winemaker, I believe you are corked.

1. The end of the Constitution? So you are saying that any amendment to the Constitution ends the Constitution? I don't get it. It is the belief of most people that the electoral college is as significant in importance to our society as powdered wigs.

2. The president has been more than accommodating, probably too accommodating to the republican party during his administration. The dividers are the party of obstruction and the automatic filibuster for anything the president proposes.

3. You are no scholor.

4. The Constitution is not the oldest document in the world. You need to expand your horizons. Even the Mayflower Compact is older in our own history.

5. Turtle Man is corked as well.

I believe some of the republican leaders may be concerned that a popular vote alone might keep them out of the white house if they can not control the electorial collage results by the changing of districts for politicans.

Interesting. The Obstructionists also want to end the electoral college, but you didn't mention that whinemaker. Why would that be? Perhaps it didn't fit your partisan agenda.

America, as founded, has worked as it was supposed to. We have a constitution, and it can be amended.

You may want to go back to bible and look up what the longest surviving document in the world is.

I must have missed that part of the best speech I've ever heard...3 times....

Yes it's interesting that documented voter fraud is primarily of a republican nature and as far as popular votes go I think they are very afraid of the 99%. I see lots of contested ballots in 2012.

Sounds to me as though Republicans KNOW they're out numbered, and they want to try to find a way to control the majority of the American People anyway, in spite of the fact that the majority of the American People don't like the crap that Republicans keep shoveling.

Since when does the United States Constitution say that the "minority rules"?

You know when Mitch McConnell comes out, there must be some kind skullduggery going on.

Republicans = Apartheid

The real problem is ,is that this is a two party system,and one of the parties has been laying on the floor holding their breath and kicking their feet for three years,like 6 year olds....

Thought the Republicans were the ones that want to give the Government back to the States... I guess that is only if it suits them.

Addressing what he called “the most important issue in America that nobody is talking about,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell warned Wednesday that the National Popular Vote movement is “getting dangerously close to achieving their goal of eliminating the Electoral College without actually amending the Constitution -- without anybody even noticing, unfortunately, what they’re up to.”

McConnell is just talking a crook of Sh***t. It would be GREAT if the stupid electoral college disappears. Why should the faith of the country be in the hands of a few ignorant and dumba** hillbillies from South Carolina or Florida? That way anybody with BRAINS, instead of MONEY can run. Look at the ignorant stupid tea baggers running now. They belong in the circus.

Let's do it! The best news this year! AL Gore should run again and WIN this time without the corrupted justices! DEMOCRACY AT LAST!

McConnell daily proves he is truly without honor. A disgrace to all of us (as is any republican these days). Clearly has earned his top spot of unethical republicans. Phony lying bastard best describes him and his leadership. So sad some people have allowed themselves to be polarized to the point of McConnell's shame. Stupid, stupid people.

One political "party" is in cahoots with the other... Oh I'm sorry... Are we still meant to be falling for this BS?

The clowns of Congress have lost all credibility. Schumer , Boehner, Reid, McConnell and cohorts are selling us down the river. Changing the laws to suit one percent of the population, their Zionist masters.

winemaker,,, What constitution are you talking about? The Constitution for Beckland?

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee a majority of the Electoral College to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would reform the Electoral College so that the electoral vote in the Electoral College reflects the choice of the nation's voters for President of the United States.

Please read more about it. Don't let others tell you BS

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/action/x_writeleg_new.php

Roy: He apparently thinks that this noble democratic invention called America, which has led to the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of people in the World, is a 'failure', and we need to have a Socialistic system to make him happy.

One person, one vote is socialist? Are you joking?!

Roy and winemaker,

When did President Obama say that this country has been a failure? I listened to the speech and have read the transcripts and can't find anything to support your assertions. Could it be the echo you hear caused by each others cheeks being too close to your ears?

Also there Roy, the constitution says that the states can do this if they choose. Against the constitution are you?

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution gives each state legislature the power to decide how its state’s presidential electors are selected.

If they choose to change the way their electoral votes are distributed; the Constitution says it's fine.

What we need is voter discretion. Maybe even raise the voting age to 28.

The Electoral College is a relic back to the time when communication and travel was so slow that things had to be federated in order for things to work.

Today, with instant communication we no longer have such impediments.

And so the Electoral College needs to be relegated to history.

Elections should all be by popular vote.

.

Must have discovered it's bad for Repubs and now fighting against it tooth and nails. Otherwise he's be for it.....

He apparently thinks that this noble democratic invention called America, which has led to the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of people in the World, is a 'failure'

You're mixing apples and oranges and calling it fact. The United States of American was not founded to serve 1% of the population. I defy you to show me a passage in the Constitution even Implying that this country was founded for the economic enrichment of the few. "We the People" is not synonymous with "We of the Nobility". Maybe you should consider Russia, ops...they're having their own "occupy" movement. Guess you're out of luck.

Removing the electoral college would provide for a more democratic system. As it is, there are situations where some people's votes mean more than others. We already have the Senate where small population states get more representation.

I live in a county with more population than 9 states.

Roy Wilson: "You lie."

You state, "After all, during yesterday's speech by the Grand Divider (I assume you mean President Obama), he indicated America, as founded, has never worked."

What President Obama actually said:

"Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt's time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let's respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn't trickle down, well, that's the price of liberty.

Now, it's a simple theory. And we have to admit, it's one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That's in America's DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumpersticker. (Laughter.) But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn't work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It's not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50 and ‘60s. And it didn't work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory".

The URL to the transcript is listed below, if you are inclined, for once, to actually read or listen to President Obama's words before you spout lies.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-text-obama-speech-kansas-20111206,0,7741368,full.story

Not any more dirty handed than Republicans shutting down the DMV in a city of over 60k and moving it out in the middle of the county where no public transportation exists for older adults or young kids who might be first time voters and can't drive or register to vote.

By all accounts, the US was founded on the principle of benefiting white male slaveowners - the 18th century equivalent of the 1%. The only difference today is that they're not all white, not all male, and not all slaveowners.

They ruled then, they rule now... They will always rule, no matter who or what tries to unseat them. That's sort of the way things work. People who can, rise to the top. People who can't sit around and complain about those who did.

End the electoral college tomorrow if you want. The next American president, whether it's Obama or somebody else, will be a 1%er either before he gets into office, or will become one because of it.

Don't 'scholors' usually know how to spell???. I am no scholar, I am just wondering...

Mary,

Quoting out of context, twisting, and drawing the conclusion desired is what Roy has been all about lately. Thanks for responding to him, I was going to, but you did good.

Regarding McConnell's concerns... note that he's not concerned NOW, with most of the states that have pledged so far being Dem states... he's only worried if GOP leaning states throw in to the popular majority. That's why his "warning" comes at this time and not earlier.

Ditch the electoral college!

Excellent idea. The concept was great when news was 72 hours old and people rode horseys. With the internet, we should scrap the electoral college and hell, even representative democracy. Let's become a real democracy!!

Whoo Hoo!

Leave it to Mitch to pull one out the old canards that the "people" and the "system" might be defective (Florida, 2000 maybe...)

Mitch, the Electoral College issue has been debated by High Schoolers far brighter than you ("Resolved - the Electoral College should be abolished").

I live in one of 2 states that actually took the "right" path - abolishing the insane "winner-take-all" system.

"Forty eight states, and Washington, D.C., employ the winner-takes-all method, each awarding its electors as a single bloc. Maine and Nebraska use the "Congressional District Method", selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote and selecting the remaining two electors by the statewide popular vote. This method has been used in Maine since 1972 and in Nebraska since 1996."

I see the Republicans are trying to cook something under our noses so they can steal the election uh? Not under mine wackos....Americans are too smart for any stupid moves....we will even go the "Arab Spring" if that's what it'll take not to get screwed....dont even dare think about it pendejos....America has become "the peoples country", not for "a few rich narcisistic neocon pigs"

This entire *problem* can be fixed very easily. Banish the **electoral college** to the scrap heap of history and let each citizen's vote count as ONE VOTE. Screw population density of States to determine the worth of the votes.

Imagine if elections for the Homecoming Queen; down at your local high school, used the electoral college process....replace States with homerooms........Guess what? That crap wouldn't fly. People would riot in the streets.

Yet we rely on such a system to elect the ***leader of the free world***.

ROY WILSON-336103

winemaker-4308406 "After all, during yesterday's speech by the Grand Divider, he indicated America, as founded, has never worked."

He apparently thinks that this noble democratic invention called America, which has led to the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of people in the World, is a 'failure', and we need to have a Socialistic system to make him happy.

Are we still banging the idiotic socialism gong here? 2008 called - they want their talking point back.

And the greatest propserity for the greatest number? Is that the 20% that control 80% of the wealth?

Witchking you are an idiot! What is at the very basis of the current economic downturn? It is the collapse of the housing market. What was the underlying cause of the collapse? Bad toxic loans and the bundled securities that enabled those loans to be sold. They provided years of false prosperity. Most of these people would never have been approved if the market was not dictated to fund people with no reasonable hope of paying them off unless the market continued to rise. Eventualy it stopped and the rest is history! The loans were made possible by Democratic dictate to lower standards to be another bribe to the masses for thier support. Spending and establishing long term spending "entitlements" based on wildly optomistic revenue projections. I'll concede that Bush succumed to the sirens call and did his part as a compasionet conservative by also pandering to the voter. Wake up! Fiscal restraint is critical! Our record deficit is the result of Democratic vote purchasing when in complete control of the government. The seeds were sown long before Bush ever took office!

Typical California politics...this was never voted on by the people...it was simply passed by the legislature...a legislature that feels it is smarter than the voter and knows what's best for them...(them...the legislature...not the voter)!

Interesting. The Obstructionists also want to end the electoral college, but you didn't mention that whinemaker. Why would that be? Perhaps it didn't fit your partisan agenda.

America, as founded, has worked as it was supposed to. We have a constitution, and it can be amended.

You may want to go back to bible and look up what the longest surviving document in the world is

GOPpers, after having had the benefit of the constitution for all these years; have decided that "Now" its not representative of the voters? They want to institute a program which is both directly and indirectly responsive to Gerrymandering.

The Constitution put in place the Electoral college to allow all states, both large and small ... to have a significant effect on the overall vote.

It was approved and maintained because it works and has worked ... mainly to prevent a gang of "Outlaws" to hijack enough states to prevent the Popular (majority) of voters to be led by the Person they deem to have addressed enough of the issue, all the issues - to be non-partisan in dealing with even those causes which he, personally my find abhorrent.

The President is not put in office to Rule. He is in office to do the will of the People - regardless of his personal views.

We have had a number of presidents who have taken this nation to war, even though their personal tendancies were to remain pacifistic. We have also had Presidents who have finessed the country into wars, dispite the majority decision that it was un-necessary.

This mean and remains fact that the President serves at the will of the majority...not the whiney, petulant, magpies who mutter and strut - hoping to subvert the will of the people.

When a salesman start trying to sell you a "Brand new" Constitution - to replace that "Ol tattered one we have used for so long.

You need to really ask yourself if his motives are helping You or him.

Chose wisely and keep your eye on the Prize. Flea's live on the dog and it pisses them off that they have no way to tell him what to do. What they want from you ... is to just lie there and let them feed off you, no matter how irritating they are .... as far as they are concerned - you are not allowed to scratch.

American Girl

I agree with you! Since when did the minority rule?

Why is it a minority of people that are atheist demand that any mention of GOD be taken out of schools, or demand that the pledge of allegance remove the word GOD, or that the Nativity scenes be removed from in front of city buildings, or a cross from the side of a hill?

Anyone can make a case for special rules on the basis of being in the minority! It's a rather frustrating situation that has been made for the majority. Your PC UTOPIA is a fraud.

Wow

Listen, and listen good people. The Electoral College was made because back in the 1700's people needed to ride around on horseback to tally the votes. This is 2011, we have instant communication. Even though the voting machines ARE rigged, it doesnt matter if the votes is a landslide in either direction. Just have a voting machine connected to a network of servers, and the machine connected to the server will tally every vote from across the country. That way every single person who votes will get represented.

The electoral College is about as Outdated a concept as Horse Drawn Carriages, or Religion.

