Abolish Electoral College
How can the Rocky, in all honesty, write in its Jan. 22 editorial (“Don’t neuter Electoral College”) that “SB 46 has the potential of disenfranchising Coloradans to serve a cause that purports to promote democracy.” Purports? That is exactly what SB 46 is all about! Our presidents should be elected by a direct vote of the people. Neuter the Electoral College? No. Abolish it! Then, we can talk of democracy.
Don’t render meaningless all the votes cast for a losing candidate in any state. To do so is true disenfranchisement.
Rick Kearney, Colorado Springs
Only a true far left extremist socialist liberal democrat would like the law because then they know they will have power forever. Colorado votes will mean nothing in a national election unless you are a liberal, as New York, LA, Chicago will be the areas that decide who get elected.
Changing the electoral college only became an issue when Algore lost and the liberal socialist dems have never stopped whinning
Since Don is against it, it must automatically qualify as a liberal-socialist thing. I suspect he would be singing a different tune if bush had been on the short end. If that had happened, then the electoral college would be liberal-socialist.
Posted by Brent on January 31, 2007 04:33 AMHow can those that want to abolish the Electoral College continue to claim that their votes are "meaningless" or wasted, or lost or whatever else they claim. They do count - in the LOSER column. Many times my vote has ended up on the losing side - 76, 92, and 96 to be exact. I never claimed my vote was meaningless. I just LOST.
If these mostly liberal leftists want to abolish the Electoral College, than do what is required - AMEND the US Constitution. Quit trying to backdoor your populist and unconstitutional laws through other means.
Why talk about ..LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.. in the same sentence as,..ABOLISH ELECTORAL ??
In this day and age there is absolutely ..NOOO.. reason to keep it !! We don't have to count on the Town Crier or the Pony Express, and we're (THE VOTERS ) are tired of having OUR VOTES STOLEN !!!
There is no reason to vote when you have a bunch of ELECTORAL THIEVES throwing our vote out !!! ..I WANT MY VOTE TO COUNT...just like I thought it said in AMERICA.
Posted by Marge on January 31, 2007 08:07 AMI forgot to add something ...MICHAEL.. Amending the constitution seems to be SLEEZE BUSH"S FORT !!!!
You're obviously talking of the WRONG PARTY ?? Sorry you got confused !!
I forgot to add something ...MICHAEL.. Amending the constitution seems to be SLEEZE BUSH"S FORT !!!!
You're obviously talking of the WRONG PARTY ?? Sorry you got confused !!
Sleeze Bush's fort?!?!?!? What in the world does that mean?
Rick, we are a republic, not a democracy. It's not mob rule.
Posted by Mike on January 31, 2007 08:25 AMI guess there are no Democrats just "extremist socialist liberal democrats" in the eyes of many. The disadvantage of the electoral college swings both ways. If you are voting for a Republican Presidential candidate in California, forget about it, your vote is not going to count, likewise with voting for a Democratic Presidential candidate in Texas. If we have an electoral college then it should at least reflect the vote of the state, if 30 percent of the popular votes goes to one candidate, that 30 percent of the electoral votes should go to that candidate and the rest of electoral votes go to the victor in that state.
I am pretty sure if Kerry won the electoral vote in 04 and lost the popular vote many on the right would be calling for change.
Thank you Mike! It always surprises me when people forget we are NOT a democracy.
Maybe the people who forget this important point, and wish to do away with parts of our constitution, would be happie living in one of the many countries who do use the popular vote system.
Posted by on January 31, 2007 08:36 AMReflect the vote of the state? It already does. We have 51 separate elections. You win the election in any given state, then you win all electoral votes in that state. It gives the smaller states more say in the outcomes of elections. Yes, the electoral votes that are attached to our members of the House of Representatives are based on population, but our 2 electoral votes that go along with our 2 senators are the same that every other state gets. That way, we get the same representation from those 2 electoral votes as California; even with their 38 million people. With purely a popular vote, a candidate could win 49 of the 51 separate elections, but lose CA and NY by several million votes and lose the election. That would be idiotic and totally contrary to how the country was originally set up.
Posted by Mike on January 31, 2007 08:45 AMEducate me. I'm told that America used to be a Republic until the 17th Amendment turned her into a Democrac y. r22037yahoo
Posted by Richard Grimes on January 31, 2007 09:36 AMIt didn't.
It allowed for the direct election of senators rather than their election or appointment by the legislature. It did nothing to change the US from a constitutional republic.
Posted by Mike on January 31, 2007 09:50 AMAnd think about this, proponanats for having Colorado electoral votes go to whomever is the national popular vote winner... Take one good look at Mexico's last election. Most of us freaked out in 2000 when we had to wait 2 weeks to determine the winner. What if we had to wait 2-4 months, with recounts MANDATORY if the vote is within a certain percentage. Then, counting all of the over-sea's votes, and mail in ballots. The election could take a VERY long time, should it be close.
We are a republic. Be proud of it.
