Reply With QuoteWhy aren't we surprised? This was suggested by Billary Clinton earlier this year.
The Democrats new agenda is to abolish the Electoral College. Why do they want to do that?
Because 9 states have 50% of the US Population! If they can win those states or most of them then they can win the election. It lets the Democrats focus all their attention on those few states and makes it easier for them to run the country while ignoring what America's heartland really believes in.
The states are: California (Democratic state), New York (Democratic state), New Jersey (Democratic state), Texas (Republican state), Ohio (Republican state), Michigan (Democratic state), Florida (can go either way), Pennsylvania (can go either way), and Illinois (Democratic state).
And who is leading the charge on this? Why it's The New York Times, the newspaper that long ago left journalistic integrity in favor of a very left-leaning agenda to re-make America.
Why aren't we surprised? This was suggested by Billary Clinton earlier this year.
Gore should be backing this one. Boo Hoo.
Yeah I read that article and couldn't disagree more. Less populous states need the electoral college so that their interests can be represented in government. One of the examples that the NY times used was that the candidates were spending time debating the nuclear waste dump in NV and how that was a waste of time because New York has more people and therefore more pressing concerns they should worry about. That is exaclty why we need the electoral system because without adequate representation, the less populous states will become nothing more than dumping grounds for New York and LA.
And who is leading the charge on this? Why it's The New York Times, the newspaper that long ago left journalistic integrity in favor of a very left-leaning agenda to re-make America.
post the article. I'd like to read it.
The Electoral College is a brilliant system... our founders were amazing. I am against abolishing it for the reasons you all cited... :eat:
Here is a link to the article that I read:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_college_dc_3
a true democracy would lead to communism in very short order. Our govt. was set up as a republic for a reason. a very good reason. it is amazing the fore sight our founding fathers had.
A true democracy would be the final blow to this country and pray that day never comes.
Omega
Here's the article. Thanks for the link. As a dem (no kidding!), I have wondered what the other party would have done if the tables had been turned four years ago. What is Gore won the electoral and Bush the popular? Would the editorial have said the same thing or would it have been different? Would Fox News and Rush be promoting this if the 2000 election had gone against their party? Personally, I do not think the EC should be abolished and in fact support it. However, the fact that california and many other states are being ignored this year is because of the "Battleground" states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan are getting all the attention because of the EC and the weight it has. Would the abolishment of the EC force the candidates to run thier campaigns to the nation instead of to just a few key states? Food for thought....anyway, here's the article.
Scrap Electoral College, Says New York Times
Sat Aug 28, 9:52 PM ET Add Politics to My Yahoo!
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States should abolish its electoral college because it creates the possibility that the president will be a candidate who loses the popular vote, the New York Times said on Sunday.
The electoral college "thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis," the paper said in an editorial.
In the last presidential election in 2000, Republican George W. Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) by more than 500,000 votes.
"Most people realized then for the first time that we have a system in which the president is chosen not by the voters themselves, but by 538 electors," the editorial said. "It's a ridiculous setup."
The paper, one of the most respected in the United States, said "there should be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president."
"The main problem with the electoral college is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote," the editorial said.
It said the system unfairly favored small states, which were awarded a minimum of three electoral votes regardless of how many residents they had.
"The majority does not rule, and every vote is not equal -- those are reasons enough to scrap the system," the Times said.
It cited other factors: "A few swing states take on oversized importance, leading candidates to focus their attention, money and promises on a small slice of the electorate.
"We are hearing far more this year about the issue of storing hazardous waste at Yucca Mountain, an important one for Nevada's 2.2 million residents, than about securing ports against terrorism, a vital concern for 19.2 million New Yorkers."
Hey SL,
How about one county/one vote? :idea:
http://www.bushcountry.org/bushcount.../bc_poster.jpg
Sounds good to me.
Posting Permissions