What this tells me is that Minor leader Mitch McConnell, and the Party of the No, the Grand Obstructionist Party, the Republican'ts want to make sure that they can committ voter fraud again like they did in 2000.

Its time to let the people choose the President, and despite what the Super over the top Ultra Conservative heritage foundation and yellow Mitch McConnell say, there will not be a disaster in letting the people vote directly for President. Infact, situations like the election of 2000 will not happen again if the people were allowed a direct vote.

And thats my opinion

There is an interesting debate going on over this bill.

However what about the debate (or non-debate, as it seems) going on over the NDAA and authorization for indefinite military detention of individuals, including US citizens? Why have I not read word one about it on MSNBC... have I just missed it? Anybody else freaked out by that?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/05/the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-the-greatest-threat-to-civil-liberties-americans-face/

Republicans are just Talking Points and Socialist is the flavor of the year....got anything of substance or is it all about emotions?

The more Capitalism fails the more desperate the Cons get. Everything has its day in the sun - time to rethink our future, cuz our past only flourished at best 200 years - hardly a measure of success. Romans and Christians lasted longer (thanks to might is right policy).

Witchking said,

"I think Bush let Bin Laden get away on purpose to give him an excuse to invade Iraqand create a bogey man to manipulate the public just like in the novel 1984 and further destroy the middle class and give everything to the 1%"

I never doubted that was the case.

I saw these people working to make this happen a couple months back on OCCUPY WALLSTREET. I can't believe they got so organized and are making the efforts to make this really happen and are getting this far!! I have gotta look them back up and see how I get my name thrown in on this. Amazing. Pizz off Mitch.... Vote Ron Paul 2012

I support this, the electoral system is outdated. Someone should tell Mitch that this isn't 1787, and that the constitution can be modified to reflect the times. When a significant portion of the United States isn't really represented in the election, I'd say change is good.

Removing the electoral college would guarantee that the lunatics from California, New York, and Texas would hand pick the President for the rest of us because of their huge populations. I am against that scenario.

You people need to really understand the need to eliminate the Electoral College.First and foremost, the Electoral College was originally created to represent each state's populations vote during the 1770's and forward. Fundamentally, via Congressional Law, the Electoral College State Vote would supersede the popular vote; because the Electoral College represented the part of the national population that was illiterate and easily swayed by politicians. Previously, Voter were paid off to put and "X" on a Presidential Ballot, and had no idea what they were signing. What started off as a Congressional protection of voter rights; has through the decades, superseded the popular vote of each state. Today, the Congressional College votes supersede the chosen candidate in each state, during Presidential Elections. In essence, the state's population can majority vote for one candidate; and the State Electoral College choose another. The Electoral College Votes are the only votes used in the final determination of which Presidential Candidate's win which states.

An example of this, are Presidential Candidates that only focus in on winning the top 8-10 states with the most Electoral Votes. You may have 42 states choosing one candidate and the few remaining Electoral voting states choosing another. The President chosen will be the one picked by the Electoral College. The Electorial College has the right under Constitutional Law to override the state's popular vote in Presidential Elections.

Consider if you will, the 2000 election, between Bob Dole & George Bush. The election came down to a couple of counties in Florida; with suspect punched ballots. Truly, the election was too close to call; although, county sources did say George Bush won by only a few hundred votes. However, the real issue was the Florida Electoral College. It was the Electoral College that finally cast their votes for George Bush, before the second recount was completed. With that done, the Presidential election was completed. This travesty is no longer an issue, with electronic voting machines and backup printed voting receipts.

In essence, the Electoral College has the power to choose each President and Vice President; regardless of popular vote. Until the Electorial College is eliminated; our Presidential voting is just a ploy which allows the population a sense of control over choosing their President and Vice President. Nothing could be farther from the truth, in reality.

In this day and age, people are literate and highly political, and electronically connected via various devices. Today's voters are well informed regarding Candidates experience and qualifications. Today's voters don't need an Electoral College controlling the voting outcome of each State. Those who support the Electoral College and its' continued voting control over the population; are simply advocating socialist voting control over the nation.

Fundamentally, regardless of Political Party, whichever candidate win the majority vote of that state; should win the state. The Presidential Candidate's with the most state wins, is elected the next President and Vice President...Plain and Simple..

It's not Rocket Science, People...

Derek: I'm not sure I see the difference in the citizens of those states and the ones considered battleground states. I mean, have you been to Florida? I was there three weeks ago. I saw an elderly man in a thong and a Larry the Cable Guy lookalike wearing a wedding dress. The south may well have the strangest people on earth.

I think the electoral college should be ditched entirely, base it on national vote totals.

Full disclosure...I'd likely support the opposite of anything Mitch McConnell supports. If he would ever speak his mind, not his party, id respect him.

What pisses McConnell off is that Republicans are busy with plans to disenfranchise Democrats in quite a number of states. This will destroy their underhanded plan to wipe out opposition. (Gotta suck up to the rich, you know?) The spate of voter I.D. laws are aimed directly at Democrats under the guise of cleaning up voter fraud, a straw man of the first order. Eighty-six convictions for voter fraud - 86 - nationwide, and this scumbag McConnell pretends he's concerned about the will of the voters........you know, the voters he's trying so hard to disenfranchise.

Please, please check the link to the Pennsylvania electoral modifications in this article. That is a Republican attempt to steal votes from Democrats. Please check it out.

I strongly urge those of you who keep an open mind on issues to consider this. Virtually every dirty, rotten, stinking trick Republicans accuse others of using are the very tactics Republicans are using themselves.

Vote G.O.P. - suicide by Republican

Interesting. The Progressives are moving towards the end of the Constitution?

Reading comprehension fail.

The electoral college is designed to give a voice to states with a lesser population. California has something like 55 votes, my state has 3. Why do you want to take my small voice away from me? A popular vote system would mean all these "flyover" states would be totally ignored in a general election, and that is wrong. Trust me, the folks in LA and New York DO NOT know what is best for those in the Dakotas, and our votes would be ignored in a popular vote contest.

Hey LaughingMan, you're right: "This is 2011, we have instant communication". We have a lot of technology that we can't keep secure.

"Just have a voting machine connected to a network of servers, and the machine connected to the server will tally every vote from across the country."

Are you crazy? m00t would be our next prez.

Abolishing the Electoral College continually comes up - mostly from idealist and young people.

It should stay.

Instead of being for all the people, the candidates will only have to campaign toward the major population centers and their concerns only. The Electoral College lessens the problem. I've lived in country for about half my life and the other half in the city. The difference in thinking and governing is like night and day. By going to a popular vote system - those in the country will have nothing but city thinking crammed down their throats.

In elections it has a similar effect at the Senate 60 vote cloture rule. The EC keeps the simple majority from ruling as half plus 1 dictators.

I don't get where people come off with the States can do whatever they want with the EC. That is not the intent of the founders. The thing that people aren't grasping is that these states are proposing to cast the EC votes to the National majority vote - regardless of the outcome of their own state. That is classic governing regardless of what the majority of your own constituency voted and just morally reprehensible.

IF you are going to adjust the system to make it more fair - use the systems used by Nebraska and Maine. The Electoral vote is handled with 2 votes State wide - winner of the state popular vote win gets these two and the rest are determined by the results in each congressional district.

Are we still banging the idiotic socialism gong here?

Seems so. Since the birthers have been made fools of and it's a moot point that the President is not a Muslim terrorist sympathizer, they're running out of options. The hate train continues to roll, but I think they're starting to lose some passengers.

Jack Colton... the last time I was in New York, I saw a naked cowboy in Times Square. A lot of Floridians retire from the northern states. As far as I'm concerned, that explains your elderly man in the thong. Meanwhile, I fully support the one citizen/one vote concept.

"The National Popular Vote is a compact among state legislatures under which they pledge that they’ll award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide, even if that candidate was not the majority choice of their state’s voters."

This method pretty much negates the votes of entire States....

This is insane......The founders never meant for the President to be elected by popular vote. That is why it is the only election set up to use the Electoral College....It was a blend of popular votes of the citizen and gave the interest of the State itself a voice in who became President. You must all remember that we are a Union of 50 Individual Sovereign States......they are not 50 counties .

The only change I see as reasonable would be if all States split the Electoral College votes to reflect the popular vote. ie.....California has 55 Electoral College votes...... If the Democrat candidate wins 60% of the vote they get 60% of EC votes or 33 votes.....The Republican with 40% would get 22 votes.

I ran all the numbers once...a while back.....The 2008 Election was Obama 365 to McCain 173 Electoral College Votes. If all the States split their votes , if I remember right, the vote totals would have been 285 Obama to 253 McCain.....which matches very closely to the popular vote totals of 52.9% Obama----45.7% McCain.

This is the only method I see to make both Candidates compete for every vote in every State.

The will be no such thing as " 3 or 4 Battleground States"....

Well in 2000 Gore would have won easily and we would have not had to put up with this Bush misery we are still suffering from world wide. The founders made some good decisions and some bad one. The electoral college should have been salted away long ago.

We don't need to Reform the Electoral College. We need to ABOLISH it. It is completely false that it makes the candidates seek out All the states. As some have noted, the West Coast find that the East and Center usually dictate where it is going, and the people who hear how it's going give up on the candidate that is behind back East. I is also correct that unless it is a tight vote, California does not count much. Why should we give all the votes of a state to a candidate who barely squeeks by? I was surprised that the Democrats never did anything about the College as they have won the popular vote and lost the electoral college 4 times. Let's keep it simple: (1) Whoever wins the popular vote is President, but if there is no candidate who gets 45% of the vote, then (2) the two candidates with the highest number of votes will be voted on one month after the inconclusive election to decide the winner. No more complicated Details.

catastrophe?

McConnell was joined at the event by the secretaries of state – the chief election officials in the states – of Iowa, Colorado, Kansas, Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi, all of whom are Republicans and all of whom oppose the National Popular Vote.

Yeah for the GOP it would be.

American Girl-724855

Since when does the United States Constitution say that the "minority rules"?

Here we go again.

This is exactly what our Constitution says. Our Constitution is based on a REPUBLIC form of government.

WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY!!!!!!

WE ARE A REPUBLIC!!!!!

Please, please, learn the difference. We are a Federal Constitutional Republic with a Representative Democracy. For the sake of brevity, a Representative Democracy simply implies we have periodic free elections. It is NOT our form of government.

Please DO NOT embarrass yourselves by pulling out some Wiki or Merriam-Webster definitions. If you're not sure, read the Constitution as it was intended to be read and affirm its form of government with the Federalist Papers. It is NOT a "living breathing" document and it IS a "Charter of Negative Liberties"! Unfortunately, nearly 100 years of Progressivism has bastardized the interpretation, most criminally during the "Revolution of 1937". If you're not familiar with this event I recommend you read up on it. It should shock every Constitution loving American.

In a Republic, the Rights of the ultimate minority, the individual, are preserved. In a Democracy the majority rules and the individuals Rights are disregarded. The Framer's of the Constitution debated this very issue as the keystone for their decision to create a Republic form of government. In the Federalist Papers they warned of Tyranny-by-Majority and condemned the "excesses of democracy". Examples of this were evident directly post-1776 when legislatures still acted omnipotently per the royal tyranny they were accustomed to.

A simple example of a Democracy was quite evident in recent OWS incidents where crimes were committed - robbery, assault, rape - and the victims were told NOT to report them to the police, but rather that they would be handled "internally". These victims were neglected their individual rights by the Majority Rules. The Tyranny-by-Majority. The Mob Rules.

Imagine That : 1 vote with equal weight: California or Texas, South Carolina or New York. it doesn't matter where it came from! what a novelty.. away goes the manipulation of moving to vote in battle ground states, the decision of who wins in hands of state courts and the big importance of governorship to influence voting procedures.

Democrat = communism

Republican = fascism

I have as much evidence to support this as you do.

With their shady "rules" calling for new forms of Voter IDs, redistricting and other political election bad of tricks, the Republicans thought that their party had won the "Game."

If the majority of U.S. states and this country votes for a popular vote election in the 2012 Presidential election - deservedly, the GOP will be "Out-Gamed!"

can't stop me = stopped

FreedomRings - why didn't you use the example of how women raped in our military are censored...same game, different ideals. You only win arguments in your own mind when you throw in your personal hate.

winemaker-4308406

Interesting. The Progressives are moving towards the end of the Constitution? And why would that be? Perhaps it doesn't fit the agenda of this administration.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love the broad brush people try to use sometimes.If you are not familiar with our constitution it has been amended many times and the electoral college is one of those amendments.