Posted by Dan on January 31, 2007 10:56 AMAnd think about this, proponanats for having Colorado electoral votes go to whomever is the national popular vote winner... Take one good look at Mexico's last election. Most of us freaked out in 2000 when we had to wait 2 weeks to determine the winner. What if we had to wait 2-4 months, with recounts MANDATORY if the vote is within a certain percentage. Then, counting all of the over-sea's votes, and mail in ballots. The election could take a VERY long time, should it be close.
We are a republic. Be proud of it.
Posted by Dan on January 31, 2007 11:00 AMAll you Rs crowing about us being a republic should shut up about direct up or down votes for judicial nominees.
The constitution gives the Senate the power to create its own rules, and nothing about every nominee getting a vote.
Posted by on January 31, 2007 11:25 AMWhat does that have to do with the electoral college?
Posted by Mike on January 31, 2007 11:39 AMYou support republican government, not "mob rule" or majority vote, yet when it comes to judicial nominees you want a majority vote (unless it was Clinton's nominees.)
Posted by on January 31, 2007 11:42 AMher's another winner from Sean, much like all of his posts. he claims that voting for a republican candidaet in california means that your vote doesnt count. that seems akin to sayin that one of bill gates' pennies doen's have value and is a flimsy argument that ignoes the difference between absolute and relative value. i guess you would also argue that voting for a third party candidate in 04 is equivalent to voting for bush. maybe you should post something with a little objectivity sometiem, every time i read your words, your "Democratic" predjudise clouds everything you say.
Posted by on January 31, 2007 11:48 AMI have said nothing about votes on judges.
We are a constitutional republic with some democratic institutions. We put certain proposed tax increases to a majority vote of the citizens who would be paying them, for example.
The election of a president, though, has always been done on a state by state basis. To change it to a nationwide vote would take power away from each individual state. A few populous states would always control the outcome of elections. Why would you want to take away any influence a state like Colorado has?
Posted by Mike on January 31, 2007 12:05 PMDude, your spelling clouds everything you say. You might be able to read my words, but you sure cannot spell them. Maybe you should use that relative value you gave to Bill Gates in the form of the purchasing price of your Windows OP and run a spell check in Word. I would say that voting for a third party candidate in a swing state such as Colorado would be a vote for the Republicans or the Democrats. Democrats can thank Ross Perot for running against Clinton in 92 and Republicans can thank Nader for running against Bush in 2000. Thanks to both these numbskulls the candidate they are most ideologically opposed to won.
Posted by Sean on January 31, 2007 12:08 PMLearn the facts first
I am guessing Rick Kearney want to abolish the Electoral College because he does not know why we have it in the first place, and, he thinks we live in democracy. Rick, the United States is a republic and the Electoral College basically protects small population centers from being controlled by the large population centers.
Did you also know that the Electoral Colleg was pushed for by the slave owning states. You see, these states had low populations in terms of voting eligible males, but they sure did have a lot of slaves. So in order to ensure that they could continue slavery, God forbid an abogonist get elected President, they inisted their slaves be counted in the census thus raising the number of Reps each state had and their influence in the electoral college. Compromise ensued and in the end slaves were counted as 1/8 a citizen.
Posted by Sean on January 31, 2007 12:21 PMThe current opposition to the Electoral College further demonstrates the continuing failure of public education to provide an informed citizenry.
Posted by Carl B. on January 31, 2007 12:31 PMHey Sean- How is that spell check working for you?
Posted by Mike on January 31, 2007 12:38 PMThe problem with the electoral college is simply that there are states (Utah, Texas, CO, etc) that have always been republican, and there are states (CA, NY, VT, etc) that have always been democrat. Of the 50 states voting, only about 15-20 are actually in play. The rest you know before hand which way they're going to go.
That means that people running for president have no reason to go to the vast majority of states, and will make several stops in states like Ohio or Florida. The people in CO just get ignored by both parties, and the end result is that people here become completely set in their ways, regardless of the qualifications of the individual they will end up voting for.
Be honest, how many of you republican name callers would ever actually consider switching to a democratic candidate. Your party could run a child molester (or a lifetime failure who sucks at everything he's ever tried), and you would still vote for him, because there is no opposition courting your vote or presenting any other argument.
There used to be more give, and the electoral college used to mean more, when people thought about elections, and didn't just vote for the party they root for. As it stands now, though, the current system is outdated. I don't want to let people in Florida and Ohio keep picking my presidents. I want to have some sort of say.
Posted by Grog on January 31, 2007 12:47 PMAnd if we went with a popular vote, they would only court states with large populations like California and New York.
Posted by Mike on January 31, 2007 01:02 PMgrogy why is it always someone else doing the name calling? when was the last time a democrate name caller switched and voted for a republican candidate?
I guess the republicans could try to run someone like clinton but we have not found one in our party yet.
The electoral college still means a lot and keeps all the large states like NY CA from picking the president. The way it works has been fine for two hundred years and was never a problem till algore lost because he was suppose to win and didnt. Just as in sports there is a winner and a looser. Just deal with it and stop whinning. Bring someone to the table who can win and have real ideas that will win.
OK frogy you can continue with your name calling now, but could you at least be creative in how you do it?
Hey Don, quote the part of my first entry that's name calling. Let's see what you consider name calling.
