The American Spectator

Robbins Mitchell| 5.22.09 @ 7:08AM

That's because the US isn't a 'democracy',Davey...it is a representative republic.....and if you don't understand the difference, then you need a remedial course in 7th grade American history.

Darin| 5.22.09 @ 7:48AM

True Democracy always leads to tyranny. When 51% of the people realize they can vote themselves the possessions of the other 49%, that's it. That's why the United States was founded as a Representative Republic. That ripping sound you hear is our Constitution being shredded.

David Mathews likely approves because he's part of that 51% who are best categorized as leeches or scavengers. Unwilling to earn their own way and full of the 2-year-old entitlement mentality.

Well David, what happens when you run out of other people's money? Socialism by definition reduces everyone to the same level of misery. North Korea, Cuba, the Soviet Union, etc. all show this.

Woody Ruiz| 5.22.09 @ 7:52AM

He (Davey) should also enroll in a remedial math course whiole he's at it. Simple math shows that, using Davey"s figure for Republican party affiliation and McCain's percent of the popular vote, "Republicanism:" is 207.77% more releveant than Davey would have you believe.

Doorgunner| 5.22.09 @ 7:59AM

Here it is, folks! David Mathews descent into madness:

http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1/introwk.html

David, who's billy mathews?

pkingzog| 5.22.09 @ 8:08AM

In the 2004 election the opposite almost occurred. Bush won the popular vote by 3 million votes but almost lost the election by almost losing Ohio. Of course, the liberals would not have objected to the “unfairness” of the Electoral College if that occurred would they?

Hey, if Democrats want to impose this new system in their states, fine with me. They just kill their chances of winning a presidential election via the Electoral College.

Son Of Sam| 5.22.09 @ 8:37AM

Oh puh-leeeaze: like the tinfoil hat crowd gives a rats ass about what "the people" want. If that were true, gay "marriage" would have been thrown on the trashpile of history already, along with amnesty for illegals and bringing Gitmo terrorists to America.
This is why we shouldn't be calling them liberals: because they are not. They are OBAMANAZIS: they hate freedom, they hate democracy, they hate fairness and they hate the truth. After all their posturing and all their speeches, let an election or a vote of any kind go against them, and they'll tantrum like babies in month old diapers, and run for their lawyers or a tame judge. And fer sure, they won't let some silly piece of paper like the Constitution get in their way.

They are traitors, plain and simple, and we should not rest until every last one of them is in the ground, in prison or in exile.

stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos

Son Of Sam| 5.22.09 @ 8:44AM

btw, I am absolutely looking forward to twenty ten. There's gonna be a whole mountain of finger pointing bedwetting crybabies to the left of Rahm Emmanuel pissing and moaning when the people massively slam the Dummocrats at the polls. the marketing tricks and the media blitz won't work a second time; it's started already, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam
http://www.geocities.com/samadamssos

Rearden| 5.22.09 @ 9:06AM

If it aint broke, don't fix it! The system may be perfect, but it is actually more democratic that a national popular vote.

Mathews, you do not want democracy and your posts here attest to that. You want to control/destroy people who disagree with you because your ideology cannot tolerate disagreement. It demands 100% loyalty or esle. Just remember, you need us (the productive) a lot more than we need you (the leech).

LindaF| 5.22.09 @ 9:23AM

I'm remembering a time when the Republican party brand was at least as DOA - right after "Landslide Lyndon" trounced Goldwater. The tide of history, it was said, had passed the GOP by. The future, we were told, belonged to the solidly Democratic young (shades of Nazi youth songs).

Conservatives re-grouped, organized, and taught a new generation their message - then, took control when Reagan was elected. It wasn't easy, or quick, but it did happen.

Trotter| 5.22.09 @ 9:48AM

This movement is proof positive of just how stupid liberals really are. If you are a state legislator, what in the world would possess you to cede your state's electoral power to other states, especially if you weren't New York or California?

If this picks up speed, look for states like Texas to start exploring exit strategy.

The voice of the people.| 5.22.09 @ 10:06AM

It's time the peoples voice was heard loud and clear. And who the people vote for, gets elected, that is what it is meant to be about.

That is what a Democracy is about, people vote in Republics too, who gets the most votes win.

Time to end the days of Republicans fixing elections. And an end to dirty tricks, if it were not for dirty tricks the world would not have suffered George W Bush, the biggest horror since Adolph Hitler.

Greg| 5.22.09 @ 10:22AM

The voice of the people. More like the voice of a total idiot. Evidently you weren't alive when Hitler was in power or you wouldn't make such an idiotic statement

Warrior| 5.22.09 @ 10:52AM

Funny how the left cries about the voices of the people needing to be listened to, at least when it is a progressive idea or plan. Please just look at California when we need to see the results of liberalism at it's peak. Now the voices of the people of CA speak loud and clear, no to gay marriage and no to additional taxes to mend the state budget. Of course the liberal judges work to institute gay marriage against the will of the people and dictator tells Arnold not to worry, the other 49 states will bail out CA against the wishes of its own citizens.

