Sen. Nelson: End Electoral College System

[ornotna]

Source: cbs news

(The Politico) Sen. Bill Nelson, the Florida Democrat whose state is embroiled in a presidential primary debacle, said Thursday that he will pursue a constitutional amendment that would replace the Electoral College system with a national popular vote.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/27/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3975481.shtml

[DavidDvorkin]

1. About time

Of course, this has been said numerous times in the past, and then it faded away.

[marshall]

35. Now if we can just get rid of the superdelegate system

And replace it with a popular vote.

[pegleg]

37. exactly

[trogdor]

74. I bet Howard Dean is on it.

Won't happen this time around, but I bet a different system will be in place for '12.

[neverforget]

2. I agree and we should vote on a weekend and have runoff voting too.

[joeglow3]

28. FINALLY, someone who agrees with me

However, I take it one step further and say polls should be open 24 hours. Thus, all shifts of people can vote.

[neverforget]

29. Sounds good to me!

[lark]

40. I'll vote for that

:toast:

[pegleg]

38. doesn't get more democratic than that, but does it make a bit of difference

if we still have 'blackbox' voting ?

[WatchWhatISay]

51. It would get a lot of money out of politics

[Occulus]

52. My days off are Tuesday and Wednesday n/t

[thunder rising]

3. Disagree! Nelson is a DLC pig. Electoral College has merit.

[davidinalameda]

4. what merit does the Electoral College have

just curious to hear what you have to say

[happyslug]

5. The best argument is it protects states with low Voter turnouts.

Basically this means the South, which historically has 10-15 percentage less voter turnout then the rest of the Country. Even today this trend continues (and that is without considering the affect of the old Voting restrictions the South used to suppress Black votes from around 1890 till the passage of the Voter's Rights Act of 1965). A lot of Southerns just do NOT vote, and a direct election would hurt the South for Candidates will NOT have to look at winning Southern States, as long as the Candidate concentrate at getting more people to vote for them. Given the traditional low Southern Vote turnout it would be more cost effective for candidates to campaign for votes where people vote, and that includes providing more Federal benefits to areas the candidate thinks he or she will get votes then areas where people do not vote. At present even if the South does its 10-15% lower voter turnout then the rest of the country, the Candidates has to treat the South for its vote internally NOT its total voter turnout.

Please Note, given the South's traditional lower vote turnout, Southern Senators and Representatives have traditional opposed Direct election of the President. OTher excuses are used, but it is the lower Voter turnout that mist scares the Southern Politicians.

[diane in sf]

10. The south doesn't vote democratic as a rule, so from a practical point of view

as a Democrat why should I want to support them getting additional benefits, especially when they oppress their black and poor voters so effectively? The national Democrats can win without the southern states.

As it is the Senate skews more conservative than the general population because of the overrepresentation of the underpopulated, rural states at the expense of large population, blue states.

[harmonicon]

16. protects them how?

This seems to be an argument AGAINST the electoral college. What this suggest is that some people get to have more of a say than other people, and that seems incredibly undemocratic to me.

[Orsino]

87. It forces candidates to campaign outside NYC, LA and Chicago.

Seems like a good thing.

[Zynx]

20. That meant sometimes that a very small turnout in SC in the past would control a decent

chunk of electoral votes.

[davidinalameda]

23. and we have a winner!!!!!

thanks for pointing this out

the Electoral College needs to go

it's horribly unfair

states like Wyoming with less than a half million people has three votes; states like California with has 35 million people only has 54 (I think) votes

it gives voters in states like Wyoming more power than voters in bigger states

[Zynx]

24. In 1932, 100,000 voters in SC controlled 8 electoral votes versus 600,000 in WA doing the same.

It's such bullcrap.

