Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on Google+
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on Google+
By commenting, you agree to our terms and conditions.
  • Ron Bischof

    It’s not a question of belief in this poll.

    Presidents aren’t elected by national popular vote. They are elected by popular vote within states and the electors within those states are allocated by the respective state laws. The formula for electors is calculated by the number of Representatives in the House + 2 Senators per state. In our Federalist Republic, states are represented in the Federal government, not individual citizens. This mirrors how Congress is elected. Individual citizens are represented by their state and local governments. See: Constitution.

    Perhaps the folks that are voting for elimination of the Electoral College do so only because they don’t find the results of this last election congenial. If their position is conditional, than it follows it’s not based on the rule of law (Constitution), principles or logic.

    Further, what “Progressives” propose when agitating for elimination of the Electoral College is California, Texas, Florida and New York dictating to the rest of the nation who will be President. Since it will require a Constitutional amendment to eliminate the EC, ⅔ of states will never vote to be enslaved by a small minority of states with large population centers.

    That’s a reality based summation.

    • Gene Walker

      But for a single incorrect word (“than” where it should have been “then”), a perfect summary of the issue.

      Thanks Ron!

      • Ron Bischof

        Missed that. Corrected and thanks.

        • Gene Walker

          I truly did appreciate the clarity of your summation, and I figured you’d want to fix it.

          Happy New Year!

          • Ron Bischof

            Happy New Year to you and yours as well!

  • Ron Bischof

    Non sequitur. Your Senate and expansion of the vote franchise examples still impact the state level, as illustrated in my original post. Note that the Constitution was amended in these cases.

    Please advise how a national popular vote for Federal office, something that would be entirely new and unique, is a wise policy, Mr. Mathews. And why ⅔ of states would agree to such?

    “The rule of existing law is irrelevant when considering changing the law.”

    Your assertion is illogical. First you must examine why the Electoral College is part of the Constitution and its purpose. That you mention Bush v. Gore tends to underscore my point about objection to the EC.

    In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” – G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936)

  • Gene Walker

    One can only speculate as to what the outcome would have been if there was no Electoral College.

  • kay Vestal

    So most people think CA and NY should decide every thing the Fed. Gov. does. If Hillary had won you would be happy with the Electoral College.

  • RRM

    Would this even be a topic if Hillary had won?