Don't worry about the electoral college, the dictator is going to hijack the census, thus he will be able gerrymander districts to his blue hearted desire. Talk about fixing elections.

Speak your mind| 5.22.09 @ 11:41AM

David Mathews.

Keep up the good works, your points are valid. Let no one tell you otherwise.

Honesty is like gold in these days, valued. Some people who feel that they have money and don't have to care about the bigger picture, or the effects their ideas have on the wider community.

These are the very people who have shares in these companies who kill the poor, for profits. They are the ones who support and invest in companies who manufacture weapons of Mass distruction. And support the massacre of the children in the Gaza strip and the poor people of Africa to get Blood Diamonds, and create conflict to chase the poor off their land, to gain access to their gold mines and Diamond mines.

These activities has been going on for years. The Arms dealers profits goes up by the number of wars they start in these tin pot dictatorship, sponcered by the west. The voice of the poor must be heard too.

Read between the lines| 5.22.09 @ 12:39PM

That not-large-but-highly-vocal cohort of people who can never forgive George W. Bush for being president has hatched the idea of turning the entire nation blue by making the Electoral College irrelevant -- and they are making headway.

George W Bush comes back to haunt the Republicans, well done. This deserves a laugh, hahahahahahha.

kmichaels| 5.22.09 @ 12:55PM

The idea of the electoral college was to give small states a bit of an advantage over more populace states. This way the majority would not make up laws that stated only small states pay taxes and prevent other such madness. But evil people dont care about checks and balances. Evil people like Dave Mathews (retard un-extraordinary)

ben| 5.22.09 @ 12:59PM

This just proves that Democrats aren't patriots. They say they love America but they want to change the very principals and foundations America was founded and built on. They really only love the America they want to create which gives them total control over all, rather than the America that is here. If one truly loves something, they accept it. They may try to improve on it but they don't try to remake it.

Old Texican| 5.22.09 @ 1:05PM

Kmichaels
HUSH!

What are you trying to do here? Are you trying to bring a tad of sanity into this discussion?

dnha14| 5.22.09 @ 1:06PM

I love reading the idiotic liberal rants on sites like this one. It reinforces the correctness of my decision to leave the party of these Fascists. Yes I said Fascists. If any of you idiots would learn some history you would know that Obama's economic policies virtually parallel Mussolini and Hitler, only without the genocide of the latter. Read some books and you will find the truth. Read the newspapers and you will not. I am so glad I came to my senses.

Ex-hippie pot smoking radical

ben| 5.22.09 @ 1:21PM

kmichaels| 5.22.09 @ 12:55PM
The idea of the electoral college was to give small states a bit of an advantage over more populace states.
--------------------------------------------------
The electoral college was not about giving advantage to any state but rather equality for all States.
We were founded as a Republic, a sort of UN, where every state was a sovereign country held together by common goals and a supervisory Federal Government. Originally the Congress was made up of two houses one representing the people (HOR) based on population, and one representing the States (Senate). Under this system the people were put on equal footing with equal power to the States. Federal laws and policies were a compromise between the people and the States. Once we made the Senator a popularly elected position, the States lost their say in Federal laws and policies. This ended our Republic and turned us into a Democracy. By eliminating the State's voice in Federal lawmaking, we the people have more and more turned to the fed for help. This has allowed the Fed to consolodate power and usurp the State's ability to govern their citizens. This makes our voices smaller and fainter because instead of being 1 of a few thousand or million at the local and state level we are only 1 of 300,000,000. Those voices from the major population centers are the only voices heard at the Federal level. The voices of us in the small towns, or as the minority in the big cities are drowned out and unconsidered. People living in Boise Idaho are now governed by the wishes of those living in Los Angeles, or New York. The different cultures, beliefs and needs that vary across this country are being consolodated into a one size fits all government. When one entity is conscripted to make decisions for all, only the majority is represented, all others are basically slaves to the majority's desires. The growth of the Fed has led to a lack of representation for nearly half of Americans.

ben| 5.22.09 @ 1:29PM

The difference between Fascism and Socialism is scope. They are the same theory of governmnet in every other way. Socialism is world wide, while Fascism is national. Obama and the Dems, as they push for more UN authority over our sovereignty and the inclusion of International law in America at the Expense of our Constitution are more Socialist than Fascist. The difference between Socialsism and Communism is the degree of Governmnet control. Under Socialism Governmnet has varying degrees of control from regulatory to partial ownership. Under Communism Governmnent is the sole owner of all things.

PressTV| 5.22.09 @ 1:57PM

Yea Ben.