[electron_blue]

36. thx! for the first time I finally understand some of the rationality behind this

[demo dutch]

71. You get what you vote for, maybe it will spur them to get involved and vote. The fact is the EC is

an outdated system that no longer applies in the age of technology! Not voting is just plain stupid! Everyone can get informed nowadays! I venture to say that the "people" have made better choices in the past. All you need to do is look at the Gore debacle!

[niceypoo]

78. The vote numbers in any particular state would be irrelevant ...

...if we had a system based on the national popular vote. Candidates wouldn't have to worry about winning states.

[rasputin1952]

13. You got me to thinking about the EC and the Constitution with

that query, and I began to recall the arguments for the EC in the first place, as well as voting in general as seen from some of the eyes of the Founders.

Flawed as it is, the EC is not really as bad a system as most tend to believe. We are a Democratic Republic, not a strict democracy, removing the EC would put us a little closer to a direct democracy, but the "smaller" states as they were then known, would lose out on virtually "power" it had or perceived to have. VA, PA, MA and NY were the largest states at the time, and they had incredible power, far and away above states like RI, AL NC, SC etc. The EC was settled on as an attempt to ensure that no single, nor multiple of states would "gang-up" on the least powerful/least populated.

Far worse, was the male only, land owner vote policy and the states selecting their Senators by state legislatures.

The dissolution of the EC could ensure a handful of states controlling the WH for decades top centuries. NY, CA, WA, VA, CT, MA and NJ would dominate all presidential elections considering the population #'s.

I think a far larger problem is our voter turnout situation when only some 40% of eligible voters even show up at the polls. I think the Founders believed that the vast majority of white, male landowners would vote to protect their assets...oddly, even when things changed for the better as amendments were added voter participation actually declined, (even post 1920 when women were finally allowed suffrage).

From the Founders POV, it made sense, today, I'm on the fence. The EC has served us pretty well through some 43 presidents, (exceptions are made of course), but generally speaking, the EC has followed the electorate pretty closely.

[lark]

42. The Senate takes care of small states

For president, I'd really like to see direct democracy. Just think, the last 8 years with Gore as president, vs. the nightmare we've had to endure!

[rasputin1952]

48. The times have changed greatly, but the process barely moves...

When I think of some of truly bad presidents we've had, Buchanan, Harding, Coolidge, to think they could have wielded greater authority actually could be quite frightening.

The current nightmare can never be allowed to happen again. The signs were all there, incompetence, failure, a complete lack of understanding of anything other than personal gain, the secretivness...it is an abomination.

It would be a process of untold proportions though to amend the EC out of the Constitution.

Far easier if registered voters actually took the time to feel out candidates and get rid of fake "debates" w/powerpoint answers. Hold these people's feet to the flames, make them answer, or off they go! They need to know they work for US we are not subservient to them.

More importantly it should be recalled that we have redress when we have bad officials, but that takes time and a spine.

[last_texas_dem]

49. Here's where I disagree

>>>The dissolution of the EC could ensure a handful of states controlling the WH for decades top centuries. NY, CA, WA, VA, CT, MA and NJ would dominate all presidential elections considering the population #'s.>>>

In my view, a handful of states already do: a few big "swing" states, like OH, FL, PA, etc.

I believe that the elimination of the Electoral College would actually lead to Presidential elections becoming more truly nationwide contests. With the electoral college in place, candidates go into the race with over half, maybe two-thirds of the states already ignored because they are considered in the bag for one party or the other. So campaigns are essentially run in a dozen (maybe, a few more) swing states. W/o the Electoral College, everyone across the nation's votes would count equally, thus eliminating the Electoral College's effects of counting people from certain states' votes far more than others, and allowing the votes of those who aren't members of their state's majority parties to actually count for something. Theoretically, although I'm sure it wouldn't work out perfectly or anything, with every person in every state's votes meaning something and making a difference in the final total, Presidential elections would be more likely to truly be treated as nationwide contests.

[demo dutch]

72. Popular vote seems to work in other countries, so why not in the US?

It's an outdated system, everyone can get informed nowadays

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. But was the EC designed for a different era, with less mobility, and slower communication?