The electoral college was added to our constitution in 1804 and was originally elected by popular vote.It has since been changed many times and no longer is used to simplify our election process it is used by the RNC and DNC to minimize the people involved in actually choosing our president. Anyone who would argue that the electoral college should stay is arguing that a small group of people that hold no elected position and therefore no responsibility be allowed to choose our president.

When Mitch talks about something needs to be stopped or as he put it killed in the cradle before it grows up (very interesting metaphor for a right to life good christian man to use) it should teall all of you it is in the interest of the party that it be stopped. As it operates now the candidates spend their time pandering to only the states who hold the most electoral votes and spend vast amounts of monies in those states to try and control the electorats in those states and thereby disenfranchise the majority of American voters.

FreedomRingsLoud

----------------

The federalist papers were never documents on which our constitution was based.

They were a series of 85 articles written by 3 men Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay arguing for the ratification of the constitution as it was already written.

-----------------------------------------------

It is NOT a "living breathing" document and it IS a "Charter of Negative Liberties"!?????

Then surly you would be the first to demand the electoral college be ended it was not part of our constitution until 1804.

OK Pugface, please enlighten us, the ignorant masses, as to the relevance of the Electoral College System in the 21st Century? Especially those of us living in the Western United States; you know, west of the Mississippi River?

I'm not sure what I think of this. Using the popular vote does seem that it would marginalize small-population states and concentrate power in the largest cities. I don't think that's a good thing. Large parts of this country are rural and this would pretty much make their votes pointless. I don't want LA, NYC, and Chicago deciding everything.

This proposal does not remove the electoral college completely, it just dilutes it further. I am all for popular vote, combined with voter ID, we might get some real election results!

I thought the article was about NOT amending the Constitution. It said the Constitution gives the States the right to decide how their 'presidential electors' are selected. The thing that McConnel didn't like was the idea that States could use the popular vote for the entire country to decide who they send, instead of just the vote in their own state. They are trying to get enough states to sign on so that when they reach 270 votes it will kick in.

AG99

I'm not sure what I think of this. Using the popular vote does seem that it would marginalize small-population states and concentrate power in the largest cities.

If you live in the western states, under the current system the election is decided before you even get to the polls.

Now presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. When and where votes don't matter, candidates ignore those areas and the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 69%

In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers -- including one house in DC, Delaware, Maine, and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored.

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 (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who ignored, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

Okay, mvymvy, that's pretty convincing. You sold me.

A reason to keep the Electorial College is that the election would easily be decided by the Northeast and by California. Now there is still some incentive to pay attention to at least some of the other regions of the country.

If Ca and other states are pushing for this, then they should be getting on the bandwagon of the Popular Amendment Movement and supporting their two constitutional amendments. The Election/Campaign Finance Reform amendment does constitutionally just what they are trying to do through the back door. The constitution already outlines a procedure for the states to offer such a constitutional amendment. Go to www.faircampaignreform.us to download the two petitions, get them to your Secretary of State (with lots of signatures) especially if you live in one of the states backing this National Popular Vote Movement effort. For those too lazy to go to the website, here is the text of the ECFR amemdment. Note Section One and Section 8.

Petition for US Constitutional Amendment For Election Reform

We, the undersigned US citizens, duly registered voters in our respective states/territories, do hereby petition for our state to approve the following amendment to the United States Constitution by the method noted below.

Election Reform:
1. Abolish the Electoral College (Repeal Amendment 12)
2. ONE NATIONAL primary date to be held on the Tuesday eight (8) weeks prior to the General Election day for Congressional offices and for the President. Candidate petitions must be filed with the local/state elections boards 60 days prior to the Primary Election date. Federal election petitions shall be uniform in every state and shall include a “contract with the voters” that spells out clearly what that candidate stands for on all issues that they may have to address in elected office. They shall be held accountable in court for breach of that contract if elected and any/all terms are not met.
3. NO campaigning allowed for any elective federal office more than 60 days prior to the National Primary Date.
4. NO campaign contribution shall be donated to any candidate of more than $200 from an individual or $500 maximum from a family (spouses/children living in the same household.) No donations shall be made to a candidate more than sixty days prior to the primary date. No candidate shall contribute from their own funds more than 60% of the total donations from other private individuals.
5. NO campaign contribution from any PAC, corporation, union, non-profit organization, special interest group, etc. shall be allowed for any elected federal office.
6. NO third party campaigning (separate PAC ads, corporate ads, etc.) for/against any candidate shall be allowed at any time during or before the election season.
7. NO party conventions shall be held to select the presidential candidates. The selection must be done at the ballot box in the primary election.
8. The One Man/One Vote Supreme Court ruling shall be enforced by this Amendment, namely that NO federal candidate selection shall be by any means other than the ballot box on Primary/General Election Dates.
9. National Party Organizations shall NOT raise money for or donate to specific candidates of their party prior to the dates outlined above.
10. PAC’s shall NOT be granted tax-exempt status by the IRS, and any non-profit organization who uses their funding for political purposes shall lose their tax-exempt status.
11. All lobbyists shall be outlawed from influencing Congress at all times.

This amendment shall be approved ONLY by State Constitutional Conventions to be called within 90 days of this petition being submmitted to a state’s Secretary of State. A minimum of 25% of the registered voters in each state shall be required to further this petition to the respective Secretary of State.

Name Signature State Address

Of course the republicans do not want to abolish the electoral college. Didn't Bush win the his second term because of the electoral college, but would have lost because of the popular vote?

The electoral college wasnt put in place just to placate smaller states. The biggest reason it was put in place was to give each individual states Electors power to vote in another candidate if they believed the winner to be unfit for the Presidency regardless of whether he won the popular vote. I believe this is a very important Constitutional safeguard and we as nation would be utterly stupid to remove this.

When the national popular vote total is the way the president is chosen, then every vote in America in every precinct in America would become the subject for endless litigation. There wouldn’t be a chance the presidency would be resolved by Jan. 20 in time for swearing in.”

Could you imagine ACORN in this environment? No wonder the libs want it so bad.

Catastrophic for Republicans; it will be much harder for them to game the system with a popular vote ... but they have been hard at work trying to disenfranchise voters that are more likely to not vote for Republicans.

Christopher Cole.....how do think the Northeast and California will decide the Elections? Back in the early 1800's it could have been possible but Texas and Florida have sizable populations as well. Not every single voter in the Northeast is going to vote the same way.....although sometimes I wonder if it doesn't happen in Texas. I live in NY and in my district democrats and republicans are almost exactly the same numbers. Now..... I'll tell you something else......each of them are outnumbered by people enrolled to vote but not enrolled to a party!!

There is actually a much bigger issue at play here that is generally being ignored. Our elected officials, the media, and even many American citizens act as if it is a question of a state casting its votes only for the Republican or Democrat who gets the most votes. However, this country was never intended to be a two party system. In fact, our founding fathers sought to keep parties out altogether, and definitely were not seeking a system where there were only two choices. This issue has arisen due to the Reps and Dems creating rules that have the effect of guaranteeing that they are the only two choices in any election. And this is one of the major issues that the American Overhaul Act seeks to correct (www.americanoverhaulact.org). The Act contains a total of six proposed systemic corrections:

- Congressional Term Limits: A maximum of two four-year terms in either House or Senate, and 12 years total in Congress.

- Federal Campaign Finance Reform: The vast majority of funds any candidate spends on a federal election campaign must come from a federal election campaign fund. These federal election campaign funds will be doled out equally to all candidates running for a position (candidates must meet certain pre-determined minimum requirements), and at least three candidates for any seat must receive funds.

- Congressional Size Limits: Membership in the House of Representatives will be permanently fixed at 300 members.

- Congressional Compensation: Congressional salaries will be fixed at four times the median household income. Additionally, health insurance will only be provided to members while they are actually serving in Congress (no lifelong healthcare) and pensions for members of Congress will be eliminated.

- Eliminate Party Favoritism: This amendment will require the elimination of all laws, rules, or regulations that favor or disfavor, either by inclusion or exclusion, any elected official or candidate for an elected office, based upon affiliation with any political party, or lack of affiliation with a political party.

- Balanced Budget Requirement: The federal budget must be balanced, meaning the total amount of federal government spending must not exceed the amount of money collected by the federal government. There will be exceptions to allow for extra spending in times of national crisis, but the excess crisis spending will be limited in amount and duration, and must be corrected by an equal amount of underspending in the years that follow.

These proposals have been designed to be non-partisan and to simply correct the issues that have effectively caused our legislature to grind to a halt. I urge everyone to check out the Act at www.americanoverhaulact.org and, if you agree with the proposals, to show your support and to share the site and Act with your friends, family, and state and federal elected representatives. We need a lot of popular support for this movement to fully get going so that we can make a positive impact on the future of our great nation.

Mitch McConnell is "The Obstructionist in Chief of the United States of America." So on any issue, if Mitch McConnell is against it, then I'm for it! And if Mitch McConnell is for it, I'm against it. Simple as that.

And we are trying to control voting in third world countries and the likes while we have nothing but a fuc.ed up system that was established when horse and buggy were rolling along. It's time to get the voters' opinions and not electoral crap counted. It does not make a difference how many people are living in a State, bottom line is how many eligible voters in America voted for whom. Stop dicking around with this you arsshole politicians!

Robert Delphin.....I think the 25th amendment covers that. Also, it's been proven that Impeachment isn't out of the question. This isn't the 18th century and we can plainly see who is or isn't out of balance. People that have their eyes and ears open can easily ferret out anyone who isn't.

I personally don't buy the argument that a popular vote will make politicians campaign in every state like it is a battleground. But what concerns me is that this is beyond the scope of what the constitution entails. If we want to decide based off of a popular vote, fine, but you need to amend the constitution. More and more our politicians are simply ignoring the checks and balances and delegating their responsibilities to agencies or using judicial interpretation to skew an amendments meaning. This is dangerous. Our fore fathers feared populism and democracy. A republic is the only means that balances the rights of the minority and offering government by consent of the majority.

@johnnyt Ill use the obligatory Hitler reference. I do this simply because all the signs were there when he was voted into office, however because of certain factors after WWI people were blinded to to this. So no, given the right circumstances its not at all out of the question that something like that can happen. Like I said, it was meant as a safeguard. Instead of scrapping it for the horrible idea of a popular vote, it should be revisited and maybe reformed.

@k200k lol, I was about to mention this when I looked up and saw your post. I actually wrote a 2000 page essay during my first year in college about the misleading label of Democracy that has been cast across America. This nation was indeed founded as a Republic in no small part because our founding fathers knew to create a Democracy would have doomed our nation. Read Socrates work, even thousands of years ago philosophers knew that a democracy was no more than a government of the majority and that a majority will never protect those who dont share their same vision.

Mob rule?

Isn't the popular vote the way that every other elected politician is elected to office?

Mitch McConnell was elected by popular vote, he doesn't seem to have a problem with that.

The president represents all American and should be elected by the largest winning vote total. He represents the will of the voters not the will of the states. So this is not a "the small states won't be represented" argument.

1 person should equal=1vote. Period.

Why should issues that matter to "battle ground" states such as Ohio get more attention? Why shouldn't the issues of each American voter matter the same amount? Why should a vote in Ohio or Florida count more than a vote anywhere else? Why do candidates visit some areas mutiple times to speak to the issues there and others not at all?

Post #2.7 says it very well above. This does nothing to change the republic structure of the government or remove any of the checks and balances. Perhaps it at one point provided a fail safe, but if the electoral college ever did vote differently than the people of each state intended now-there would be outrage, and the electoral college would end.

Every other election in this counrty is held by popular vote-and it has not resulted in problems. In fact-the biggest problems of late came in 2000-because Florida was so important because it was winner take all. That makes no sense!

Plus-NYC can not control the election for gov. of NY-how are they going to control the counrty?

