Liberals want to hack the Constitution

[Jumping Frog]

How many Presidential campaign stops do you think we would see in Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Nebraska, Idaho, etc. if rural votes have no weight?

Right now, the large urban, Democratic cities only need to manufacture enough votes to win their state. Voter fraud beyond a clear majority needed to win the state is wasted effort. Under the new proposal, dummy up an extra half million dead and illegal voters in each of a half dozen key cities, and now you have a 3,000,000 vote swing. Enough to win every presidency.

[Wes]

The last sentence on that page says it all, the United States "is not a democracy. This is a republic.". The attitude assuming the minority doesn't matter should be appalling, but unfortunately most don't understand. Just another way for the democrats to push their agenda and the big cities are all they care about.

[mamabearCali]

This is disgusting and terrifying. But this is how these rats work. They do not discuss this in the open air and let actual ideas be worked out (popular vote vs electoral college). They know they lose there. The go behind the scenes and find a backdoor to sneak in through. Hard part is while we are barricading one backdoor they find another.

[cb1000rider]

I don't quite understand. I get the implied insults of liberalism and "hacking the constitution".
Yes, we're a republic. Why is allowing each of our votes to count in an election such an appalling proposition? Is it implied that the goal here is to allow massive fraud?

If you think that it's just the liberals that are making behind the scenes deals in political circles, you're exactly half right. It's pretty much a fundamental of our political system as a whole.

[TomV]

It's not just liberals who want to see this happen. There is quite a bit of support across the board.

However, it is very difficult to amend the Constitution, so I'm not terribly worried about it.

[Jumping Frog]

Yes, we're a republic. Why is allowing each of our votes to count in an election such an appalling proposition? Is it implied that the goal here is to allow massive fraud?

Electoral votes ensure that every state has a voice in the outcome. Popular vote means the campaigning will focus on voter turnout in the top 25 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) because it is cheaper and more effective to gain more votes where you can concentrate media buy, campaign stops, fundraising, campaign staff, and other get out the vote efforts.

It makes small town and rural America irrelevant.

Same principle that gives small population states like Wyoming 2 senators to ensure every state has a voice in national affairs.

[Purplehood]

The Constitution has been amended 12 times in the 20th Century alone out of a grand total of 27.

It can happen.

[baldeagle]

I don't quite understand. I get the implied insults of liberalism and "hacking the constitution".
Yes, we're a republic. Why is allowing each of our votes to count in an election such an appalling proposition? Is it implied that the goal here is to allow massive fraud?

If you think that it's just the liberals that are making behind the scenes deals in political circles, you're exactly half right. It's pretty much a fundamental of our political system as a whole.

You misunderstand the plan. The idea is that, no matter who wins your state, the electoral votes in your state will all go to the winner of the national popular vote. So, if your state votes for the Democrat, but the Republican wins the popular vote, then all the electoral votes of you state will be cast for the Republican. IOW, the will of the people in your state is meaningless. The Presidential election becomes one huge national referendum. This effectively negates the votes of all the smaller states. Their votes no longer matter, so there's no point in campaigning for them, and once you're elected, there's no point in listening to them.

And it doesn't require amending the Constitution. It's an end run around the Constitution. The states merely pass a law that directs their electors to vote for the popular vote winner, and it's a done deal.

And yes, almost all politicians are evil, regardless of their party affiliation.

[jimlongley]

And it doesn't require amending the Constitution. It's an end run around the Constitution. The states merely pass a law that directs their electors to vote for the popular vote winner, and it's a done deal.

And yes, almost all politicians are evil, regardless of their party affiliation.

And some states already have similar laws. Throwing all of the electoral votes in a particular state to the winner of that state's popular vote, no matter how slim the margin, may throw the election one way or another despite the will of the people, think NY in any presidential election, and FL in the Bush/Gore debacle.

The electoral college (not called that in the beginning) was devised when communications were slow and "fairness" in elections was a concern. It was an attempt to make sure that all the voices of the people were heard. Unfortunately it is easily subverted and skewed as we have seen in elections past. Also unfortunately, these days it is easy to envision all manners of ways to subvert the system. Fixes? No easy ones.

[cb1000rider]

I'm still not sure this is a horrible thing. We've already had more than one minority-vote president get elected. To me, that more than anything indicates that the system isn't working.
Historically - I agree with the above. It simply wasn't possible to have the population vote in a national election and have those votes count in a timely manner. That's no longer the case.

For those of you afraid that this is all a plan to allow voter fraud run rampant - show me a major election in the US where that has been a problem. And for the conservatives that feel threatened, this might very well be a good thing as the people on the other side tend not to vote in elections at all. It may very well advantage the cause simply due to statistics around what types of voters actually turn out. Then again, as the population demographics per current trends, it could be a major problem.

[TomV]

I'm a little amazed at some of the comments here.

In MOST states, the full electoral vote goes to the winner of the popular vote in that state.

Some electors will vote contrary to popular vote. Some will stick with party affiliation. But most vote the will of the people of the state they are representing. There are also one or two states that can split their votes.

There is no end run around the Constitution going on.

There have been 3 presidents who won the electoral vote and not the popular vote and 1 who won neither but was elected by congress (John Adams). The most recent was Bush.

[baldeagle]

I'm still not sure this is a horrible thing. We've already had more than one minority-vote president get elected. To me, that more than anything indicates that the system isn't working.

On the contrary. That proves the system is working.

For those of you afraid that this is all a plan to allow voter fraud run rampant - show me a major election in the US where that has been a problem.

Nixon vs. Kennedy in 1960. Kennedy received enough votes in Chicago alone to tip the scales nationally. And there was clear evidence of fraud, which is quite commonplace in Chicago. There was also proven fraud in Texas, where some counties had more voters than residents and 75% of the votes went to Kennedy. There was also evidence of fraud in the 2000 election in Florida, but that was never pursued since Bush had won.

And for the conservatives that feel threatened, this might very well be a good thing as the people on the other side tend not to vote in elections at all. It may very well advantage the cause simply due to statistics around what types of voters actually turn out. Then again, as the population demographics per current trends, it could be a major problem.

You need to go back and read the founding documents. There is a reason that Senators were appointed by their legislatures rather than elected by popular vote, and there's an equally valid reason why Presidents were elected by the electoral college and not by popular vote. The founding fathers were vehemently opposed to a democracy, for reasons that they articulated quite well in the Federalist Papers.

It is not always good for the majority to win. The electoral college provides a counterbalance to the passions of the mob, as Madison would say, and grants the states with smaller populations a say in the outcome.

Representatives were to be elected by the people, to represent the peoples' interests most directly. Senators were to be appointed by the legislature, to represent the states' interests. (Of course the 17th Amendment destroyed that - one of the greatest mistakes this country has ever made and one for which we are paying dearly now.) The President was to be elected by the Electoral College to represent the nation's interests. If all three are elected by popular vote, then the republic is destroyed and the nation has become a democracy. That is the worst possible outcome, and one that the founding fathers sought eagerly to avoid.

[Middle Age Russ]

, Bald Eagle.

The Founders were terrified of true democracy but hungered for representation of individual interests in government. A true democracy becomes a tyranny of mob rule, trampling over the rights of individuals without compunction, and the best solution to provide both representation and individual rights -- a representative republic -- was crafted.

[wheelgun1958]

Perhaps we should return to the original intent for Senators and have them appointed by the states?