In the 18th century, it took days, or even weeks, for news to spread across the USA, and for candidates to go to different states. The Electoral College system ensured the farther-flung states wouldn't be neglected when it would have been easier to concentrate on the central population areas. And far fewer people moved between the states - each had a more individual character. But communication is now instant, the candidates can cross the continent in a day, and many people move states for jobs etc. frequently. Basing the weights of voting for a national contest on boundaries drawn a century or more ago (is Rhode Island really deserving of twice the number of EC votes per capita than Massachusetts? North Dakota and South Dakota have a combined population about the same as Idaho - but they get 3 EC votes each, and Idaho gets 4 in total. What still justifies that?)

With the disclaimer that I'm not American, of course.

[demo dutch]

73. Ofcourse it doesn't. Besides in the age of technology everyone can get

informed. In a sense the EC makes creates an lazy voting population!

[BearSquirrel2]

25. It's a rounding mechanism ...

It's a good rounding mechanism. Imagine a Florida recount effort on a NATIONAL SCALE!!! It would be chaos.

I support the rounding mechanism of the Electoral college. But I think it should be proportional. I support winner takes their proportion + 1. In other words when you win majority, you round up.

Basically, I support the Democratic primary system for the electoral college (without super-delegates). So basically candidate that pander to a few big states like Hillary will not have a chance. They will lose big in the states they ignore. People with 50 state mentalities like Obama will do quite well.

[Dr.Phool]

6. Nelson is a DLC piece of shit.

But occasionally even a stopped clock is right.

[Lorien]

31. Sure he is. But attacking the messanger is what the other side does

unfortunately he's my senator, and this is one of the few times that I've agreed with him! And as someone else stated; voting should be done on weekends-for the primaries and every election.

[lark]

43. Long nominating season is absurd

Most countries take a few months, pick the nominees, then a few weeks later there's the GE. That makes so much sense. We waste so much time and money with the current process, plus there are so many twisted arcane rules it's ridiculous. I disagree with Nelson quite often (he's my Senator too) but I think he's on to something with this. I'd been thinking the same thing for some time. It'd be so much more expedient and efficient to have the primaries on a regional basis, one per month, be done with this in 6 months and all votes would count!! Oh, you could even rotate the timing so first year it's region 1,2,3,4,5,6 then 6,5,4,3,2,1 etc. so that all regions have an opportunity to go first at some point. What could be more fair and clear than that?

[Vidar]

66. Yeah, but he's right on this issue.

[Freddie Stubbs]

85. He was savvy enough to scare any viable Republicans or ANY Democrats from running against him in '06

[Tommy_Carcetti]

32. Cough*Cough Strawman Cough*Cough n/t

[Bill McBlueState]

57. What are its merits?

I'm willing to concede that the Electoral College has *some* merit, but what we need is the system with *the most* merit, and the EC ain't it.

[Mz Pip]

7. Works for me

Thing is, it will never pass. The small states will never give up what influence thay have in the process. No way will we ever get a 2/3 vote in the Senate to amend the constitution to eliminate the electoral college.

[onehandle]

8. Good. This must come from Florida. NO MORE BUSHES! nt

[Thepricebreaker]

9. Never going to happen.. EVER... here is why..

You have to amend the constitution... 75% of the states would never ratify this because they will have no voice in their opinion... Is a COMPLETE dead issue.

[twiceshy]

81. Ding....ding....ding....

We have a winner. Besides imagine if there had to be a recount of the vote (aka Florida 2000). You would have to recount the whole damn country. Stupid. I'll take the likes of Madison, Jefferson and Adams over the supposed wisdom of Senator Nelson (sic) any day of the week.