And just why do you think the GOP is so deathly afraid with eliminating the Electoral College? They are scared stiff of not having the final say in the elections, most especially in a popular election which comes from the votes of the everyday working people. Eliminating the Electoral College is long overdue and passe. The elections should come only from the votes of the people and not the politicians overriding the people's vote. It is not right that politicians get the second and final chance at turning the popular vote around. Our Government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people, for the people", and not run solely by the say of the wealthy, elite, and too often corrupt politicians, who just seem to serve themselves rather than the constituents. Politicians spend far too much time bickering rather than listening to the needs of their people.

So let me get this straight. Kentucky's Senator Weaselface McConnell doesn't want a government run by politicians elected by popular vote ... as in the vote of the people? What exactly is he afraid of? People might actually have a say so in who is minding their store?

You're right, Weasy, that could be catastrophic. Like we've done so well the last 200 or so years having a small group of men telling us who we voted for! My opinion? It's about time we let the people have a voice in this government OF the people BY the people but FOR the wealthy politicians. Maybe then the pols will start thinking more about what is right just in an effort to stay in office. Maybe then payoffs from lobbyists won't carry as much weight as the thought that if they don't vote right they won't be re-elected. Maybe then we can start seeing some real change to believe in!

Oh! I guess that is what Weasy's afraid of!

In the 2008 election Obama won with a historical margin of 52.7%, Mc Cain reached 45.9% during one of the worst moments for the Republicans. I do not think that the popular vote favours to the democratic now , if we see the results the the last elections in Europe, are conservative candidates who have been elected, the last one in Spain the candidate for PP conservative win the Socialist Party by big difference. I think that everything will be just alternating among Democrats and Republicans. However is important the requirement of a national ID to avoid possible fraud.

What? Kentucky's McConnell doesn't want to lose whatever illusion of power he magnifies? Kentucky doesn't matter in anything except horse races, a much handsomer more exciting representation of Kentucky than you, Mr. Turtle!

"The National Popular Vote is a compact among state legislatures under which they pledge that they'll award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide, even if that candidate was not the majority choice of their state's voters."

This method pretty much negates the votes of entire States....

This is insane......The founders never meant for the President to be elected by popular vote. That is why it is the only election set up to use the Electoral College....It was a blend of popular votes of the citizen and gave the interest of the State itself a voice in who became President. You must all remember that we are a Union of 50 Individual Sovereign States......they are not 50 counties .

The only change I see as reasonable would be if all States split the Electoral College votes to reflect the popular vote. ie.....California has 55 Electoral College votes...... If the Democrat candidate wins 60% of the vote they get 60% of EC votes or 33 votes.....The Republican with 40% would get 22 votes.

I ran all the numbers once...a while back.....The 2008 Election was Obama 365 to McCain 173 Electoral College Votes. If all the States split their votes , if I remember right, the vote totals would have been 285 Obama to 253 McCain.....which matches very closely to the popular vote totals of 52.9% Obama----45.7% McCain.

This is the only method I see to make both Candidates compete for every vote in every State.

The will be no such thing as " 3 or 4 Battleground States"....

The reason an individual states like California are irrelevant is that it slanted so far to the democrat side of the political spectrum (Texas is an example for Republicans). This proposal would make all of the smaller states irrelevant. The top 5 states have more than 1/3 of the total US population and they voted CA (60/40) D, TX (55/44) R, NY (64/36) D, FL (51/48) D and IL (62/37) D. Throw out FL because neither side wins by much. This gives the democrats ~ a 7 million vote advantage/headstart to negate voters from other states assuming roughly 50% turnout. The electoral votes are already scewed towards the population in that the number of votes is determined by the number of representatives a state has (based on population +2 for senators). The remaining states are not large enough to offset that type of deficit. Any state that agrees to this proposal can effectively wipe-out the voice of an entire state because that state did not vote for the overall "popular vote" winner. Are the issues in California or Texas the same as they are for Michigan, Colorado, Alaska, Washington or Wisconsin? This makes more states irrelevant due to outside opinions/issues, not internal ones. There will be far less campaigning than there is now...that could be good or bad depending on your perspective.

The Voice of the people should be the only governing decision of who is elected President of the US, remember that saying We The People, that is what should matter, we are Adults paying taxes so we should have the ultimate say so, not a bunch of MORONS ....

1. -- An Amendment to Abolish the Electoral College and establish a simple popular vote system with a catch plan of a run-off election one month later between the two highest vote-getters for multiple major candidates (as seen with Clinton-Perot-GHW Bush/Dole in 1992 & 1996).

2. --Amend the period of service for Representatives from two to Four years, so they can actually get around to Legislation for three years and not be bogged down to one year of work and one year of running.

3. --Raise the number of Representatives to a permanent 500 for sake of more adequate representation of the People in the different parts of a country of over 300,000,000 people !

4. --Give the City of Washington (DC) back to MARYLAND, for Pete's sake, although have it with a special status of assistance from Congress, since it is the National Capital. It's Ridiculous to make the city a State and give it two senators as well as a representative in Congress, as some want. Let's get serious! 100 senators is enough, even from dinky states, and some want to add a City-State!

If anyone were to study the origins of the electoral college they would discover that without this element and, along with it, the popular representation in the House of Representatives, the constitutional convention of 1787 would never have been able to solve the first major problem in the US government. That being how to ensure that larger states by population would not overwhelm the smaller ones.

Now I live in a large state, so I should say ... what the heck! But the point is that the Electoral College is essential to the set of balances of power defined with the the CConstitution. In fact it may be one of the last bastions against the tyranny of the majority that still exists. Of course, those that want to overwhelm that balance just want to have a straight majority rule election. Then they can consolidate their power in the population centers (i.e. cities) and do that which they wish to the rest of us. Sorry, but this is nothing I want to live to see.

This is a democratic republic not a straight democracy and some of our citizens don't live in population centers (thank God!!!).

This is just one more piece of the culture of victimization out there that oozes from the extreme left.

“….eliminating the Electoral College without actually amending the Constitution….”

It appears that some members of our society are determined to ignore or undermine our constitution to the point that it no longer represents who we are and what makes us “tick”. They want to change it and replace it with……????

- A system that’s more “balanced” than ours, where everyone is equal (as long as being “equal” doesn’t apply to me), just like Eastern Europe used to have.

- Or perhaps, the Chinese all-in-one (capitalist socialists) dictatorship where everyone jumps to the government’s tune and where people are dispatched for not towing their line.

- Or the EU system where no one is quite sure what they stand for and can no longer distinguish between black and white

- Or the Australian system where politicians openly lie to the electorate so they get elected?!

- Or we just get someone else to run our country because we can no longer ( bother to) support the system that worked for us for as long I can remember and made us the envy of the world!

Which is the one you prefer??

Robert Delpin and some others think that this is a Republic only and that Democracy is a Bad Thing. So I suppose they would propose talking away the popular vote for Senators, since before 1913 senators were chosen by state legislators. The House of Representatives could be chose by the mayors of the cities in each state. Is that what you mean Mr. Delpin? It must be, otherwise you fall into a contradiction. It sounds clever sometimes to quote someone like Sokrates from 2,350 year ago, but is that the best period to reference, or even 235 years ago in the US to know what is best for Now? The USA is a Democratic Republic. let us note, and, although imperfect and wanting of improvement, does involve the choices of the People (with a capital letter).

Of course the GOP likes the electoral college and for a very good reason. They know that Bush won the 2000 and 2004 elections only because they rigged the results in Florida and Ohio. In both 2000 and 2004 Bush didn't even come close to winning the popular vote. After an independent recount month's after the 2000 election it was proven that Gore had actually won Florida and should have become President.

In 2000 the GOP knew the fix was in because Jeb Bush [ how convenient ] was the governor of Florida and that corrupt GOP attorney general Kathrine Harris was bought and paid for. Harris refused to do a complete recount and Republicans used legal mumbo jumbo to get the US Supreme Court involved [controlled by Republican justices] and of course these corrupt judges declared Bush to be President. That was the first time in American history that a President was elected by the Supreme Court and this remedy for deciding a Presidential election is not in the U.S. Constitution.

The Republican Party is a disease in America, they have shown over and over that they will do ANYTHING to steal power. Until the American people wake up and realize how totally corrupt the Republican Party really is these GOP criminals will continue to break the law and continue to screw our country over.

The need for an electoral college is long gone. No one state should have its votes count more than another. When voting at the federal level we shouldn't even be separating "wins" by state either, except only to identify red vs blue states. An election should be won by the number of votes you get from individuals across the board. PERIOD. We have the technology to tally the total number of votes in this country so what is the problem with taking that at face value? Why do we need representation by an electoral college at all?

Washington DC has more people than Wyoming, which has a Representative and two Senators for about 600,000 people. Those in DC have no voting representation in Congress at all.

For that matter, Prince Georges County, Maryland has about 200,000 more people than Wyoming, and we do have representation, but not our own Congressman and our own two Senators. Small-population states are way over-represented in the Senate and Electoral College.

And, please, let there be no pitiful whining about the election of 2000. It is true that Mr. Gore won the popular vote. The problem was with who won the Electoral votes of Forida. The Democrats were demanding recounts in just a very few selected counties instead of the whole state. That sounded unreasonable to the Supreme Court, so they decided that there would be no recount, and Mr. Bush won the electoral votes of the state and the national election. In 2004, Mr. Bush won both popular and electoral votes.

There have been a few times that there have been several major candidates for president. Most of us will remember the elections of 1992 and 1996 in which there were three major candidates. In 1861 Abraham Lincoln got only 39% of the popular vote, but since the Democrats were split among three candidates dividing their forces, Lincoln won the eletoral college. If he had lost, there would not have been a Civil War/War Between the States nor 620,000 dead. I propose that, along with Abolishing the Electoral College, there be a proviso that if no candidate receives at least 45% of the popular vote, the People should be called back to vote one month later to vote between the two candidates who had received the highest number of votes in November to determine that majority winner.

Are you seriously going Neo-confederate here? Seriously, you support secession?

AnaBanana-1782128

What? Kentucky's McConnell doesn't want to lose whatever illusion of power he magnifies? Kentucky doesn't matter in anything except horse races, a much handsomer more exciting representation of Kentucky than you, Mr. Turtle!

McConnell does suck.. but your comment that Kentucky Doesn't matter in anything except horse races.. means you suck more than he does. DO NOT insult an entire state.

GeorgLC

I propose that, along with Abolishing the Electoral College, there be a proviso that if no candidate receives at least 45% of the popular vote, the People should be called back to vote one month later to vote between the two candidates who had received the highest number of votes in November to determine that majority winner.

Sure George ... and when only 45% or so of the eligible voter vote on election day, how many do you think would show up one month later. Another opportunity for rule of those with the most free time. Not to mention this only adds an additional month of uncertainty into the process. Elections, to be viable, need to be regularly schedules and executed in as short a time interval as possible. A 'redo' is just another opportunity to add more confusion and malcontent. Get it scheduled ... then get it done!

I'm glad old turtle-face made a fuss so I could google the site and sign on for my state. No one comes to NM unless it's a squeaker anyway.

I agree that it would be a catastrophe, for the republicans. Especially after all that expensive gerrymandering.

You know, our founding father's weren't stupid, writing back-door ways to get things changed when the government became too corrupt to represent the people.

Bully for the power of the states!

The more I ponder this....the more it stinks. ... This National Popular Vote Movement is looking more and more as part of Obama's " We are 5 days from Fundamentally Transforming America"....

Fundamental is the bedrock and our bedrock is The Constitution

Progressives are students of history too....

Rome went from a Republic to a (Pure)Democracy to a Dictatorship ( The Caesars) to the ash heap of history.

Each time they rear their ugly heads.....the Intelectuals truely believe that they are too smart to have it not come crashing down in the end.

This is the effort to take us from the Republic to the Democracy stage....."Bread & Circuses" are next. People voting for politicians that promise them stuff.

Or as famous American author Robert Heinlein said, "Once the monkeys learn they can vote themselves bananas, they'll never climb another tree."

One voice one vote whats so hard about that, it seems that the GOP has something to hide by complaining about the most fair method of electing our President, they seem to be tinkering with the voting system in states that they control, can't hide that from everyone can they .... Oh right they are the Minority when it comes to votes ....

Lolly1192..(#2.37)..."Why do we need representation by an electoral college at all?"

Because the President is not Elected by Popular vote.....The Constitution says so.

