Comments on: Those Good Ol’ (Electoral) College Days http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/07/31/drugs/ When I wake up I read the Bible and the newspaper... because I want to know what both sides are up to. Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:14:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: SouthernRoots http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/07/31/drugs/#comment-89422 Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:50:52 +0000 http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/07/31/drugs/#comment-89422 Why bother to vote if the vote you cast in your state could be cancelled out by the other 49 states? These laws basically say that no matter how your state voted, the official representation of your state into the electoral college would be dependant on what happened outside of your state. Why even bother having states? Why bother to vote if the vote you cast in your state could be cancelled out by the other 49 states? These laws basically say that no matter how your state voted, the official representation of your state into the electoral college would be dependant on what happened outside of your state.

Why even bother having states?

]]> by: Hot Air » Blog Archive » Democratic poll: GOP looking at another blue wave next year http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/07/31/drugs/#comment-89384 Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:56:09 +0000 http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/07/31/drugs/#comment-89384 [...] Update: I forgot to mention this story. A master stroke if it pans out, but would a Democratic majority really be so stupid as to push something like that through? If a Republican majority is that stupid in North Carolina, why not? [...] […] Update: I forgot to mention this story. A master stroke if it pans out, but would a Democratic majority really be so stupid as to push something like that through? If a Republican majority is that stupid in North Carolina, why not? […]

]]> by: Old Soldier http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/07/31/drugs/#comment-89371 Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:18:35 +0000 http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/07/31/drugs/#comment-89371 Frankly, I do not think we should have a national popularity contest for the office of Chief Executive. The closest we should come is within the individual states a vote to see how the EC votes will be apportioned. (Pretty much like it is now.) If we ever go to a national popular vote vs. the EC - we may as well place the constitution in the cornerstone of the next federal building to be built. Some would consider a national popual vote as an evolution brought on by the times; others would consider it a 'de-volution' or decaying of a system that works well for a republic. Count me in the latter group. Frankly, I do not think we should have a national popularity contest for the office of Chief Executive. The closest we should come is within the individual states a vote to see how the EC votes will be apportioned. (Pretty much like it is now.) If we ever go to a national popular vote vs. the EC - we may as well place the constitution in the cornerstone of the next federal building to be built.

Some would consider a national popual vote as an evolution brought on by the times; others would consider it a ‘de-volution’ or decaying of a system that works well for a republic. Count me in the latter group.

]]> by: crushliberalism http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/07/31/drugs/#comment-89361 Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:30:11 +0000 http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2007/07/31/drugs/#comment-89361 While I have great concerns at abandoning the winner-take-all system, I have no doubts that these efforts would stand up to constitutional muster. After all, the Constitution says that the states get to decide how to partition its electoral votes, and Maine and Nebraska don't currently have a winner-take-all approach (though it always works out that way). I've actually seen that an initiative is in place in states like MO, CO, CA, LA, and others to give all of the electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. If that were in place in 2000, Gore would have won; however, if it were in place in 2004, then Bush would have beat the crap out of Kerry in the electoral college with CA's 55 electoral votes. I do like your point about the hypocrisy, though. In NC, Dems say they just want to "improve voter participation", but in CA, these same Dems think it amounts to grand larceny. Go figure. While I have great concerns at abandoning the winner-take-all system, I have no doubts that these efforts would stand up to constitutional muster. After all, the Constitution says that the states get to decide how to partition its electoral votes, and Maine and Nebraska don’t currently have a winner-take-all approach (though it always works out that way).

I’ve actually seen that an initiative is in place in states like MO, CO, CA, LA, and others to give all of the electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. If that were in place in 2000, Gore would have won; however, if it were in place in 2004, then Bush would have beat the crap out of Kerry in the electoral college with CA’s 55 electoral votes.

I do like your point about the hypocrisy, though. In NC, Dems say they just want to “improve voter participation”, but in CA, these same Dems think it amounts to grand larceny. Go figure.

]]>