The Nazis started out as socialist, but it does not matter if the Republicans gets in at the next election, because the Dems don't control America no more than the Republicans did.

Democracy and the Republic died with JFK.

sestamibi| 5.22.09 @ 2:12PM

What Davey forgets in gloating over the GOP 21% is that the Dems are down to 35% themselves. The great growth in the electorate has come from independents.

As for the electoral college, let us not forget that Obama's margin there was padded by some rather close results in Ohio, Florida, Indiana, and North Carolina (and the reverse in Missouri).

Sadly, the nation will continue to move to the left, and one-party Dem. However, none of the pundits so smugly predicting the final demise of the GOP ever stop to consider what happens after that. Do they really think all conflict will disappear from politics? Do they really think the Dems have no major fissures among their own constituent groups? Stick around, Davey, the fun hasn't even started yet.

sestamibi| 5.22.09 @ 2:13PM

By the way, the electoral college compact was passed here in Nevada by the state assembly, but died in the senate. Good judgment there.

LCD| 5.22.09 @ 2:26PM

This is a natural progression AWAY from the controls the Founders' intended. Ask anyone under 40--they have no idea that Senators were NOT popularly elected until the 17th Amendment. The Founders feared a Democracy more than England! Case in point: with a 'Federal' tax jurisdiction, folks in Texas and Montana may be sending cash to fund mistakes made in California!!

Tim| 5.22.09 @ 2:27PM

Let's reform and get it over with:
Presidentforlife Obama
Congress replaced by "this fully armed and operational battlestation..."

Ed| 5.22.09 @ 3:33PM

The problem with this idea is that your Presidential vote will not be counted, if your state votes one way, and the national popular vote goes another way. Just about every democratic country has some kind of vote by geographical districts. In Great Britain, the party that has the most Members of Parliment elected wins the government and gets to select a Prime Minister. Electing a U.S. President by a national popular vote is a very bad idea. But, that is way things go with Democrats. Everything they touch turns to crap.

randy| 5.22.09 @ 4:52PM

People. Stop giving this david mathews facts. Liberals cant deal with them. People of his mental capacity i.e. Liberals cant be dealt with in a sane and rational way. It has become obvious that debate is useless with these people. The only way they will learn is with the complete collapse and destruction of this country which may be what some of them want. I feel no pitty anymore for the others. Ignorance will be no excuse. They are all the enemy now. They are all on a mission to Rape and Murder this Country. Davey is just another German Soldier marching in those endless lines with all the other Nazis. Do you think all of those soldiers were evil horrible people? No, but they allowed the Mass group EMOTION to take controll and poison their Truth and reality. Sounds extreme, but the comparison is starting to hold water......In this war, Obama is not the true enemy. Obama and the Libs can easily be defeated in reality. the true Enemy is the Media. It is pointless to fight Obama until the media is taken care of. THINK

Jim| 5.22.09 @ 6:14PM

I have long thought the Electoral College was outdated. As outdated as the two party system. Neither represent the Republic anymore. It is time for a real change. A move backwards to the Representative Republic our forefathers gave us.
This Oligarchy is not the vision for the foundation they laid.

Taddy| 5.22.09 @ 6:47PM

How do we acheive a one world order, if things don't change.

Wilfred| 5.22.09 @ 11:06PM

So these bills would "require that state's electors ... cast their electoral votes for whoever had the most popular votes nationwide."?

Which means that in a 3- or4- or 5-man race, a candidate could win with 30% or less of the popular vote. So a majority still isn't necessary. Wasn't this their criticism of the electoral college in the first place?

In that case, we should try to get as many fruity left-wingnuts on the ballot as possible, to dilute the liberal vote. I nominate David Mathews.

Jeff| 5.23.09 @ 4:40AM

HAHA. YOU GUYS ARE FUCKING NUTS. how do you label as a FASCIST? Do you have a brain? All Obama has done is expand civil liberties. Maybe if your arguments werent ruthlessly partisan the Republican Party might not be in the political wilderness. Might being the key word, the retarded policies the party is advocating probably has something to do with it to. Regardless, enjoy your time out of power. As a 20 year old college student I can guarantee a second Reagan revolution is not coming. The Republican Party is old, white and clueless.

Tommy| 5.23.09 @ 8:22AM

"require that state's electors . . . to cast their electoral votes for whoever had the most popular votes nationwide"
2004 California electors unaninously choose Bush?

Curtis Rasmussen| 5.23.09 @ 11:39AM

Jeff, I'd like to thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Thank you for being at liberty to pay for my medical bills and social security when I grow old.

Thank you for supporting the elimination of the electoral college, a system that our founding fathers put in place to level the playing field for small states. That way, you won't be able to throw the bums out of office that increase your federal taxes by a whopping 17 to 20% to cover my retirement expenses. I'm sure you'll love being a aggregate tax slave until June of each year, good luck living in your parent's basement even if you hook that well paying job.