One voice one vote

And it is time we recognized the fact that political money is equivalent to a vote. We need an amendment to tell the Supreme Court this fact. Political contributions are not speech they are a vote and need to be regulated as such.

"So far, California, seven other states, and the District of Columbia (all of which have large Democratic majorities) have passed legislation taking the National Popular Vote pledge. Those states and D.C. account for 132 electoral votes. The compact says it is to take effect when states with a total of at least 270 electoral votes have agreed to it."

So, 16 or 17 State are conspiring to hijack the Presidential Election....They will appoint the President.

I could see how it makes sense. Right now a handful of little states have way too much sway over the country.

And the only thing that makes it unfair is the Electoral votes, if it was solely decided by the peoples votes the RICH could not buy all these politicians, the control would revert back to the rightful decision makers WE THE PEOPLE, then We would not have these MORONS wasting time like this clown, JOBS are the main problem at the moment, the GOP needs to make their campaign promises realized instead of pussy footing around, THEY SHOULD GET THIER DUMB AZZES TO WORK ...

BigAl Las Vegas:

Of course the GOP likes the electoral college and for a very good reason. They know that Bush won the 2000 and 2004 elections only because they rigged the results in Florida and Ohio. In both 2000 and 2004 Bush didn't even come close to winning the popular vote.

Electoral College Votes

Bush =286 Kerry = 251^[1]

States carried
Bush = 31 Kerry = 19 + DC

Popular vote
Bush = 62,040,610 Kerry = 59,028,444

Percentage

Bush = 50.7% Kerry = 48.3%

I have only one thing to say.

Most of you people should find out why there is an electoral college and the Founding Fathers reasons for putting it there.

Currently most states award their electoral votes EN-BlOC to the candidate who wins the state popular votes. This is NOT the way the Founding Fathers envisioned it working. The Founding Fathers wanted the Electoral Votes APPORTIONED based upon a candidates vote percentage.

In this way you very seldom have a candidate elected with less that a majority of the popular vote and if it did happen the difference would be inconsequential in an election where 100's of millions of votes are cast.

What you people are demanding is easily accomplished by apportionment without changing the system or the constitution. Probably too simple a solution for the educated out there.

The reason En-Bloc electorate assignment became the preferred method is the most populous states refuse to enact the constitution with a restriction on what they though was their sovereign rights to self determination. If apportionment of the electoral vote was enacted as a requirement of the constitution, we would not be a united country today.

Leaving the choice to the states in 1787 made sense back then when the object was to get a document that all 13 states could ratify. Today, especially since the civil war made us a unified nation, it is an error that we can easily fix today without subverting the constitution to do it.

Without the Electoral College, within three election cycles, we will have civil war...

Without the Electoral College, My vote would become meaningless, 60% of the states voters would become meaningless.

Absolute majority= absolute tyranny= mob rule, this is what popular vote dictation means, it is so simple a concept that even the ancient Greeks understood it, and it was their downfall, likewise with the Romans.

One last thing, Communism is dead as a political and economic system, Socialism is alive and well though. Elimination of the Electoral College was one of the primary planks of the Communist and Socialist parties in America, this is FACT, it is not an accusation that anyone is a socialist or communist, it is simply a FACT.

Anything that the commies and socialists are for is anathema to the Freedoms of the United States of America and should be relegated to the trash heap of history along with those parties dogma.

If this ever becomes the law of the land, I will start stockpiling ammo for the war that will eventually come...

Homer Adams post 2.52

Homer my man , I know Republicans love to create your own "facts". So here are the actual results of the 2000 Preidential election. Please try to make honest posts and stop trying to confuse people.

Presidential
CandidateVice Presidential
CandidatePolitical
PartyPopular VoteElectoral Vote

George W. Bush
Richard Cheney
Republican
50,460,110
47.87%
271
50.4%

Albert Gore Jr.
Joseph Lieberman
Democratic
51,003,926
48.38%
266
49.4%

Ralph Nader
Winona LaDuke
Green
2,883,105
2.73%
0
0.0%

Patrick Buchanan
Ezola Foster
Reform
449,225
0.43%
0
0.0%

Harry Browne
Art Olivier
Libertarian
384,516
0.36%
0
0.0%

Other (+)
-
-
236,593
0.22%
0
0.0%

George W. Bush
Richard Cheney
Republican
50,460,110
47.87%
271
50.4%

Albert Gore Jr.
Joseph Lieberman
Democratic
51,003,926
48.38%
266
49.4%

Ralph Nader
Winona LaDuke
Green
2,883,105
2.73%
0
0.0%

Patrick Buchanan
Ezola Foster
Reform
449,225
0.43%
0
0.0%

Harry Browne
Art Olivier
Libertarian
384,516
0.36%
0
0.0%

Other (+)
-
-
236,593
0.22%
0
0.0%

One person one vote.

Everything else is BS politics.

We have computers to tally the vote, we also have politicians who don't think Democracy is about equality, hence their games.

Imagine That : 1 vote with equal weight: California or Texas, South Carolina or New York. it doesn't matter where it came from! what a novelty.. away goes the manipulation of moving to vote in battle ground states, the decision of who wins in hands of state courts and the big importance of governorship to influence voting procedures.

Winemaker is quite ignorant when it comes to constitutional documents. The Magna Carta predates the US Constitution by five and a half centuries and is still in force in the UK. It establishes the 'inalienable rights' refered to by the founders in the Declaration of Independence. It also forms the basis of our legal system. As for mutability of the Constitution, the founders understood that they were neither clairvoyant nor omniscient. They were humble enough to accept their own fallability. That is why they provided for ammending the constitution when a super majority of the states agreed that a change was necessary. I always find it somewhat odd and amusing when ignorance wraps itself in the flag or the Constitution, neither of which can mask the ignorance. The electoral college is an artifact of our republic whose time has come and gone. It no longer serves to protect the voice of the smaller states. All it does is ensure controversy and the confounding of the will of the people.

That said, there are far greater shortcomings that should be addressed, like those that lead to disfunctional government. The Seanate needs its rules changed to prevent obstruction of government. The Supreme Court should not be allowed to declare a President. Ten weeks is more than sufficient for states to certify their votes. The Supreme Court should be limited to validating those certifications to preclude litigious delay of the innauguration of a President.

Perhaps the time has come to exchange our system for a parliamentary system that can clear the log jam through new elections. That would allow the people to overpower the congress.

AG,

Not really looking to pile on just to express an opinion or two. I believe it in fact does the opposite of what you believe to be true. State legislatures more so Republican than Democrat but certainly not exclusively so have been trying to eliminate the significance of the popular vote by gerrrymandering districts to become permanent seats and by changing the winner take all system of awarding electoral votes in states such as Pennsylvania. The GOP is targeting states with large electoral votes likely to go to the Democratic presidential candidate to apportion their electoral votes no such thing is being attempted in any reliably red state. The GOP is also trying to shove this voter fraud BS up our collective asses as a pretext for nullifing the impact of minority and urban voting. How it became a bad thing to register as many people as possible to vote is almost beyond comprehension. We currently get about 60% of eligible voters to the polls and the GOP is working day and night to reduce that number especially in African American and Hispanic Communities.

By making it a simple majority a vote in the Black Hills is worth the same as a vote in West Philly and will force the candidates to try to get their ideas across in all 50 states instead of simply conceding traditionally red or blue states and further polarizing politics. As voting technologies improve it should be fairly simple to link SS number to voter registration without forcing a National ID system. A SS# has 9 digits which I believe gives us a billion combinations without repetition so a uniform system of recording votes should not be that hard.

jkh

What google eyes ment to say was,we will probably have to steal another election like we did with Bush

Jim Hayes.....you've hit the nail squarely on the head. Gerrymandering has become so commonplace that people don't even think about it anymore. When we have rural counties that look like they were carved up by using a French Curve with two or even three Representatives to Congress. I understand that they break down evenly by population, but ....having a district that's across a river in another county with no direct acess to rest of the district just doesn't add up without factoring in political posturing. That seems to me to detract from the idea of fairly counting the votes. It's all about the counting the votes, for sure, but they are trying to maximize the impact of those votes. Expanding the area to include the entire US would bring that stuff to halt right in its tracks and maybe shift a little of the power back to the people instead of entrenched politicians who spend enormous amounts of time and effort re-drawing political boundries after every census.

I absolutely agree that Gerrymandering needs to be eliminated in the worst way.

From Wikipedia....

The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander) was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on March 26, 1812.

The word was created in reaction to a redrawing of Massachusetts state senate election districts under the then-governor Elbridge Gerry 1744–1814. In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander.

The exact author of the term gerrymander may never be definitively established. It is widely believed by historians that Federalist newspaper editors Nathan Hale, Benjamin and John Russell were the instigators, but the historical record gives no definitive evidence as to who created or uttered the word for the first time.

The most commonly advocated electoral reform proposal targeted at gerrymandering is to change the redistricting process. Under these proposals, an independent and presumably objective commission is created specifically for redistricting, rather than having the legislature do it. This is the system used in the United Kingdom, where the independent Boundary Commissions determine the boundaries for constituencies in the House of Commons and regional legislatures, subject to ratification by the body in question (almost always granted without debate). A similar situation exists in Australia where the independent Australian Electoral Commission, and its state based counterparts, determines electoral boundaries for federal, state and local jurisdictions.

To help ensure neutrality, members of a redistricting agency may be appointed from relatively apolitical sources such as retired judges or longstanding members of the civil service, possibly with requirements for adequate representation among competing political parties. Additionally, members of the board can be denied access to information that might aid in gerrymandering, such as the demographic makeup or voting patterns of the population. As a further constraint, consensus requirements can be imposed to ensure that the resulting district map reflects a wider perception of fairness, such as a requirement for a supermajority approval of the commission for any district proposal. Consensus requirements, however, can lead to deadlock, such as occurred in Missouri following the 2000 census. There, the equally numbered partisan appointees were unable to reach consensus in a reasonable time, and consequently the courts had to determine district lines.

In the US state of Iowa, the nonpartisan Legislative Services Bureau (LSB, akin to the US Congressional Research Service) determines boundaries of electoral districts. Aside from satisfying federally mandated contiguity and population equality criteria, the LSB mandates unity of counties and cities. Consideration of political factors such as location of incumbents, previous boundary locations, and political party proportions is specifically forbidden. Since Iowa's counties are chiefly regularly shaped polygons, the LSB process has led to districts that follow county lines.

In 2005, the US state of Ohio had a ballot measure to create an independent commission whose first priority was competitive districts, a sort of "reverse gerrymander". A complex mathematical formula was to be used to determine the competitiveness of a district. The measure failed voter approval chiefly due to voter concerns that communities of interest would be broken up.

Because gerrymandering relies on the wasted vote effect, the use of a different voting system with fewer wasted votes can help reduce gerrymandering. In particular, the use of multimember districts alongside voting systems establishing proportional representation such as Single Transferable Voting can reduce wasted votes and gerrymandering. Semi-proportional voting systems such as single non-transferable vote or cumulative voting are relatively simple and similar to first past the post and can also reduce the proportion of wasted votes and thus potential gerrymandering. Electoral reformers have advocated all three as replacement systems.

Electoral systems with different forms of proportional representation are now found in nearly all European countries. In this way, they have multi-party systems (with many parties represented in the parliaments) with higher voter attendance in the elections, fewer wasted votes, and a wider variety of political opinions represented.

Electoral systems with election of just one winner in each district (i.e., "winner-take-all" electoral systems), and no proportional distribution of extra mandates to smaller parties, tend to create two-party systems (Duverger's Law). In these, just two parties effectively compete in the national elections and thus the national political discussions are forced into a narrow two-party frame, where loyalty and forced statements inside the two parties distort the political debate.

The introduction of modern computers alongside the development of elaborate voter databases and special districting software has made gerrymandering a fa

cont. from #2.63

a far more precise science. Using such databases, political parties can obtain detailed information about every household including political party registration, previous campaign donations, and the number of times residents voted in previous elections and combine it with other predictors of voting behaviour such as age, income, race, or education level. With this data, gerrymandering politicians can predict the voting behaviour of each potential district with an astonishing degree of precision, leaving little chance for creating an accidentally competitive district.

I think you might be able to reduce the problem, but never eliminate it....

