Short video on the absurdity and stupidity of the electoral college, a corrupt voting system. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skojvOueqJw Completely disfunctional system. It's NOT about race or color, it's about the Constitution, STUPID!!!
How is it "about the Constitution" when the Electrical College is in fact listed in the Constitution? Your comment is nonsensical... Any President must be President of the whole of the United States, not just that of large cities filled with people on government aid that tend to vote for Democrats. What is there to stop more popular states from electing a President who is anti something precious to a smaller state (like Obama trying to put Pennsylvania coal out-of-business)? Getting rid of the Electrical Collage is just another Progressive Anti-Constitutional idea that will lead to another Civil War in this country!
"Any Prescient must be President of the whole of the United States"... Well that lets Romney out, since he has written off 47% of the populace.
The United States are a constitutional Republic. i.e. a union of states, not a democracy. It was specifically constituted that way to avoid the tyranny of the 51%. That is why we have two senators from each state. That is why the representatives in the House are elected from each state. And that is why we have an electoral college. To represent the will of the states. ( even though its function is less important than it used to be.)
Please, Obama isn't interested in anyone who does not live in a city. Barack Hussein Obama : "I'm not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me. And I'm not interested in isolating myself. I feel good when I'm engaged in what I think are the core issues of the society, and those core issues to me are what's happening to poor folks in this society." http://www.iwise.com/UjpUb That's why the standard of living for welfare recipients is going up when it's harder, and harder for productive people to find jobs!
I just think it's hilarious that a little third grade boy understands the system better than most adult voters who have been voting all their lives. Mostly, I'm looking at the people who say voting for a third candidate hurts the chances of one of the big two getting elected.
Let's talk real numbers instead of whining about the electoral college system. Currently Obama would beat Romney by 294 votes to 244 votes (a difference of 50 votes). This means Romney only needs to keep his toss-up states of Colorado, Florida and North Carolina while taking 26 votes from Obama in his toss-up states of Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, Virginia and Wisconsin (93 votes total). This would mean Romney would win by 270 votes to 268 votes. The three biggies in this group are Michigan (16 votes), Ohio (18 votes) and Pennsylvania (20 votes). Taking 2 of these three would guarantee Romney's victory. If he only takes one, he needs another 6 to 10 votes to win. New Hampshire has 4 votes while Nevada and Iowa have 6 votes each so two of the three in addition to one of the big three should do it. Alternatively, taking Virgina (13 votes) OR Wisconsin (10 votes) plus one of Michigan, Ohio or Pennsylvania would do it. In other words, Obama's big electoral lead doesn't have much padding. A very small shift in the direction of Romney would change the electoral result enough to get Mitt elected.
Well said. I was referring to race / color, and Constitution. Many play the race / color card when one opposes obama. "You don't like him because he's black." I don't like him because he's shredding the U.S. Constitution, and completely against EVERYTHING that is called American. Not just him, but many have, and other U.S. Presidents before him, like Bush Jr. and his fascist patriot act. I don't care if the POTUS is Native American, White, Black, Brown, Yellow, African, Hispanic, Asian, European...you'd better be a U.S. Citizen, better have more than enough proof, and you'd better leave the Constitution alone. Though the electoral college voting system is a horrible, corrupt system, it has proven to be detrimental, though Constitutional. Look at where we are as a Nation. Look at where and what the electoral college has brought U.S. to. Those that are unConstitutional(I should say against the Constitution), are many Senators and Representatives, that elect / select an unConstitutional, non-U.S. Citizen as President. This is why the United States is on Her knees because such corrupt politicians will not be fired and arrested for their treason and betrayal. It doesn't make any sense that if 99.9% or even 100% of U.S. Citizens vote for Romney, and the electoral college vote for obamayomama and he'd still win. That's bs. As far as civil war and / or revolution is concerned, it's going to end up happening regardless, because of an out of control, corrupt, socialist, fascist, globalist government, hell bent on power, money, tyranny, and oppression. We truly are a Nation Divided.
Do Away With the Electoral College Alexander Keyssar is the Stirling professor of history and social policy at Harvards Kennedy School and the author of "The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States." Updated July 8, 2012, 10:01 PM In a presidential election season, it seems obvious (yet again) that we should rewrite parts of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution so that we can dispense with the Electoral College and hold a national popular vote to choose our chief executive. As a nation, we have come to embrace one person, one vote as a fundamental democratic principle, yet the allocation of electoral votes to the states violates that principle.Indeed, if we were drafting a constitution today, few people would even consider a presidential electoral system like the Electoral College. (Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner, in the mid-19th century, characterized it as artificial, cumbrous, radically defective and unrepublican.) The concerns that prompted the Founding Fathers to adopt this system a distrust of popular elections, worry that the people would be unfamiliar with national candidates, a desire to reinforce the great constitutional compromises between large states and small states, slave states and free states have lost much of their salience since 1787. Moreover, we have learned a lot in the last 225 years about shortcomings in the framers design: the person who wins the most votes doesnt necessarily become president; the adoption of winner take all rules (permitted but not mandated by the Constitution) produces election campaigns that ignore most of the country and contribute to low turnout; the legislature of any state can decide to choose electors by itself and decline to hold an election at all; and the complex procedure for dealing with an election in which no candidate wins a clear majority of the electoral vote is fraught with peril. As a nation, we have come to embrace one person, one vote as a fundamental democratic principle, yet the allocation of electoral votes to the states violates that principle. It is hardly an accident that no other country in the world has imitated our Electoral College. If we were writing or revising the constitution now, we would almost certainly adopt a rather simple method of choosing our presidents: a national popular vote, followed by a run-off if no candidate wins a majority. We applaud when we witness such systems operating elsewhere in the world. Perhaps we should try one here. As a nation, we have come to embrace one person, one vote as a fundamental democratic principle, yet the allocation of electoral votes to the states violates that principle. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...nstitution-do-away-with-the-electoral-college YAH!!!
The states have full and complete control over their electors they could split them up based on the percentage of votes without a major issue in fact two states do that. States with twenty electors could split them up say if Obama got 52% of the vote, Romney 47% and Ron Paul 2% they would be simple Obama would get 11, Romney 8 and Ron Paul 1. Its perfectly fair. And anyway what states will give them up small states still matter in a tight race the current one New Hampshire cannot be ignored it could be them that tips it over the 270 mark. So all states have to do is do that but if the biggest ones opted not to then the biggest ones still matter more that is why this is not going to happen or change you need to pass a constitutional amendment and most states that matter will not give up their power.
I understand the original thinking for the Electoral College. Think about it: IF it's only about total population....then the election will be decided EVERY TIME by the handful of largest states.....which would include mine (Texas), as well as New York, Florida, and California. Those 4 or 5 largest states would ALWAYS be the only ones that the candidates pander too. So, even being from one of those states, I ask you: how fair is that to the rest of the nation? They would just be kind of there; along for the ride. On the other hand, I also don't like that there is always 7 to 10 Swing states that get to decide it now. But at least, they are not always the exact same ones. So, basically I can see the argument each way. And since I can't come to a conclusion that says "change it," I would opt for keeping as it was originally set up. One of the reasons for the Electoral College was so that the small states don't continually get left out.
Seems as though if you wanted to move Ohio might be the place.....Let somebody fight over ME for a change...
The STATES elect the President. And this election is a lesson in exactly the beautiful system the founding fathers created works even today. Small states are playing a roll in this election, their 5 electoral votes are important, as important as winning big states. The candidates can't ignore them. And over time the states which become so called swing states changes.