I understand where you are coming from. I was once young and idealistic as well. Please understand that the royal screwing that I'll be giving you is completely involuntary.

Big J| 5.23.09 @ 2:45PM

"As a 20 year old college student I can guarantee a second Reagan revolution is not coming."

As a 20 year old college student, you don't know squat.

Come back and talk to us when you grow out of your "big boy pull-up panties", and actually have a real-life experience or two on which to base your ridiculous comments.

Judging by the time of your post, I am sure you just returned from a frat party to bestow your infinite wisdom on a bunch of "insignificant minority Republicans". How was the Kool-Aide?

"All Obama has done is expand civil liberties."

In truth, all Obama has done is DESTROY liberty, and he's not done yet.

You've got a lot to learn about the real world, little man. I hope you show up to class. Believing like this at 20 is almost forgivable. It's not your fault that you have been indoctrinated in this ridiculous liberal gibberish for the last 15 years. At age 30, when you actually have to provide for yourself and possibly a family, it's not gonna cut it.

TJK| 5.23.09 @ 3:32PM

Jeff, if you are representative of the quality of education coming out of our colleges and universities, then we are truly doomed as a nation. Here's some advice- take an American History class, and try to actually pay attention. You might want to take an English class while you're at it. Your grammar is juvenile. But first, read the Constitution. Alhough it's in proper English, so that might be difficult for you.

Seeker of Truth| 5.23.09 @ 3:41PM

The voice of the people. The will of the people. If followed we shall march into a new utopia with manna from heaven for our sustenance. The people. Human beings making up this wondrous phrase. Human beings, each with his own imperfect nature. Human nature always.. yes ALWAYS... renders the utopian will of the people in horrific terms. Tyrannical dictators take the helm of utopias. Every time.

America was NOT formed as a democracy in the pure sense. It was formed as a representative democracy and a Federal Republic. Until the 17th amendment was ratified in 1913, Senators were appointed by each state's legislatures! So afraid of direct democracy, our Founders, in their uncanny wisdom knew that it would lead to tyranny by the masses, so they built in safeguards. Safeguards that moronic people with little stake in the country beyond what they imagine they can wring out of the government in the form of entitlements, and who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, want to eliminate because their worldviews are expressed like simplistic bleatings of sheep being led to slaughter.

God help us if the sheep get their way... in this, and in so many other issues. America is truly in jeopardy. We may be at the end of this grand experiment in trying to form a government that would enable actual governance of human beings, even with their built in human natures. It looks as if the leftists are going to get their way and destroy this great nation once and for all.

Hahahahahaha< Hahahaha| 5.23.09 @ 5:59PM

That not-large-but-highly-vocal cohort of people who can never forgive George W. Bush for being president has hatched the idea of turning the entire nation blue by making the Electoral College irrelevant -- and they are making headway.
George W Bush, the biggest Asshole ever lived

One has to Laugh,hahahahahhah!

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.24.09 @ 8:44AM

It absolutely boggles the mind that so many of you think that a very slight majority can impose their will on an almost equally numbered minority. So many of you incessantly rant “My God Says” on how other people should behave and then squawk when important issues such as the economy, national defense, and corruption in government wreck the country. Listen very carefully, numbskulls, your failure to focus on relevant issues has now denigrated YOU into a minority status, not partisan by the way but as class warfare POWs. The shift in the vote tallies, electoral or popular will not make a whit’s difference.
Here is something to consider. Our founding fathers did not invoke “social engineering” as syntax in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Your attempts to “regulate” behavior will have temporary, intermittent, or spotty success at best. What you consume yourselves with by imposing propositional fiat will invariably be reversed by the courts. What intolerance does do is incrementally anger and frustrates small voting blocks. The backlash to misplaced religious and righteous indignation is, however, cumulative. Piss off a few fertile women here, piss off a few life partners there, first thing you know you are labeled as bigots and your only civic function becomes paying taxes.
The site pests you abhor are taunting you as fools. They are majority; you are the minority. The irony of this is tragic for our Nation.

Anne Onamous| 5.24.09 @ 10:00AM

The greatest problem with the national popular vote change, without a constitutional amendment, is that you can't require runoffs if nobody receives a majority of the vote. So third parties will instantly become serious contenders, thereby sinking our two party system. The possibility of a Hitler-type winning the popular vote with 20%+ of the vote becomes a realistic possibility.

The GOP is set to retake control of Congress in 2010. The Rasmussen generic ballot test shows this week by week. People are calling themselves "independents" but they're going to vote Republican. The GOP didn't have this kind of a lead in the generic ballot in 1993, and the GOP is up about 20 points over 1993 in both New Jersey and Virginia. I expect it to only get worse for the Dems as unemployment continues to rise. Paul Krugman is right, unemployment will rise for 1.5 years after the recession ends, and you can count on double digit unemployment under the Obama economy in November 2010.