Astonished-655682

If anyone were to study the origins of the electoral college they would discover that without this element and, along with it, the popular representation in the House of Representatives, the constitutional convention of 1787 would never have been able to solve the first major problem in the US government. That being how to ensure that larger states by population would not overwhelm the smaller ones.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am amendment added in 1804 could not have possibly effected a convention in 1787.

I know republicans are fond of revisionist history apparently you are fond of time travel revisionism.

11 States have the electoral votes needed to elect a President.

Now let’s pretend that in all eleven States candidate “A” wins by 51% to 49% but candidate “B” wins the other 39 States with nearly 100% of the vote.

Candidate “A” will be President when only about 26% of the electorate voted for him/her.

Dennis,

I am good with that as long as the MAJORITY of the people vote them in. It should be that the most voted for wins the election. To put it simply, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to bribe the millions living here in comparison to what it would take today. We NEED to have this done!!!

Dennis, they're not giving their votes to winner-by-state. They're giving them to the overall winner of the popular vote.

It is possible to win the election by winning eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country. If one ticket were to take California (55 votes), Texas (38), New York (29), Florida (29), Illinois (20), Pennsylvania (20), Ohio (18), Michigan (16), Georgia (16), North Carolina (15), and New Jersey (14) that ticket would have 270 votes, which would be enough to win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

Dennis is just stating one of the flaws with how it is done currently.

Brilliant as usual Dennis.

You people need to really understand the need to eliminate the Electoral College.First and foremost, the Electoral College was originally created to represent each state's populations vote during the 1770's and forward. Fundamentally, via Congressional Law, the Electoral College State Vote would supersede the popular vote; because the Electoral College represented the part of the national population that was illiterate and easily swayed by politicians. Previously, Voter were paid off to put and "X" on a Presidential Ballot, and had no idea what they were signing. What started off as a Congressional protection of voter rights; has through the decades, superseded the popular vote of each state. Today, the Congressional College votes supersede the chosen candidate in each state, during Presidential Elections. In essence, the state's population can majority vote for one candidate; and the State Electoral College choose another. The Electoral College Votes are the only votes used in the final determination of which Presidential Candidate's win which states.

An example of this, are Presidential Candidates that only focus in on winning the top 8-10 states with the most Electoral Votes. You may have 42 states choosing one candidate and the few remaining Electoral voting states choosing another. The President chosen will be the one picked by the Electoral College. The Electorial College has the right under Constitutional Law to override the state's popular vote in Presidential Elections. Bottom Line, The Electoral College can "Call A State" with only 70% of the votes counted. This power allows the Electoral College to manipulate the outcome of Presidential Elections.

Consider if you will, the 2000 election, between Bob Dole & George Bush. The election came down to a couple of counties in Florida; with suspect punched ballots. Truly, the election was too close to call; although, county sources did say George Bush won by only a few hundred votes. However, the real issue was the Florida Electoral College. It was the Electoral College that finally cast their votes for George Bush, before the second recount was completed. With that done, the Presidential election was completed. Alternately, look at the McCain/Obama election of 2008. Obama focused on winning only the states with the highest Electorial College votes; while McCain swept the midwest and other states. This travesty has to stop... We have updated electronic voting machines and backup printed voting receipts; Americans don't need the Electoral College..

In essence, the Electoral College has the power to choose each President and Vice President; regardless of popular vote. Until the Electorial College is eliminated; our Presidential voting is just a ploy which allows the population a sense of control over choosing their President and Vice President. Nothing could be farther from the truth, in reality.

In this day and age, people are literate and highly political, and electronically connected via various devices. Today's voters are well informed regarding Candidates experience and qualifications. Today's voters don't need an Electoral College controlling the voting outcome of each State. Those who support the Electoral College and its' continued voting control over the population; are simply advocating socialist voting control over the nation.

Fundamentally, regardless of Political Party, whichever candidate win the majority vote of that state; should win the state. The Presidential Candidate's with the most state wins, is elected the next President and Vice President...Plain and Simple..

It's not Rocket Science, People...

Listen, and listen good people. The Electoral College was made because back in the 1700's people needed to ride around on horseback to tally the votes. This is 2011, we have instant communication. Even though the voting machines ARE rigged, it doesnt matter if the votes is a landslide in either direction. Just have a voting machine connected to a network of servers, and the machine connected to the server will tally every vote from across the country. That way every single person who votes will get represented.

The electoral College is about as Outdated a concept as Horse Drawn Carriages, or Religion.

Currently, the bottom seven states (population) of Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming have a total population of about 5.3 million (Census, 2010). At the same time, Pennsylvania had about 12.7 million residents. The 7 states have 21 Electoral College votes, as does Pennsylvania.

Therefore, the voter in Wyoming has a vote (for president) worth 2.4 times that of the voter in Pennsylvania.

What does the 14th Amendment say about equal protection under the law? For that reason alone; a glaring contradiction in the Constitution, the College should be abolished.

The Electoral College should be abolished and the winner of the popular vote should become president, but Not by States. It should be simple numerical number Nationawide, so we would have to wait for the votes to come in from California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada etc.

I also strongly believe it is necessary to give a four year term to our Congressional members of the House of Representatives. In only two years you have to work one year and campaign the next, so the People are Not being served. It may have been OK in 1789, but in those times the members of Congress came in for a few months a year and went back home for most of the year. There is a lot of legislation needed for a nation that is a hundred times more populous than in those days and a Lot more complicated.

PS: Pardon the "numerical number"(!) which should be "number of votes", naturally.

At the national level, the politicians are afraid of the popular vote concept because they would have to campaign EVERYWHERE and none, not even the Koch brothers, have enough money or time to do that. They all love the ability to target their campaigns, or vote manipulation as the case may be, to a few states. The slang is "battleground states" for those few locations.

The electoral process failed us the first time in history in 1960. R. Nixon won the popular vote by roughly 1.5 million votes. However, the ever more intelligent Kennedy knew how to manage the campaign to maximize the electoral process and swamped Nixon with well over 300 electoral votes.

The second time it failed us was in 2000 because Bush et.all was able to manipulate the Florida voting with the misaligned ballots in W.P.B.,FL. Gore won the popular vote by a couple hundred thousand votes, but FL gave the electoral to Bush by only a couple. Of course that failure led us to the 2004 election in which the Ohio vote was subverted by Diebold with crooked voting machines. In a popular vote process most of the voting machines in the country would have to be bad, not in just one or two states.

An Independent Thinker:

The electoral process failed us the first time in history in 1960. R. Nixon won the popular vote by roughly 1.5 million votes. However, the ever more intelligent Kennedy knew how to manage the campaign to maximize the electoral process and swamped Nixon with well over 300 electoral votes.

Kennedy won by 112,000 +/- votes - 49.7% to 49.6%. Kennedy received 303 Electoral College Votes and Nixon 219. There was widespread rumors of voter fraud by the Democrats.

The second time it failed us was in 2000 because Bush et.all was able to manipulate the Florida voting with the misaligned ballots in W.P.B.,FL. Gore won the popular vote by a couple hundred thousand votes, but FL gave the electoral to Bush by only a couple.

The Democrats ran that voting district. Each recourt gave more votes to Bush.

...And these fears of a popular vote are coming from a regressive political party, rich in the use of voter suppression and gerrymandering in the past ten years! Are they complaining because they fear that in the 2012 Elections, that it'll be their ox being gored at the ballot box? (...Or should I say, their "elephant" being gored...)

Homer,

The Florida voter recount was far more complex than a simple counties vote totals. The difference was less than 100 for Bush with 2,200 questioned ballots unable to be delivered. A study of the results of a state wide full recount was Gore by between 41 and 171. The refusal of the Florida Secretary of State to recuse herself should have been seen as organized voter fraud and brought about a complete new state election not a recount. If this election had occurred in a foreign country we would have NEVER certified the result. Katherine Harris as co-chair of Bushes election campaign had an obvious conflict of interest in certifing a Bush election. When elected to a state office any non elective position directly in conflict with your duties is to the best of my knowledge forbidden by every state constitution in the nation usually stated in the oath of office. Further Ms. Harris comissioned a Texas firm, Choice Point to conduct a voter purge called the scrub list targeting 173,000 voters who were overwhelmingly black. Most of those purged had no idea it had been done until they tried to vote with no election day system of redress in place. If you had the same name as a felon and the same general age and make up you stood as high as a 33% chance of being stricken from voting lists. The purge was not of ALL Florida residents just some which indirectly targeted blacks and to a lesser degree hispanics. No accurate count of those unable to vote is available but even the most conservative estimates place the number of those who actually were turned away at 2,000 and the number disallowed at the bare minimum 8,000 people listed as felons who were not were removed from voter rolls and at least an equal number bearing the same names and characteristics were scrubbed.

The election did not meet the bare minimum standards for election certification by any of the NGOs that monitor elections around the world. The process allowing a candidates brother and campaign chair along with a Supreme Court where more than half were appointed while his father was either president or vice president stinks like week old fish.

jkh

JACKPOT !!!!

Extinct - I love it!

Guess Obama can rev up the Fraudulent Voting operation again. I'm for it. Just require proof of identity and legal status.

R. Scalzo,

You mean like Bush in Florida? Really, what states did Obama rev up this Fraudulent voting operation. You are a laugh! Ha-Ha. Happy now?

Independent, the fraud in 2000 was probably done by the Democrats. It was Democrats that ran the county elections in the counties where fraud was alleged not Republicans. And the greatest voter fraud happened at the national level. In 1964 the various TV stations started calling the election for LBJ before the polls closed. Caught red-handed the news media promised to not call the vote unti after the polls closed. They kept this promise unti 2000. Flordia is, like Indiana, a two time-zone state. The Panhandle of Flordia is heavily Republican but the national new media called the state for Gore before the polls in the Panhandle closed and did not retract that and start calling it undecided until after the pols closed. How many thousands of Republicans were discouraged from voting because of that blatant political activity on the part of the "nonpolitical" media?

Guess Obama can rev up the Fraudulent Voting operation again.

Nothing is more "fraudulent" than having your candidate installed by a Supreme Court hand-picked by your Daddy..

George W. Bush. He was "Selected" not Elected.

The only appointed President in history.

Mickey Mouse was register by acorn several times.

Listen, and listen good people. The Electoral College was made because back in the 1700's people needed to ride around on horseback to tally the votes. This is 2011, we have instant communication. Even though the voting machines ARE rigged, it doesnt matter if the votes is a landslide in either direction. Just have a voting machine connected to a network of servers, and the machine connected to the server will tally every vote from across the country. That way every single person who votes will get represented.

The electoral College is about as Outdated a concept as Horse Drawn Carriages, or Religion.

Christopher Cole,

The whole of the state of Florida is republican. Every County Commision, every school board.

While Miami and Orlando may elect democrats the rest of the state is blood red. The "mayor" of Miami is republican. Jose Diaz-Ballart, Marco Rubio... republicans.

The governor at the time of bush v. gore was republican... remember? The Secretary of State (an elected position) was republican (and GW's state campaign co-chair).

You know not of what you speak.

I am 9th generation floridian and live in the infamous I4 corridor. Right down the center of the state, no where near the panhandle.

If anything, once the race was called for Gore it was the dems that didn't bother going to the panhandle polls. They had already won as far as they were concerned.

It was the bush campaign that bussed in the rioters to obstruct the recount in palm beach county. It was Bush that sued to stop the recount. It was Katherine Harris who convinced the republican legislature of florida to force the county election boards to send in the numbers, so that the electoral votes could be cast. Defying the order of the state supreme court.

All of the old people from up north come down here. You are sorely mistaken if you think all but the panhandle are commie pinko liberals.

Clinth: If the whole state is republican, how do you explain the fact that Florida has a democrat as a senator - a statewide office?

Chrisopher,

I agree that the media called the state early for Gore and could have unduly influenced some votes.. However, that was only one part of the equation. Other major differences where the purge of over 99,000 votes identified felons by the then Secretary of State who was a Republican. Proved later that most should not have been purged. Overwhelming majority for Gore. Also, "The Infamous Butterfly Ballots" that were suspect that favored Gore. You had the "overvote" ballots that where discounted and eventually found to be a contributing factor for discounting those votes which also favored Gore. Most where put in motion by the Republican legislators at that time. I would think to blame Democrats as the cause is strecthing it a bit.

