Could that possibly be a good idea? For the Democrat Party, expert in "voter" registration, the answer would most likely be a emphatic yes!
But is shelving the Electoral College for a system of presidential election winners chosen purely by popular vote the direction that our country should be heading?
The Electoral College - "It is a process that began as part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution. The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and election by popular vote. The people of the United States vote for the electors who then vote for the President..."
1) - This legislation is nothing but an attempt for the left to capitalize on the complete and utter ignorance of the American people. People who have limited education and absolutely NO sense of American history. They have dumbed the populace down to the point that the masses honestly think we are a democracy ... but we are not. The people honestly believe that the electoral college is a tool from a bygone era that no longer applies. They believe that as long as technology allows us to count everyone's vote, then every vote should count individually. It is an outrage and is as unAmerican as anything could be.
2) - How does the saying go? is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. A Republic is a well armed sheep... something or other. You get the idea.
- We are not a Democracy, we are a Representative Republic. The popular vote is a wonderful idea IF you are a liberal democrat. They (liberals and establishment types) love this idea because it pushes along the destruction of what America is supposed to be. The part that broke my heart about this legislation is what I heard on the radio ad that they were playing constantly a while back in support of this legislation. And that is that Fred Thompson is an avid supporter of this legislation. He was my guy in '08 and that sucked a lot that he could put his name to something like this.
This legislation is right up there with Obamacare and should be stopped at all costs. It is a travesty, plain and simple!
3) - I am opposed to this idea. This sets up a tyranny of the majority. The Democrats would love this. They would register every Tom, Richard and Harry in their urban centers to outvote the country folk. Can you imagine the vote totals from New York and California overwhelming the small states. This is a dangerous idea.
4) - So because voters are ignorant and can't be counted on for a good decision, I'm supposed to trust the willy boogers after they have been bought off by Pilesofcrapticians? ( politicians ) I'm supposed to believe the voters in Noo Yawk are better judges of what we need as as country, than I am? I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.
I would advocate a return to a poll tax, only property owners being able to vote, a citizenship test, repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment, and the outlawing of both all political parties.
5) - ...The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
We are a Republic and a Democracy. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy. With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
6) - There's no way that I could support a national popular vote bill. It would give the populous states - the blue states - an even greater advantage then they already have and guarantee Democrat presidents ad infinitum.
7) - I guess one of my core questions would be, without pages of rhetoric, why be concerned with trying to alter the system?
In the history of the Electoral College, there have only been four instances where a presidential candidate has lost the popular vote yet won the election:
- John Q. Adams lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson in 1824.
- Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote to Samuel Tilden in 1876.
- Grover Cleveland lost the popular vote to Benjamin Harrison in 1888.
- George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore Jr. in 2000.
I question motivations. Nobody starts a major movement unless they feel there is something to gain from it. I find myself wondering who is in line to gain from this little piece of legislation ... and so help me God it is not the voters.