A Balrog of Morgoth| 5.24.09 @ 10:07AM

Unfortunately for Mr. Hauschild's argument (which is, I grant, well-written-unlike the gibberish spewed by the usual pests) is that the strawman of the oft-decried "intolerant" Republican attempts at social engineering pale before the actual current Liberal social engineering taking place now. Just as George Bush's irresponsible spending looks positively miserish, now that we have Obama's galactically more irresponsible spending to compare it too.

These continuing attempts to blame social conservatives views on abortion or gay marriage for the recent Republican defeats is old and it is tired. Just like our Presidential candidate and much of the GOP in congress. These defeats are more about the young hip guy promising unicorns and rainbows convincing enough people to just stop worrying about the war beating the tired old guys who have been fighting that war. This is a pendulum that swings back eventually.

Gizmo32| 5.24.09 @ 1:03PM

Randy...you get it. If only we could get more people to learn 'real' history and also examine the details in the news rather than just the headlines perhaps the 'people' would not be such an easy mass to manipulate with distortions, purposeful omissions and bias.

Gizmo32| 5.24.09 @ 1:10PM

Randy...you get it. If only we could get more people to learn 'real' history and also examine the details in the news rather than just the headlines perhaps the 'people' would not be such an easy mass to manipulate with distortions, purposeful omissions and bias.

Tejas Forever| 5.24.09 @ 5:15PM

My God, what has become of this place.

I used to enjoy reading articles here, even with the "progressive" trolls attacking, but it seems some of you are no better than the trolls. You attack them with the fervor of a foam-flecked liberal, name calling and all. I am almost embarrassed by the vitriol being flung in here by supposed "conservatives". You have taken their bait and become no better than they are.

Don't feed the trolls.

Displaced Texan| 5.24.09 @ 5:28PM

I've got a great example for why this is a bad idea: Oklahoma.

In 2008, EVERY county in the Sooner State went to McCain. With this proposed change all the electoral votes would have gone to someone who didn't win a single county. Maybe the Okies aren't as dumb as I was brought up to believe.....

cami| 5.24.09 @ 11:33PM

This is a democracy, but it ain't perfect. The electoral system is not going away, but it may be altered in the future. You have to take the good with the bad.

wow gold| 5.25.09 @ 4:45AM

When the wolf [url=http://www.game4power.com/]wow gold [/url] finally found the hole

[url=http://www.game4power.com]Buy Wow Gold[/url] in the chimney he

[url=http://www.wowgoldone.com/]Cheap WoW Gold[/url] crawled down and KERSPLASH right into

that kettle of water [url=http://www.wowgoldone.com/]cheapest wow gold[/url] and that was

the end of his troubles with the big bad wolf.
[url=http://www.game4power.com/]game4power[/url],[url=http://www.game4power.com/buy-gold/]

buy cheap wow gold [/url]
[url=http://www.meinwowgold.com/]WOW GOLD[/url]
The next day the [url=http://www.game4power.com/buy-gold/]wow gold cheap[/url] little pig

invited his mother over . She said "You see it is just as [url=http://www.game4power.com/]

buy gold wow[/url]I told you. The way to [url=http://www.
itemchannel.com]Wow Gold[/url]get along in the world is to do things as well as you can."

Fortunately for that [url=http://www.itemchannel.com]world of warcraft gold [/url] little

pig, he [url=http://www.game4power.com/buy-gold]Cheapest wow Gold[/url]learned that lesson.

And he just lived happily ever after!

wow gold| 5.25.09 @ 4:46AM

When the Wow Gold wolf finally found the

href="http://www.game4power.com/">Buy Wow Goldhole in the chimney he crawled

href="http://www.game4power.com/buy-gold/">wow gold cheap down and KERSPLASH right into

that kettle of water and that was cheapest wow gold

the end of his troubles with the big bad wolf.
game4power,buy cheap wow gold
WOW GOLD
The next day the cheap wow gold

buy gold wow little pig invited his

mother over . She said "You see it is just as I told you. The way to

href="http://itemchannel.com">wow goldget along in the world is to do

href="http://www.itemchannel.com/">world of warcraft gold things as well as you can."

Fortunately for that little pig, he cheapest

wow gold learned that lesson. And he just lived happily ever after!

href="http://www.aionkina.com">aion gold,buy aion gold.

Katie| 5.25.09 @ 6:51AM

This doesn't strike me as a serious problem, for the following reasons:

1. Small states will be VERY reluctant to pass such laws, since these laws dilute their power.

2. Since the "blue" states are passing these laws and the "red" states are not, the practical effect of these laws would be to tip a close election toward the Republican candidate. Imagine a 2000 election where George Bush wins the national vote by 1,000 and loses the electoral college. California's electors, if such a law were in place, would have to vote for George Bush.