[defendandprotect]

11. Great --- and we also need IRV voting . . . !!!

[Kurovski]

12. K&R. (nt)

[BlueIdaho]

14. Don't waste your time - NEVER going to happen

The electoral college , like the senate gives a voice to small states. The senators from small states would have to vote away their only chance to count come election time. Without an electoral college, candidates would only visit major population centers and the rest of the country could go fish. This is never going to happen - kinda like the metric system but that's another story.

[ledvader7]

15. isnt he backing clinton and her ec math?

They just released that crazy electoral justification and now he says its an archaic system, interesting. I totally agree with him. It has to be modified if it is not completely removed. WY has 3 to CA's what 55? yet in terms of population the ratio is about 600k to 38 million. so if they have 3 cali should have about 180. Completely under-represents larger states and therefor urban areas.

[scot]

17. Lets ditch superdelegates first.

Our party's example is less than sterling democracy-wise.

[lark]

44. Disenfranchising FL and MI

is not democratic at all!

[harun]

46. They'll get to vote in the GE, primaries are not about Democracy

They are about motivation, unification, vetting and mobilization.

[kirbyenthusiasm]

18. I agree, do away with the EC

When would it ever make sense to give the victory to someone who didn't win the popular vote?

Seriously?

If one person gets more votes than another person, they should win. And we can argue back and forth as much as we want about states' rights and protecting the small ones and all that, but in the end....

when does it make sense to give the victory to the loser of the popular vote?

Never, in my opinion.

{I do agree this is a dumb time to talk about this need though. We've had 8 long years to discuss it..}

[Sgent]

19. You don't have to ammend the constitution

you just have to have enough state legislatures controlling 270 votes to select their electors on the basis of national popular vote.

California has already passed such legislation that takes effect when enough others states pass it.

Remember that the vote for President is merely a privilege granted by the state legislatures. They could select electors directly if they wanted.

[terrell9584]

33. the inherent problem in that

Would be quite obvious in 2004. Now, let's say Massachusetts had a compact in 2004 to say "we will vote for the national popular vote" winner.

That man was Bush. Even with a recount in Ohio that would have given us the EC, the winner was Bush. I can remember in 2000, there was a concern from the Gore campaign that they would win the EC but lose the popular vote, then the exact opposite happened.

But, if MA had a compact such as this, and they then gave the states EV's to Bush over a man who had a 20 point margin in the state who was the hometown candidate.....It would not go over well.


It's a nice idea to have, but the minute that it actually makes a difference in swinging election against the wishes of the population of a state, any state that had such a compact would immediately nullify or face a loss of their seats. We don't have an ideal system, but we have the best that you can have in a country as large and diverse as ours, because the EC is the one thing that requires candidates to treat a state like Iowa or New Hampshire with the same kind of care as they treat Pennsylvania or Florida.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

45. Then put in a trigger clause

"This goes into effect only when states with a total of X electoral votes have similar statutes."

[slackmaster]

41. The NPV bill was vetoed in California

:hi:

Trying to change a fundamental system defined by the Constitution without amending the Constitution is a sure-fire way to get your changes declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

[Zynx]

21. Considering that most of the time the popular vote and electoral vote are linked

I think this is a fair idea. Small states already have a huge say in the Senate.

[orleans]

22. yeah, yeah, yeah....NOW he's interested in election reform

where the FUCK was he when gore needed a senator to sign off for the congress?

[One_Life_To_Give]

26. Like that is going to happen

Takes two thirds of the states to ratify the ammendment. While 50% of the states will loose voting power buy doing so.

[Traction311]

56. I believe it's 3/4 of the states

2/3 is just the House and Senate. :)

[slackmaster]

83. Yes, and looking at it the other way around

It takes only 13 states to BLOCK an amendment. The smallest states rightfully view the EC as an equalizer, and they are not going to give up their edge without getting something important in return.

[redqueen]

27. Aw, look at the posturing.

Isn't that precious?

[ckramer]

30. That's the first step toward true democracy

I agree.

