It looks like the writer of this letter and Mr. Evensen from the DesNews staff
find little agreement in the comments. Since the election of 2000 was mentioned,
think of what would have happened if the Florida voting had not been dealt with,
and the entire state recounted. Then what would have happened if that did not
resolve the situation? Perhaps the state could have re-voted. What would happen
in the a general election that only differed by a few thousand votes? Would the
entire nation be re-counted? As the writer says this would be electoral chaos.
What sort of government would come out of this? We have no idea. The comments above show little understanding of our Constitutional Government.
In order to delete the Electoral College, it would require a Constitutional
Amendment. In order to ratify an amendment three fourths of the state
legislatures have to agree. Of course this will never happen in the
lifetime of anyone old enough to read this, unless our government and the
Constitution are dissolved. If this were to happen generations far into the
future would suffer, and chaos would reign. Only the anarchists would be happy.
Anyone who survived the Democrats and their lawyers trying anything they could
come up with to get a few more votes in select discricts in Florida know why we
don't just go off the "popular vote". The 'Pregnant Chad', debates,
the law suits, the numrous re-counts of targeted disctricts, the "Old people and
black people can't understand the ballot", complaints and all the rest of the
shenanagans that was going on. Can you imagine if all they had to do was find a
few questionable ballots or one person who didn't know what they were doing in
the whole USA and they could possibly overturn the election??? Can
you imagine the wrangling that would be going on if all the Democrats had to do
was twist a few thousand votes, or have a few thousand thrown out on
technicalities???And regardless of it being unconstitutional... You
WANT this system? What are you thinking?
I agree completely.
Ultra Bob | 10:12 a.m.: "States are simply political divisions of one nation.
They have no "rights" other than the rights of the people who live there."Wrong. "The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution... are
reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Article X
No Fan | 7:37 a.m.:"Direct popular elections were excluded
because it was physically difficult to conduct a popular vote in the 18th
century."Conducting a popular vote may well be physically difficult
again. Or impossible. Computers don't always work. Eventually we will vote
via home computers. Then watch hackers change election results."At
the time, only adult white male landowners were eligible to vote."That's the way it should be now. Soon illegal immigrants will be voting to
elect our president... Eventually, the whole world will get a vote. Some of
the world's influence is being felt as we speak. Muslims and terrorists, for
example, are encouraging voters to choose Osama.
The election of 2000 was the first one in well over 100 years in which the
winner of the popular vote did not also win the electoral college. Changing it
probably won't change election results very often.
Yes, I definitely think it was a mistake when we started electing Senators by
popular vote. We lost resprentatives focused exclusively on the interests
pertinent to unique states. Why have another two Congressmen essentially with
the same constituency of the the other House? The Senate professes to be more
deliberative, but it is a difference without a distinction. The blending of the
branches of government are becoming blurred. No checks and balances.
@No Fan - In the early years of this country, each state set it's own voting
rules. In some states, only White Landowners were allowed to vote. That was
far from the case in every state.That being said, the only reason
Democrats want the Electoral College abolished is because it has worked against
them in the last two elections. If it were working to their advantage, they
would be fighting to keep it. It's a self serving argument, not necessarily
what's in the best interest of the country.Keep the Electoral
College. We are the United States of America, and anything that we can do to
remind us that we are individual states is healthy for the country.
Lionheart: Do you think then that we made a mistake when we began to elect
members of the Senate by popular vote as well? The only "circus" around here has
been the one for the past eight years!
No Fan @7:37 - You gave an incomplete description of the electoral college's
purpose. If it were just for the logistical reasons you mentioned, each state
would have received the number of votes equal to its number of Congressmen in
the House of Representatives. But instead, it's House + Senate. So all states
get two additional votes due to their statehood. It gives small states a little
more say in the game. That would be lost if we abolished the electoral college,
which would be a shame because it makes sense for states to get some "credit"
for being a state.I think it would be great to keep the electoral
college (so the small states can keep the benefit they currently have) but have
each state divide its electoral votes proportionately according to the outcome
of the popular election in each state.
I am an American Liberal Democrat, mostly because I believe in the American
ideals and aspirations.I am a Utahan because I live here.States are simply political divisions of one nation. They have no
"rights" other than the rights of the people who live there. All American
citizens no matter where they should have equal rights and equal representation
in our national government.Do away with the Electoral College.
I used to be insulted that the Electoral College was in place in case I wasn't
"smart enough" to cast my vote right.But this year, I took greater
notice of the junk coming out of the McCain campaign. After realizing that some
people actually believe that stuff... ewww... thank God for the Electoral
The electoral college is one of the last bricks left in the wall which was built
to keep the masses from ruling by majority vote. We are just a few bricks away
from bread and circuses.
In the eighteenth century, the electoral college MAY have been a genius move,
however, in the twenty-first century its archaic and completely unnecessary. The
Electoral College was created at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Direct
popular elections were excluded because it was physically difficult to conduct a
popular vote in the 18th century. There was no nominating system, and political
parties did not exist in 1787. At the time, only adult white male landowners
were eligible to vote. There was a fear that direct popular-vote elections would
encourage state governments to allow unsuitable voters in order to maximize the
states' influence in presidential politics. The Electoral College was first
written into federal law in 1845 to designate citizens who were selected to vote
for president and vice president. Presidential electors are not
constitutionally bound to vote for the candidate that carried their States. Ive
long been a proponent of eliminating the Electoral College & really make my vote
My hope for this election would be for McCain to win a huge majority in the
popular vote and Obama to take the electoral college in a landslide and this
stupid system would go to the dustbin of history with slavery and men only
voting, two of the other ideas enshrined in the "inspired" Constitution.
Agki, you drank the kool-aid again this morning.
no controversy here! I luv the Electoral College too. I think the imbalance
between States is getting a little out of hand though. It seems crazy that CAlif
has like 55 and we have how many in Ut? 7 or 8? And how do you think Wyoming
feels? It's still a way better system than a straight popular vote.
You mean like in 2000 and in 2004? Hey, where have you been?