Since them, Florida has corrected or tried to remedy those area's in voting. But, I'm still curious to this fraudulent voting operatiion Scalzo refers to belonging to Obama .

Bill Nelson is as republican as any other states republican. In any other state he'd be elected as a moderate republican. He's lucky he wasn't up for reelection in 2010 or he'd of lost to the TP'ers that elected Rick Scott as governor. He's been in office for so long that all of the old people know him. But he also actually goes home and listens to his constituents. Not that he does a whole lot once he goes back to DC. He always sends out christmas cards by email telling us how he's trying to do this and that, but never gets much done.

He's a nice guy and all, but progressive he ain't.

Not being a progressive is a good thing.

Like being backward is.

Chris Cole,

Please share what you are smoking cause I would love to hallucinate to the point of actually convincing myself that any political party would intentionally sabotage themselves in a presidential election. You help the stereotype of radical, deluded, ignorant republican stay alive.

Mickey Mouse was register by acorn several times.

And the league of women voters and every other organization that registers people. The question is how many times did he cast a ballot?

Ymerej:

so the electoral college stands in the way of mob rule- can you PLEASE explain that. It is mystifying how you make that leap.

I need a paxil -- As stated in my post below, it's supposed to help prevent election of a crazy person. Majority rule is not always the same as the general good. But having the Supreme Court decide is not the answer if we are to keep the current system. Imagine how much better off we would be now if Gore had won instead of Dubya.

The US government was set up so the bigger states, and states with more population, couldn't overrun smaller states just by pure vote power. The system we set up isn't a one person one vote democracy, it is based on who the states want to elect. It's the same reason we require 60% to pass laws in the houses, we didn't want to set up a system where the whims of the day (from homosexuality to abortion) were pushed through by a majority to the detriment of the minority. The stalemate in Washington today means the system that was set up is working.

Now the question is do we still want it to work this way? I see a lot of people looking at it from their side, boy we could stack the govt with party X if we had majority rule. But, what happens when it gets stacked with party Y? I think the representative democracy we have set up isn't always perfect, but I think its a much better system than letting a majority decide they can take down a minority point of view with a simple vote.

My two cents, of course.

And now maybe we can also understand the danger of having 51% of the population not required to pay any Federal Income Taxes.

It is all part of a plan to install a party in power and having a whole bunch of people being taxed without representation or the ability to change the party in power.

ABO 2012

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with true democracy.

With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent us and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.

Ymerej

Another name for a "True Democracy" and "Popular Vote" is "Mob Rule".

And what exactly do you believe should be the criteria for those who choose our leaders? Wealth? Bloodline?

"The strongest among you may not wear a crown"

Byl....are we doing away with the other branches of our government with this? It's only for electing the President. You will still have your Senators and Representatives. The President is a candidate for the entire country. He/she should be elected like one.

actually the Town Hall meetings with Tea Partiers yelling at everyone is MOB RULE...they have helped to destroy our democracy

TruePatriot-445959 said,

"Imagine how much better off we would be now if Gore had won instead of Dubya"

A deficit surplus would be a wonderful thing.

dsdsherm,

What do you think we have now? It's like the old saying "if you have enough money you can buy anything." I'm not sure if it is the best thing, but it would certainly seem to level the playing field a little when electing people to POTUS.

By the way... Big Al lost in 2000 because he didn't win his home state of Tennessee, not because he lost Florida. I think Tennesseans knew him pretty well...

" ... My two cents, of course. ... "

Which is now worth what? A whole lot less then it used to be.

Just my $25.98 ( $.02 adjusted for inflation, being part of the 99%, and part of the 315,000.)

Ymerej : "Another name for a "True Democracy" and "Popular Vote" is "Mob Rule"."

Uhhh, what? Mob Rule? How, exactly, does that equate to "one man, one vote"?

huntington3540

Mickey Mouse was register by acorn several times.

Yes and if Mickey actually tried to vote it would be voter fraud, what we have here is somebody trying to make quota or some joker filling out a registration form, most likely nothing more than a prank, at most voter registration fraud. Not vote fraud...

If you people for getting rid of the electoral college would investigate why it was adopted, maybe you would understand the wisdom of it.

Guido

Voter Registration Fraud is also defined as Voter Fraud.

Good informative post....

Actually, Perot could not have been elected president under any system, electoral college or not. He garnered only 19% of the popular vote, not enough to win any state (given that nominally 40% of Americans vote Republican, regardless of who is nominated and 40% vote Democrat, regardless of who is nominated). Coincidentally, given the nominal 40/40 split, it is only the 20% in the middle (the swing votes) who actually decide the election. This is why a "landslide" victory is considered to be 60% of the popular vote. In hindsight, I guess Perot could have been elected if we considered only the swing votes (those who really decide the outcome); he had a "landslide" of the swing votes.

They'll need to count all absentee ballots, which is not always done in all states currently.

Sorry for the interruption TruePatriot, but i was wondering if you could enumerate exactly what the qualifications are for being the President of The United States, beyond being age 35 or older and a citizen of this country?

the Republicans have openly admitted they need to suppress votes to win. Campaign official under Reagan in a speech said as much- forget his name but should be able to google.

What happened to Mitch's number one priority of making O a one termer...oh I see...that isn't going so well...PLAN B.....SNUFF OUT THE VOTE !!!!!!

It's just as dangerous for the Democrats. Your just too politically biased to be willing to see it.

Those who refuse to look to history are doomed to repeat it.

Cowboy, you betcha!

McConnell has obviously gotten wind that President Obama is about to be re-elected in a landslide.

I see what you are saying Kevin, I think the same might be said if you got rid of the electoral college, just about other states. Who would care to campaign in ND or VT if they carry very few votes?

I'm more in favor of the Nebraska/Maine approach and I wish Washington (state) would adopt it. My individual vote would count toward the elector from my congressional district and toward the state total which would determine 2 other electors. (In Washington the votes from a rather concentrated area, Seattle, tend to determine the presidential Electoral assignments.) This method would give less of a windfall to certain areas as far as campaigning effectiveness. The single elector from my area may possibly reflect my feelings, or at least the feelings of the majority in my area. The National Popular Vote, instead of enhancing the meaning of my vote, would dilute into the mass of the people. Re-counts would only be triggered in states and districts which are very close on the popular count. A close national popular count would not trigger a massive recount.

And ties in the Electoral count are covered in the Constitution.

Moxee wrote:

Re-counts would only be triggered in states and districts which are very close on the popular count. A close national popular count would not trigger a massive recount.

I disagree with your logic. Since a vote is a vote, it would not matter whether it came from a district where the vote was close or a landslide. A total recount would be necessary. I don't much care, just wanted to point this out. Furthermore, what is close? Democrat gets 2,000,000 votes, Republican gets 2,000,000 votes, Libertarian gets 50,000 votes. Greens get 50,000 votes? Is that close?

The elections should not be based on popular vote as the centers of population are in very limited areas and cannot be thought of to represent the entirety of the country.

Just because a bunch of nuts and fruits want to live in LA and NY City does not mean the opinions of these people should override the opinions of the rest of the country base purely on their population numbers.

I certainly do not want people living in cities making decisions for the country. They are not even smart enough to get away from the city....

ABO 2012

The 50 largest cities only represent 19% of the vote. If major cities would determine he outcome of elections, how do Republicans win governorships? Tim Pawlenty won without Minneapolis and St. Paul. Tom Corbett didn't ride Pittsburgh and Philadelphia to becoming governor of Pennsylvania.

Further, the small handful of states that matter under the present system have major city centers. Wisconsin has Milwaukee. Ohio has Cleveland. Florida has Miami.

dsdsherm: when arguing your position and expecting anyone to take it seriously, perhaps you should leave out the "abo", which I know means "anyone but obama". Right off the bat, I know that you will push any agenda that doesn't include Obama as our elected leader in 2012. Also, why would the rural populace have any greater knowledge of who should be elected? For the most part in the late 20th and early 21st century, they are the ones who have moved to the country to cut themselves off from the rest of the world. Why, then, would I take them seriously on any topic? They have chosen to isolate themselves. As for those of us from small towns, I fnd the same disagreements I do in the larger cities I work in. To try and draw a red line between the small towns and the large ones is pushing a stereotype that no longer exists thanks to the internet and its easy access to information.

Republicans have what is known as the Linda Blair syndrome. Their heads spin out of control while they spew green stuff all around the room.

The GOP is less about ideology than they have ever been before...

They are no longer conservatives...

First they don't want to raise the debt ceiling, then when they realize that most of the budget is for defense and to not raise the debt ceiling would mean massive cuts to defense...they flip-flop

Then they claim want to eliminate the deficit, well except for the 4 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy...

Then they want stronger states rights less federal government, until they realize that that they may in fact lose the most seats in the history of any election

GOP is DOA

They do NOT have an ideology

They have masters

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, it's just the wizard, he's going to grant you your wish, you're now part of the 1%

Hey. moron, this is taking the power away from the states. If the state voted a mjority for one candidate but the rest of the country votes for the other candidate, then the states Votes are given to the candidate that lost in their state. How is that states rights?

Flugelhorn: If somebody wins a state by just a few votes, why should he get All of the state's votes? That is not a question of States' Rights, but of the People's rights! Keep in mind that the Electors, who are real people, do Not have to vote for the candidate and have taken liberties in the past to do their own thing instead of the people's thing. Why not let the People vote by simple majority for president just the Same as we do for Everyone Else ???

The answer is apportioning the electors by voter percentage, like the Founding Fathers wanted it done.

"Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution gives each state legislature the power to decide how its state’s presidential electors are selected."

It's a state right to determine how to cast the vote for their state. This entire story is about turtleman's fear of states taking this right seriously.

vwterry

It's a state right to determine how to cast the vote for their state. This entire story is about turtleman's fear of states taking this right seriously.

Right, the 19 or 22 States it takes to enact this will control the elections. What about the Rights, guaranteed in the constitution, for the other 28 to 31 states to decide how they do it?

They can just go F**K themselves? their votes are meaningless anyway right? they have no real political power right? the Candidates just "Fly-over" those states anyway right?

In reality, how can anyone say this is "FAIR"? when it is by definition a few deciding for the many how it will be done!

It is a HUGE abrogation of the constitutional rights of the States that don't sign on to this monstrosity.

This is the crux of his sounding the alarm, you make the point that it is up to the states, so a few states are going to make the decision for the many.

This, as you just pointed out, IS unconstitutional.

Don

I see that you are for 1 Party Rule,just as long as it's the Democrat Party.

Get to your point please,,, If I wanted to read a book, I would buy it

DA-we are not a democracy but a republic and that is why the States choose the President not a popular vote of all citizens

See what happens when History classes fail to teach the founding principals and focus instead, on preaching corrective actions to near term events as if they were failures rather than the successes of our Republic process. The Electoral College sets the USA apart from ALL other democratic processes. It is a lynch-pin for the representative (republic) democracy we are founded upon. As the article stated, Gore was not the 1st to lose an election as the most popular. The system works and without it national unity faces even larger struggles. However, the political process is failing to the "point and click", instant gratification, mindset. Those that perk their ears every 4 yrs to vote for POTUS no longer take the time to understand the local Caucus /Primary races that lead to Electorate appointments and apportionment. They want to point,click and have an answer, POOF, new POTUS. Don't fall for the "quick fix". As a country we should spend more time working with the Constitution and present laws than always wanting to create new ways to deal with anticipated ( by our Founding Fathers)wrinkles. Keep the Electoral College, it is the best way for the guy in Oregon to know his vote means the same (not same as) as the guy in NYC. It's better than anything else out there, try and find one better. And, it is the very best way to keep our process relevant in the face of the extreme influence of ever growing Lobbying efforts, both National and Foreign.

Gore was not the first president to win the popular vote and lose the election. That distinction goes to Andrew Jackson who won the popular vote but lost the election to John Quincy Adams in 1824.

Four candidates won the popular vote but lost the presidency: Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the election to John Quincy Adams (1824); Samuel J. Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election to Rutherford B. Hayes (1876); Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election to Benjamin Harrison (1888); Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George W. Bush (2000).

Read more: Presidential Trivia — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/prestrivia1.html#ixzz1fuQknN2r

I'll tell you what's REALLY "a disgrace to America": Racist tiredasswhiteguys.