[GoesTo11]

34. What about ratings?

TV coverage is so much more interesting with the drama in each swing state and the results rolling in as the map fills up on election night. Do we really want to give up the entertainment, just to make each vote count the same?

[MurrayDelph]

39. Not until we have national control of the ballots

otherwise, we will find ourselves in a situation where there are more Republican votes in Texas and Florida than there are people in Texas and Florida.

[struggle4progress]

47. Allocate electors in each state to the top two candidates in the state, proportionally

according to the total number of votes each of the top candidates earned in the state. Using only the top two candidates means that a candidate who receives only a few percent of the vote is unlikely to monkey with the election. Since one only uses the top two candidates, rounding to the nearest whole number the electors attributed to each candidate in each state is defensible; let the states decide how to handle very close calls

Do this by a constitutional amendment, changing nothing else, except possibly to clarify under what circumstances disputes land in the House of Representatives. The scheme respects the popular will in each state, so should no provide a disincentive to vote. It is also relatively stable, in the sense that one does not typically expect a few contested votes in a single state to change the outcome of the national election (which does happen under the winner take all scheme). Moreover, the scheme does not decrease the electoral power of any state, so it would not face opposition on that ground. And because it is not based on congressional districts, it importantly leaves open the possibility that the majority of the House will not be of the same party as the President

Here's election 2000 on this basis: Gore squeaks in with 1 electoral vote, mirroring the general consensus of the country. Of course, 2000 was really so close, it should perhaps have been thrown into the House

ST .. EV(D) EV(R) EV ..... V(D) ..... V(R) ..... V(R)+V(D)
AL ... 5 ... 4 ... 9 .... 692611 .... 941173 ... 1633784
AK ... 2 ... 1 ... 3 ..... 79004 .... 167398 .... 246402
AZ ... 4 ... 4 ... 8 .... 685341 .... 781652 ... 1466993
AR ... 3 ... 3 ... 6 .... 422768 .... 472940 .... 895708
CA .. 24 .. 30 .. 54 ... 5861203 ... 4567429 .. 10428632
CO ... 4 ... 4 ... 8 .... 738227 .... 883748 ... 1621975
CT ... 3 ... 5 ... 8 .... 816015 .... 561094 ... 1377109
DE ... 1 ... 2 ... 3 .... 180068 .... 137288 .... 317356
DC ... 0 ... 3 ... 3 .... 171923 ..... 18073 .... 189996
FL .. 13 .. 12 .. 25 .... 2912253 .. 2912790 ... 5825043
GA ... 7 ... 6 .. 13 .... 1116230 .. 1419720 ... 2535950
HI ... 2 ... 2 ... 4 .... 205286 .... 137845 .... 343131
ID ... 3 ... 1 ... 4 .... 138637 .... 336937 .... 475574
IL .. 10 .. 13 .. 23 ... 2589026 ... 2019421 ... 4608447
IN ... 7 ... 5 .. 12 .... 901980 ... 1245836 ... 2147816
IA ... 3 ... 4 ... 7 .... 638517 .... 634373 ... 1272890
KS ... 4 ... 2 ... 6 .... 399276 .... 622332 ... 1021608
KY ... 5 ... 3 ... 8 .... 638923 .... 872520 ... 1511443
LA ... 5 ... 4 ... 9 .... 792344 .... 927871 ... 1720215
ME ... 2 ... 2 ... 4 .... 319951 .... 286616 .... 606567
MD ... 4 ... 6 .. 10 ... 1093344 .... 770911 ... 1864255
MA ... 4 ... 8 .. 12 ... 1616487 .... 878502 ... 2494989
MI ... 9 ... 9 .. 18 ... 2170418 ... 1953139 ... 4123557
MN ... 5 ... 5 .. 10 ... 1168266 ... 1109659 ... 2277925
MS ... 4 ... 3 ... 7 .... 392587 .... 558884 .... 951471
MO ... 6 ... 5 .. 11 ... 1111138 ... 1189924 ... 2301062
MT ... 2 ... 1 ... 3 .... 137126 .... 240178 .... 377304
NE ... 3 ... 2 ... 5 .... 231780 .... 433862 .... 665642
NV ... 2 ... 2 ... 4 .... 279978 .... 301575 .... 581553
NH ... 2 ... 2 ... 4 .... 266348 .... 273559 .... 539907
NJ ... 6 ... 9 .. 15 ... 1788850 ... 1284173 ... 3073023
NM ... 2 ... 3 ... 5 .... 286783 .... 286417 .... 573200
NY .. 12 .. 21 .. 33 ... 3942215 ... 2258577 ... 6200792
NC ... 8 ... 6 .. 14 ... 1257692 ... 1631163 ... 2888855
ND ... 2 ... 1 ... 3 ..... 95284 .... 174852 .... 270136
OH .. 11 .. 10 .. 21 ... 2183628 ... 2350363 ... 4533991
OK ... 5 ... 3 ... 8 .... 474276 .... 744337 ... 1218613
OR ... 3 ... 4 ... 7 .... 720342 .... 713577 ... 1433919
PA .. 11 .. 12 .. 23 ... 2485967 ... 2281127 ... 4767094
RI ... 1 ... 3 ... 4 .... 249508 .... 130555 .... 380063
SC ... 5 ... 3 ... 8 .... 566039 .... 786892 ... 1352931
SD ... 2 ... 1 ... 3 .... 118804 .... 190700 .... 309504
TN ... 6 ... 5 .. 11 .... 981720 ... 1061949 ... 2043669
TX .. 20 .. 12 .. 32 ... 2433746 ... 3799639 ... 6233385
UT ... 4 ... 1 ... 5 .... 203053 .... 515096 .... 718149
VT ... 1 ... 2 ... 3 .... 149022 .... 119775 .... 268797
VA ... 7 ... 6 .. 13 ... 1217290 ... 1437490 ... 2654780
WA ... 5 ... 6 .. 11 ... 1247652 ... 1108864 ... 2356516
WV ... 3 ... 2 ... 5 .... 295497 .... 336475 .... 631972
WI ... 5 ... 6 .. 11 ... 1242987 ... 1237279 ... 2480266
WY ... 2 ... 1 ... 3 ..... 60421 .... 147674 .... 208095
TOT. 269 . 270 . 539 .. 50767831 .. 50254223 . 101022054