Oh, and if you're going to keep using the word (and it really looks like you are), at least learn how to spell it. It's WHINING.
I'll let "looser" slide this time, because it's clear we're not talking about your mom.
(for the record, that IS name calling)
Posted by Grog on January 31, 2007 01:52 PMFunctioning better than the GOP's fiscal responsibility
Posted by Sean on January 31, 2007 02:04 PMI have been called a whiner by Don as well. And it works like this: if you do not agree with him you are a whiner, if you articulate why you disagree with him than you are whining - that is a gerund by the way. Oh and if you disagree with Mike and make some typos than you are a functional illiterate, but if you agree with him yet your grammer and spelling is that of a fifth grade dropout, that is ok by him.
Posted by Sean on January 31, 2007 02:27 PMIs it frustration? Why must the left resort to name calling and zinging a barb at Bush whenever you try and discuss ANY issue.
This discussion is about this state (a local issue) wanting to change how this states votes get appplied in the electoral college, not whether or not you like Republicans or Bush.
Sean, grog, you know who I'm referring to. Try and stay focused if you can... pahleeeze!
And layoff the spell check harassment, this isn't english class either.
Posted by KW on January 31, 2007 02:47 PMSean- You were the one who took a shot at the unnamed poster because of his poor spelling; and then proceeded to make errors of your own in your next post.
Posted by Mike on January 31, 2007 03:09 PMSean, you spelled 'abolitionist' wrong.
Posted by grant on January 31, 2007 03:19 PMAlso, I think the word you should have used in your last post is "then." "Than" is commonly used incorrectly as you did earlier, so I thought I would help you out.
Posted by Mike on January 31, 2007 03:25 PMI do understand what the EC means to small states like CO, so I'd rather keep the status quo and the EC around.
But I absolutely understand when folks gripe about it "wasting" their vote.
If you're a conservative living in Mass it really doesn't matter if you vote in the presidential election or not - Mass is goin' Democrat. Vote or don't vote, won't make any difference. Same with a liberal in Utah.
That's the heartburn I have with the EC.
Posted by Tim on January 31, 2007 03:48 PMI think I did use than in the right context. Example. I would rather be debunking right wing propoganda than working. First I must work then I can go about debunking right wing propoganda.
Posted by Sean on February 1, 2007 09:01 AMI'm a democat. Have been since the first time I voted in 1976. I take great pleasure in voting, knowing that my vote, collectively with the rest of my state (whatever it is at the time) is just as powerful as the votes cast in New York, California, and the other highly populated states. That's what the Electoral College does for me. Does the candidate I vote for always win? Nope. However, he/she stands as much chance because the Founding Fathers understood that without the Electoral College no one outside a metropolitan area needed to vote otherwise. Without the Electoral College, about three, max four states will forevermore pick our winners. That's not what a Republic is all about.
Posted by clay on February 1, 2007 12:34 PMIf it ain't broke don't try to fix it.
We see the situation of a presidential candidate possibly having more popular votes, but losing the national election in the electoral college only in a situation where the vote is close. if the national popular vote has a separation of less than one half of one percent, effectively that is a tie vote, requiring some form of remedy.
By an accident of history we are saved from having to deal with the daunting spectre of national recounts and runoff elections because our electoral college system isolates the descision of the tie to a relatively small geographic area. What people forget is that the "tie" is actually national. Gore did not "win the popular vote" except on paper.
We should be thankful that only one county in one state precipitated one set of recounts and lawsuits, instead of having to deal with lawsuits and recounts in hundreds of counties in a dozen states.
Philosophically the electoral college system reflects our notions of federalism and states rights. We elect our president state by state, and the direction those votes go speak for our states' individual issues, opinions, needs, and character. The electoral college is one more item that allows each of the States to be an independent "laboratory of democracy."
Even more important, as a backup system, should an election occur during a time when communication and/or authority has broken down in one or more states---think natural disasters or 9/11--here we have a backup system of electors to rely on. Hopefully, we will not need to use them in that capacity.
SB 46 is the irresponsible of the irresponsible in that it takes away the voice of Colorado as a state. Why vote at all if the decision for president is handed to the other States to decide? Stop this ill conceived bill now, and remember who proposed it so we can vote them out in the next election.
Posted by John Stockwell on February 1, 2007 03:37 PM" ...if you articulate why you disagree with him THAN you are whining...", "...make some typos THAN you are a functional illiterate...". Still think you used the correct word there?
Posted by Mike on February 1, 2007 06:29 PMMike, don't you think you are going a little heavy on the English propAganda?
Posted by on February 1, 2007 06:52 PMNo, I don't. Sean took at a shot at someone else's spelling. He then proceed to make two spelling errors of his own in his very next post. He then used the word 'than' twice when he should have used 'then'. After that, he stated that he used the word correctly, showing that he really shouldn't be commenting on someone else's spelling or grammar.
Posted by Mike on February 1, 2007 07:08 PMI was kidding. Sean is obviously the kind of fool who is so high on himself that he is completely unwilling to accept that any position other than his own has validity and if you don't accept his far leftist views then you are an idiot in his mind.
Posted by on February 1, 2007 08:57 PM