Ian| 5.25.09 @ 9:35AM

This goes beyond the effect from any given election; it is about abolishing the Constitution. In its place, the liberals hope to establish mob rule, governing by inflaming the passions of the moment. It is about gaining power in the central government and in reshaping America to their own sensibilities.

Northern Rebel| 5.25.09 @ 9:42AM

I have to laugh at folks like "speak your mind", when they tell us the poor should be heard from.

What's your income, speak?
Mine is zero. I was layed off when NY raised taxes on the wealthy, to help the poor!

I don't have a lot of faith that "President" Teleprompter gives a darn about my problems, unless it interferes with his fascist goals to run America's economy.People like me don't have a criminal crony to help them buy mansions.

He can accomplish his goals, by making sure New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago elect the President every four years.

Matthews has enough people to comment on his foibles.(I wonder if he believes what he's saying, or whether he likes being noticed. Pathetic)

It's Jeff that interests me. I remember when my girls were teenagers, unable to buy booze, and itching to be considered an adult.

What an idiot I was in those days!
But, all of the sudden my brain began to stir, when they turned 25, and they had their own children, jobs, and paid a variety of taxes, that automatically disappeared from their checks, before it ever got to them.

I'm sure it was a miracle, or something more liberal, like a chemical imbalance!

All of a sudden, I was getting smarter! Both of my kids noticed that I had gone from a raging lunatic retard, when they were 15-20, to a wise genius when they hit 25-30yrs old!

Must have been something in the water! (Or the whiskey they drove me to!)

GROW UP JEFF, YOU HUMOROUS, NAIVE , IGNORANT YOUNG MAN!
Make your parent's proud.

Murphy| 5.25.09 @ 1:23PM

Katie --

Nice analysis. Good to see someone thinking around here.

And just for the record. By definition, the Constitution cannot be altered by "stealth."

Anyone has the right to challenge laws in court, and if the challenge makes it to the Supremes, their decision establishes whether the laws are constitutional. And -- if that's not good enough -- the people can always amend the Constitution.

Pretty cool, isn't it?

mvymvy| 5.25.09 @ 2:48PM

The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.

In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.

mvymvy| 5.25.09 @ 2:49PM

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,777 state legislators — 829 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 948 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 71%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 73% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 28 state legislative chambers, in small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

mvymvy| 5.25.09 @ 2:50PM

The normal way of changing the method of electing the President is not a federal constitutional amendment, but changes in state law. The U.S. Constitution gives "exclusive" and "plenary" control to the states over the appointment of presidential electors.

Historically, virtually all of the previous major changes in the method of electing the President have come about by state legislative action. For example, the people had no vote for President in most states in the nation's first election in 1789. However, nowadays, as a result of changes in the state laws governing the appointment of presidential electors, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states.

In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states.

In other words, neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote; however, as a result of changes in state laws, there are now no property requirements for voting in any state.

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes. The abnormal process is to go outside the Constitution, and amend it

mvymvy| 5.25.09 @ 2:50PM

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, along district lines (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska), or national lines.

mvymvy| 5.25.09 @ 2:51PM

National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a "democracy."

A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a "republican" form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as is currently the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as is currently the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).

mvymvy| 5.25.09 @ 2:52PM

The people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.

So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be "mob rule" in presidential elections, but whether the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. In 2004, candidates spent over two thirds of their visits and two-thirds of their money in just 6 states and 99% of their money in just 16 states, while ignoring the rest of the country.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

mvymvy| 5.25.09 @ 2:52PM

The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.

Small states are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).

Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.

The fact that the bonus of two electoral votes is an illusory benefit to the small states has been widely recognized by the small states for some time. In 1966, Delaware led a group of 12 predominantly low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kentucky, Florida, Pennsylvania) in suing New York in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that New York's use of winner-take-all effectively disenfranchised voters in their states. The Court declined to hear the case (presumably because of the well-established constitutional provision that the manner of awarding electoral votes is exclusively a state decision). Ironically, defendant New York is no longer a battleground state (as it was in the 1960s) and today suffers the very same disenfranchisement as the 12 non-competitive low-population states. A vote in New York is, today, equal to a vote in Wyoming--both are equally worthless and irrelevant in presidential elections.

The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically "radioactive" in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.

In small states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by a total of seven state legislative chambers, including one house in Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.

mvymvy| 5.25.09 @ 2:53PM

When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.

Likewise, under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

Another way to look at this is that there are approximately 300 million Americans. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities is only 19% of the population of the United States. Even if one makes the far-fetched assumption that a candidate could win 100% of the votes in the nation's top five cities, he would only have won 6% of the national vote.

Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.

mvymvy| 5.25.09 @ 2:54PM

The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.