President Obama is the only recently elected president who isn't part of the political dynasties in America. Hurts the upper class that a common citizen can achieve the presidency.

Obama has done absolutely nothing but put this country in debt, kowtow to nations that would like to destroy us, divide us over racial, demographic, and class lines, and lead though distortion and fear-mongering ever since he was elected. He sits on his duff while countries like Iran and China plot our destruction, kisses the butts of every left-wing organization in the nation, and has played patty cake with every despot and dictator in the world while they kill our soldiers, build nuclear weapons, and inflitrate across our borders. He takes credit for stuff he had not one iota of an understanding about, and surrounds himself by people that hate America and college professors who have never gotten beyond textbook theory and played in the real world. He has been on OJT since day one and we've been watching "Amatuer Hour" in the White House for over 3 years. His response to everything - SPEND! Much of the world hated George Bush - the Islamic part. The real "disgrace" to America is not some MTV created novice who speaks well and has a Harvard degree, it's the mindless droids that continue to support his insanity - many of them on this blog. Enough said!

Common citizen? Really?

I doubt it.

What's also a disgrace

The GOP whose only real goal is to get the black man out of the white house.

JP Whatever,

Really, sounds more like the Tea / Republicans to me. You seem to need some hate management. Too much hate for one person is not healthy. Enough said!

American Girl-724855 What can you expect for these people. They had already accused Obama of not been a US Citizen.... They are CRAZy....

JP-345944 It is incredible how ignorant you are or how $TpD... Go back to history (you know what history is right?). President Clinton left this Country with a Great Economy. TRILLIONS of DOLLARS. It was not until JWB Jr. took over that the economy of this country took a dump. Even before Obama took over the Presidency, The US was in deep dept (Internal and external). The country was about to collapse. Obama (the president you say has done nothing (Pendejo)) stopped the plan from crashing straight down. Are you really so $TpD to think he he himself (Because the REpugnicans are not helping at ALL) is going to fully recover this economy in just two years in addition to the tons of other problems this Country is facing? Let me make bring it to your low level of comprehension (you do understand this word?) I have no idea how much you make but lets say for conversation sake: you make 10 dollars an hour. you work 8 hours a day 5 days a week. This means you make before taxes $400 dollars and you get pay every two weeks. Are you with me or is it getting complicated? hope your are still with me... Will, you will get paid $800.00. How long did it take you to make this Money? yes two weeks. as soon as you get your check, you go cash it and your wife buys herself a nice car for $2000. It only took you a few minutes to spend your $800 and more. Can you makeup that money as fast as your wife spend it? LOL LOL LOL you cannot solve your problems in your own house and yet you expect the POTUS to solve them (by himself) for you and other !D1oT$ like your self...

Learn grammar and how to spell before you go calling people ignorant and stupid. Seems like you're the ignorant and stupid one to me. Note that I know the difference between "your" and "you're". Yep, you're a really bright one.

It's pretty clear that Republicans KNOW they're out-numbered.

So they're trying to keep in place, or put in place, a system that will help get people elected by some method OTHER THAN by who gets the most votes.

Da-how can you reinstall that which never was-We are and always have been a Republic

Not hard to out number when you give money away and run up the debt to buy votes.

Randy-840072 The Republican members in Congress have sold them selves to BIG Corporations. That is what you are talking about, right?

DA-perhaps if you watched Fox News you might know that we are a Republic

oi812 I am not surprised you quoted FOX. They never check all their facts. However, if they did say this country is a republic ( I did not see there comment) they may be right. Of course. it depends on how ti was put into content.

You got that right retrostar1000!

ignorance is the nightmare... not a political party

I forgot that ACORN was part of the GOP

It appears Obama didn't even have the signatures to run in Indiana! Now bestialty is allowed in the millitary? LOL I want to see the dems run on what they did and pay for what they passed. Then we will see how popular they are.

Osama bin Laden much?

Might want to check the last election...seems the majority of people are seeing the light that all you Dems on this post are changing this country in ways they don't approve of. First it was the peoples house, next the Presidencey to get rid of the veto threat on everything fiscaly responsible. No more pay out to the Unions (See the automotive give away). The people did speak and I think it was pretty dam clear!

David conservacrat do you remember what JW do to this country? or are your BLIND and Depth? Or StpD? Perhaps the Republicans are paying for what Bush left behind.... LOL

dls- you are a perfect example of how stupidity and ignorance let our country abandon the Constitution and become a marxist state.

As long as I have breath I will continue to fight against those like yourself who despise individual liberty and our Constitution while you embrace marxist collectivism.

i'm sure you could describe what a Marxist state actually is....

swearing to fight against fellow countrymen over petty issues sounds like treason.

larry- we are now a marxist state does that mean we can go to Cuba for the winter?- heard rates are low and maybe a lot of sick unemployed people can go there for medical procedures. Kind of a win/win

still waiting for an answer(not a cut and post by who knows who stating Obama was a marxist in 1980) why a marxist would appoint Geitner as Secretary of the Treasury who is a Wall Street insider. Also why not at least try and nationalize the banks. I understand you think Obama took over AIG. Where did you dig that one up from?

Boy this board is loaded with commies......

Mentioning commies, Russian elections were rigged and the USA has been for hundreds of years. Dead people have had the right to vote where I live in Kentucky.

dls-387641 Amen to that comment!

Nathan Schmidt is it not what Congress is doing a fight/ battle to keep Obama out of office disregarding the Nations State of Emergency wrong? Only because they do not Like HIM?

Just like what you are doing? The President is worthy of bitching about, he has done nothing he promised, has done everything wrong from the being.........

The president can do very little without congress. That he has done little has everything to do with the fact that the republicans in congress are committed to making him a failure, that means not letting him do anything, then relying on the fact that Americans are so dimwitted they will blame the president, not congress.

foresee

A republican engine that vows from the beginning openly and publicly that their utmost goal is to make Obama a one term president has done two things. They have vowed to make their own personal interests rather than performing in the best interest of the people, the main part of their career for those fours years, and secondly, they have broken their oath of office.

When they act with a goal of merely obstructing any of the current president's goals merely to oppose the Democrats efforts and the President's, then they act with an interest against the health of the nation. Their (the Repugs in office) actions have continued to fool and twist the truth and hung on to the die hard conservatives, but they have also enabled a truth seeking mission that has exposed their deceitful ways in swaying the opinion of the general population against them, and this will surprisingly have a direct effect in the upcoming 2012 election.

All I need to do to verify this is to have you take a look at the current poll by MSNBC:

www.firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/21/8933628-poll-who-is-to-blame-for-deficit-panel-failure

What you don't dare declare nor talk about are the programs and actions that President Obama "has" been successful in accomplishing, even if the Repukes vied for direct opposition to his end purpose. We have learned that President Obama, though not perfect nor faultless, has used his deepest concerns for the nation to work around the republican engine and continue to institute direct positive change for our country.

I shouldn't matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent party supporter, what should come first is that you are an American. If your party purposely puts forth an effort to block laws that are undeniably in the best interest of the nation and for the people, then you as an American should voice your discontent and pull your support and approval for those actions. If not, then you are just as guilty as they are, and just as much an enemy to this country.

I have long said that we are more at danger from such political oppression from within our borders than from any outside terrorist threat from abroad.

If we are to have a true vote, and the constitutional right to vote, we need to abolish and repeal the current system and re-birth a true election. We need to realize that voting for a particular party is not in the best interest of the country, but rather should vote for the better person who can do the job the best.

A true blending, melding and bi-partisan recreation of the two parties is the only way we can stop the topsy-turvy , back and forth ping-pong system that currently gridlocks our legislative branch and brings about actions just like S&P's lowered credit rating which had nothing to do with our ability to repay loans as a nation, but rather was a direct result of our country's inability to unify in order to resolve such cut-throat, stranglehold tactics in our government.

The results cannot be blamed on the President, nor on the Democrat Party, but rather only on the gridlocks created by the Repug Coalition, for offers were put on the table far too often that gave Republicans what they ended up demanding later, right from the start with the $4 trillion package offered at the very start of the budget/deficit round table talks, and rejected by them as merely one example of many.

No amount of words by anyone can any longer support nor sway the public eye away from the fact that the the people who now hold office in the majority of the seats possessed by Repukes are incompetent and impotent in caring for our country's problems. No amount of fancy tongue work can change the fact that the majority concern of the republican engine is to support the rich, wealthy, and corporate influences that try to hold our nation in slavery.

Only a true vote, a unified effort, and a genuine American purpose by those in office can resurrect our nation from its plight. The current Electoral Process is faulty and fraudulent under today's evolutionary scale of politics.

The only reason that this guy as a republican is afraid of losing the electoral vote, is because he is more aware that under a true vote process, it will pull any chance of a 2012 win away from their respective candidate. With a 69.9% vote by the people, of the people, holding the republican engine at fault for the collapse of the deficit panels, its not to far off that we will realize just how upset the American people are with the "Republican Way".

Here we go again with the repugnicans wining. I bet if the President Obama looses the popular vote but wins the electoral vote on his re-election bid, the republicans will scream Fraud. They have nothing better to do but say NO to everything and blame someone else for their failures.

GCV...

We need a constitution that ensures that we have a functioning Congress...

We do have a functioning Congress, unfortunately in 2010 the PEOPLE elected a whole bunch of people that just happen to disagree with the acts of the party that ASSUMED they had a mandate in 2008.

This is exactly the way Congress is supposed to work, the fact that the Democrats don't like it is directly proportional to how much the American citizens DID NOT like what the Democrats decided to do with their majority and ASSUMED mandate.

Need proof?

look at Ohio, The people there rejected the loss of their rights to Collectively Bargain. I know a great Democrat Unionist VICTORY! Yea Team!!!!

But, the exact same voters voted 2-1 to exclude themselves from Obamacare.......

I guess that on the one hand the voters in Ohio are very smart, and on the other hand, at exactly the same time, they become turncoats and reject the greatest healthcare package to come along since medicare!!!!

I've brought this up in a number of posts over the last few months, and you know, NO Democrat has ever made an attempt to explain that contradiction... not to me..... not to ANYONE! (I think they are trying to let it slip away hoping that most Americans didn't notice it)

Got a clue? WE DIDN"T MISS IT!!!!

Egilman

It looks like that "Contradiction" in Ohio, in my opinion is exactly the way democracy is supposed to work. Unless you are just a Party Sheep and by party sheep I am talking about people that you seem to be aiming your comment. Party Sheep that vote straight Dem or GOP with little or no regard as to what the person running actually stands for, much like GOP voters are seemingly on track to do just to try and vote out the POTUS with no good candidate running. I have never voted straight ticket, I became an Independent years back when I saw how party became more important than country to our illustrious millionaire Lawyer Representatives. The current bunch in Washington has made the entire political system here in America almost a joke and they by their actions do NOT represent the people that voted them in, they only represent their party. If you don't believe that then send them letters and emails and call their office, you will never get a response any better than a form letter thanking you for your support for their latest projects, even if you express concern and disagree with them they reply with the same form letter.

ElAgente777

Here we go again with the repugnicans wining. I bet if the President Obama looses the popular vote but wins the electoral vote on his re-election bid, the republicans will scream Fraud.

This will likely not happen though, in so many states including in Texas where I live the Republican Led State Legislatures have passed all of the Voter ID, No same day registration, limits on early voting, etc to insure that they limit the number of Democrat voters at the polls. Whoever wants to argue go ahead but isn't it funny that in so many Large cities in so many States people do not own a car, they do not drive and therefore do not have a Drivers Lic. also all of the elderly that do not drive, the poor.... The only acceptable form of ID is a Drivers Lic or a State Issued ID. All of the scenarios that they have made it harder for people to vote are situations that more democrats vote than Repubs...

Robert-1960,

Actually I'm neither Democrat or Republican, although both parties could claim my allegiance in the past.

If you carefully read my post you see that I agree with your points completely. this IS how it's supposed to work when the balance swings so far to one side there is always the correction. What amazed me in 2010 is that the Democrats failed to see it coming, and still fail to understand it today. I do give kudos to the President that he DID see it and took responsibility for it immediately after the election. (this fact seem to be forgotten in today's politically charged environment)

I was asking the Democrat side to explain the apparent aberration in the straight liberal ticket theory that has been on display since the last election and no one seem willing to discuss.