Hillary proposes abolition if electoral college

[hblair]

<edit>Topic is supposed to read:
Hillary proposes abolition of electoral college</edit> (duh!)

Heard it on the radio a few minutes ago. Little ambitious for a senator-elect, isn't she? Arguements for/against the electoral college anyone? I'll start out saying that it seems to have worked for 200 years...

[This message has been edited by hblair (edited 11-10-2000).]

[hblair]

Actually, the news said she plans to sponsor a bill doing away with the electoral college, and making the elections by direct popular vote.

[Eagler]

she waste no time does she  

Eagler

[Kieren]

Because if you do that, small rural states like Indiana may as well not vote.

I have voted in every election since my 18th birthday; it is a right I take seriously. Don
t remove permanently my right to impact the course of government in this country.

This is where the left comes in and says "what about those 19,000 voters in Florida?" They had their chance to vote. They screwed it up. They don't get another chance any more than I would if I screwed up in Indiana. Their vote isn't any more important than mine. I take responsibility for the way I voted, they should be expected to do the same.

I settle fights every day with school children who want to change the rules of the game because they lose. You don't allow it on a playground, and you certainly don't allow it in the government.

[Regurge]

Unfortunately Kieren, these children are extremely powerful.

[miko2d]

 When The Union was formed the colonies differed from each other more then they differed from other countries.
 People lived in States and power was supposed to belong to the states. You could have completely different laws and conditions in some states (like slavery).
 People could live their life without leaving  their state.

 After 200+ years quite a few things have changed:
 Most Americans consider themselves to be citizens of the USA, not a particular state.
 Federal laws determine our life much more then state laws. Federal tax is many times more then state tax (if any).
 Unlike 200 years ago, more people do not know who their governor is then who the president is.
 Also, communications improved a lot.

 So a truly popular election would make sense now. One man - one vote. Not by districts or states. No throwing out all the votes of a many people in a state because all electors belong to another party.

 There should be no difference wether you are from a small rural state of not. No president that would not have a popular majority.

 I would not go to the barricades to scrape the current system even though with it my vote did not matter in the past elections (NY is a democratic state), but if Hillary proposes a referendum to that effect, I would support her.

 Kieren,
 More people voted republican in the state of NY then the whole population of Indiana. And we do not have a single electoral vote to show for it. Of course as residents of NY we could try to solve it on the state level, not only on federal level.
 I would rather solve it on the federal level.
 
miko

[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 11-10-2000).]

[1776]

Well, New Yorkers, the jr senator's first proposal will be something that the great state of NY really needs, prolly "for the children or working families"!!!  Did she tell ya all about this move during the campaign??

I still have stock at very low prices for one of your fine bridges!!!  The line forms to the left(how appropriate )

[Udie]

 Hillary is not going to be able to handle being a senator.  She'll only be 1 voice out of 50.  I think her first action as a senator elect proves my point too.  2 days after she wins the election she proposes a constitutional amendment. LOL think they'll get anywhere near a 2/3 majority? Think 2/3 of the States will ratify it?  I seriously doubt it.

 This election has done one thing for me,  taught me why we have the electorial college.  I'll write a post about it later...


 Udie

[Cabby]

Hillary Clinton can KMA.  New York may have no pride or sense, but the rest of America does.

Cabby

[LuckyDay]

"Of course as residents of NY we could try to solve it on the state level, not only on federal level.
I would rather solve it on the federal level."


I would prefer we solved it at the state level; for instance, I believe Maine and Nebraska electors are allowed to split their votes to represent their districts.  Keep the federal government out of the process as much as possible.

The electoral college is an important part of the checks and balances of our government.  It minimizes the power large population centers have over the more rural areas without eliminating the direct representation of each person.

By the way, you will find me saying this next month after all this has died down no matter who "wins".  Unlike some scholars who have made a 180 degree reversal from a week before the election, when it appeared that Bush would win the popular but Gore would take the necessary electoral votes.

[Rock]

I don't know about other states but, in mine the Electoral College is not legally bound to cast their vote according to the peoples vote in the state they represent. Can't say if they ever did that though. That would be an extreme case of "your vote don't count"

[Gunthr]

Hillory's move is only meant to raise political hysteria for Gore, in my opinion.

I'm not so sure that getting rid of the Electoral College is a good thing, although it seems that it might be a good idea at first glance.

Candidates for President wouldn't waste their time trying to please middle America - they would spend all their time campaigning to please the voters in Major cities like Detroit, Chigago, L.A., New York, Boston, etc., something that isn't very representative of the country as a whole.

 

Gunthr

[Ozark]

I invented that idea!!!!

[Dnil]

problem with the popular vote is huge cities like NY and LA.  I dont want those cities determing what is right for me.  If it is done that way a vast majority of states would suddenly become unimportant.  Campaigning would only be done in the top 5 major cities.  

Right now its bad enough with california's huge electoral count, puts way too much importance on them.  Also right now you can campaign just in the select high electoral count states, a bad thing.  Give each state 1 electoral vote, person with the most wins, tie broken by popular.

------------------
Dnil---Skyhawk until I get Dnil back
Maj. 900th Bloody Jaguars
Part time aircraft restorer. www.kingwoodcable.com/jheuer

[Eagler]

Gunthr
I believe you are correct. It was a move to divert attention from gore. Dilute the attention anyway. I am amazed New Yorkers are really that dumb and uniformed. I'd really like to review the demographics of the voters who elected her. I believe they really mobilized the minorities there also. Bet you a nickel, more than one case of fraud occurred. You should hear them locally here about Palm Beach.

Eagler