Under the current system, there are 51 separate vote pools in every presidential election. Thus, our nation's 56 presidential elections have really been 2,135 separate elections. This is the reason why there have been five seriously disputed counts in the nation's 55 presidential elections. The 51 separate pools regularly create artificial crises in elections in which the vote is not at all close on a nationwide basis, but close in particular states.

A recount is not an unimaginable horror or logistical impossibility. A recount is a recognized contingency that is occasionally required (about once in 332 elections). All states routinely make arrangements for a recount in advance of every election. The personnel and resources necessary to conduct a recount are indigenous to each state. A state's ability to conduct a recount inside its own borders is unrelated to whether or not a recount may be occurring in another state.

If anyone is genuinely concerned about the possibility of recounts, then a single national pool of votes is the way to drastically reduce the likelihood of recounts and eliminate the artificial crises produced by the current system.

mvymvy| 5.25.09 @ 2:54PM

The U.S. Constitution, existing federal statutes, and independent state statutes guarantee "finality" in presidential elections long before the inauguration day in January. These constitutional provisions, statutes, and precedents apply equally to a presidential election conducted under the National Popular Vote legislation and an election conducted under the current system.

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, section 1, clause 4) provides:
"The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."[Spelling as per original]

The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

Under both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the common nationwide date for the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets (the so-called "safe harbor" date established by section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code).

In addition, in almost all states, state statutes already impose independent (typically earlier) deadlines for finalizing the count for the presidential election. The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that state election officials and the state judiciary must conduct counts and recounts in presidential elections within the confines of existing state election laws.

It may be argued that the schedule established by the U.S. Constitution may sometimes rush the count (and possibly even create injustice). However, there can be no argument that this schedule exists in the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and state statutes; that this schedule guarantees "finality" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December. This existing constitutional schedule would govern the National Popular Vote compact in exactly the same way that it governs elections under the current system.

mvymvy| 5.25.09 @ 2:55PM

After more than 10,000 statewide elections in the past two hundred years, there is no evidence of any tendency toward a massive proliferation of third-party candidates in elections in which the winner is simply the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by the office. No such tendency has emerged in other jurisdictions, such as congressional districts or state legislative districts. There is no evidence or reason to expect the emergence of some unique new political dynamic that would promote multiple candidacies if the President were elected in the same manner as every other elected official in the United States.

Based on historical evidence, there is far more fragmentation of the vote under the current state-by-state system of electing the President than in elections in which the winner is simply the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the jurisdiction involved.

Under the current state-by-state system of electing the President (in which the candidate who receives a plurality of the popular vote wins all of the state's electoral votes), minor-party candidates have significantly affected the outcome in six (40%) of the 15 presidential elections in the past 60 years (namely the 1948, 1968, 1980, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections). The reason that the current system has encouraged so many minor-party candidates and so much fragmentation of the vote is that a presidential candidate with no hope of winning a plurality of the votes nationwide has 51 separate opportunities to shop around for particular states where he can affect electoral votes or where he might win outright. Thus, under the current system, segregationists such as Strom Thurmond (1948) or George Wallace (1968) won electoral votes in numerous Southern states, although they had no chance of receiving the most popular votes nationwide. In addition, candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992 and 1996), and Ralph Nader (2000) did not win a plurality of the popular vote in any state, but managed to affect the outcome by switching electoral votes in numerous particular states.

William Zeranski| 5.26.09 @ 11:16AM

The USA is a Republic operating with democratic principles. That’s it. The fact that the Left had hissy fit in regard to the 2000 Election doesn’t change the fact that the electoral system worked. That fact that the Left wants dictatorial authority is the reason for having the Electoral College.

Popular vote equals Mob Rule.

Raoul Ortega| 5.27.09 @ 10:31AM

mvymvy, here's a hint. When I see a long list of comments all by the same person, I'll skip right over them. At least Dave Mathews takes the time to distill his idiocy into shorter comments. (And this time, for some reason, he didn't even bother to comment to those who replied to him. Maybe Mom finally turned off the power to his basement?)

James Newland| 5.27.09 @ 9:17PM

mvymvy, all of that, as you know, is beside the point. What this is is a transparent attempt to destroy state distinctions in the federal system bequeathed to us by the Founders. It is a collectivist, nationalist proposal. It aims to render the individual states even more irrelevant than they already are, thereby surreptitiously changing ours from a federal system to a national one. Since you have little chance of doing that legally and above-board, by offering Constitutional amendments, you must do it subversively and dishonestly, the way the Left has always pursued its goals.

May you rot in hell.

