to it and shut up.
Report thisBy Dick Manoukian, June 1, 2006 at 7:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I’m not exactly sure what the answer is, but there is no doubt that the California Assembly is onto something with their approach to the Electoral College. An evaluation of alternative approaches to the Electoral College is long overdue. Presidential candidates believing in the Red/Blue formula spend the majority of their campaign time and money in about fourteen to sixteen states that can swing the election their way. Just think how many visits to Pennsylvania President Bush made prior to November 2004. Ohio and Florida also were frequent campaign stops for both candidates. What about the other thirty five or so “token states” that hardly saw either candidate. A new formula must put all fifty states into play so that each and every vote counts. I guarantee it will not only lead to better campaigning but voters who believed their state outcome was assured will show more interest and voter turnout will increase. A true sign of a healthy democracy.
Now if we can only do something about REAL campaign finance reform. Hmmmmm!!!!!
Report thisBy mrblu45, June 1, 2006 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
About time! What a great idea! And neither BushCo nor anyone else can stop this from happening, if a few other states will only follow suit.
Report thisBy RC, June 1, 2006 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Good.
Report this