Folks, don't listen to these demons. They lie. There's a reason why this proposal is being championed by leftists from blue states, and that reason has nothing to do with wanting the man with the most popular votes to become President. That's just a smokescreen. If that were what they wanted, within the context of our federal system, they would simply continue their campaign to eliminate the electoral college, thereby allowing the popular vote in each state to determine that state's preference for president. Moreover, they know full well that in the real world their proposal doesn't particularly benefit them, as there's no guarantee that a leftie will always or even most of the time win the popular vote. No, it's clear that what they're after is a national system of election, thereby further eroding the power of the states, with an eye to their ultimate extinction. Our transformation will then be complete. We will have gone from a confederation of states which have voluntarily ceded a portion of their innate sovereignty to a central government for the purpose of achieving certain specific and limited goals, to an all-consuming, totalitarian Leviathan which has eaten its own parents.

SFCMIKEJ| 5.27.09 @ 10:27PM

mvymvy...

A well stated, detailed, and long argument.

According to the July 1st 2008 Estimate by the United States Census Bureau the top 9 states in population contain slightly more than half the national population, the top 11 have 56% of the national population. The 25 least populated states contain about 1/6th of the population.

The main thrust of your argument seems to be that a disproportioate amount of campaigning and money go to the "battleground" states. Removing the Electoral College doesn't change this it only changes which states might be considered battleground states. Just as New York at one time was considered a battleground state it no longer is because its main population center is so firmly liberal that there is no need to contest the presidential election there. The fights the same; the location is different.

Your point about advertising dollars is, at first blush, a good one until I though for a moment. Do advertisers spend as much in Nebraska (pop. 1.7m) as they do in, lets say California (pop. 36.7m) or even in Los Angeles (pop. 9.8m)? I don't think so. I would be willing to bet that they don't even spend as much per capita in Nebraska as they do in LA.

Lastly, instant communication and mass media makes campigning locations less important than in the past. My experience with campiagn events indicates they are attended by rabid supporters of the candidate. How many Obama supporters came out for a McCain rally?

Which brings up yet another subject; The Media. But I said lastly.

Mike Johnston
SFC USA(RET)

SFCMIKEJ| 5.27.09 @ 10:35PM

James Newland...

I have to agree with you on your point about this being an attempt to diminish state's power. Let's repeal the seventeenth amendment and give the states representation in Washington again then see if they go for removing the Electoral College.

Hee Hee

Mike Johnston
SFC USA(RET)

matt jones| 5.28.09 @ 12:56AM

actually, the electoral college system weakens the representative republic. a represenative Republic finds it's basis int the fact that the people pick politicians to represent them. thus the popular vote majority establishes the will of the people among politiians chosen by them. the electoral college however, weakens that system by allowing the political minority sway over the majority, which defeats the purpose of the represenative republic by dampaning the represenative part. furthertmore the 'will of the people' has been the battle cry of the neoconservative movement, used as pointed out in posts above, resisting the Gay Rights movement, stem cell research, abstinence education, as well as many other issues. therefore the will of the people is not a leftist mob rule tatic as suggested above. further more cities large as they may be are often divided along values and political beliefs. finally the author can not have it both ways if large cities are central to a candadate's political stratagey without the electoral college, then overwhelming majorities can not be present along with close calls, the two are not possible within the same system because they find basis on either tyranny through majority or political division, which are opposite concerns.

horward| 6.17.09 @ 9:56AM

whese objective seems to be to make the whole nation "yellow," don't much care about the carefully crafted checks and balances of the Constitution

tibet tour| 6.24.09 @ 1:52AM

As we know, Free Gold,wow gold guide,buying wow gold and on our website.wow gold guide We have available stock of gold on most of the servers, cheapest wow gold so that we can do a really instant way of delivery There is Free WoW Gold no doubt that one of the reasons players are entranced with the RPG genre,Free WoW Gold is to see their characters grow in power and buying wow gold. free currency services is one of the world's most extraordinary destination and there is adventure indeed lurking around almost each and every corner. Tibet Tour Guide The capital lies high in the arid wilderness of the Tibetan mountains, Tibet Tour Guide,

tiffany jewellery| 8.14.09 @ 3:48AM

Very good to see the tiffany jewellery tiffany jewellery tiffany jewellery links of london hollister clothing ed hardy christian audigier abercrombie
feeling quite.

hellen| 9.3.09 @ 10:27PM

carbide saw blades of distance，Pallet rack

Wholesale Lingerie| 9.5.09 @ 9:30PM

sexy lingerie lingerie

world of warcraft eu| 10.20.09 @ 8:41PM

Thank you!

links london Silver Chain| 10.21.09 @ 2:27AM

It was a very nice idea! Just wanna say thank you for the information you have shared. Just continue writing this kind of post. I will be your loyal reader. Thanks again.

christian louboutin heel| 10.21.09 @ 9:20PM

It was a very nice idea! Just wanna say thank you for the information you have shared. Just continue writing this kind of post. I will be your loyal reader. Thanks again.