[krkaufman]

50. Hasn't this idgit done enough damage? I'd no sooner take election reform advice from him ...

... than I'd take economic tips from George W Bush or John McCain.

Our elections can use some reform, but the Electoral College has some benefits.

[volitionx]

53. Screw the EC. Here's How We Should Vote:

The Electoral College is horrid.

What we should do is this:

1) Hold primaries, not caucuses, nationwide. To vote in a primary you'd need to be a member of the respective party, as is currently the rule.

2) Hold these primaries on THE SAME DAY, NATIONALLY. Get it all DONE WITH in one day, with primary polling locations open from midnight to midnight on that day.

3) Abolish all Electoral College crap, and have DIRECT DEMOCRACY, using only the national popular vote, for the General Election. The candidate with the greatest popular vote should win, both in the primaries, and in the general election.

Simple.

[Infinite Hope]

54. Good. n/t

[Traction311]

55. Ha, good luck getting that to pass

Very unlikely it'll get the 2/3 in the House and Senate, and flat out impossible it'll get 3/4 of the states.

[Divine Discontent]

58. I cannot stand him lately, but this is what I've been hoping to have for decades! eom

[CANDO]

59. We will have Presidential campaigns only in the top four or five populous states

That is no way to run a democratic republic.

[last_texas_dem]

61. But currently we have Presidential campaigns run

only in a similarly small number of swing states. At least with the elimination of the Electoral College everyone's votes would count equally and would actually count for something (rather than the votes of "electors" being what truly count). Also, everyone's vote could mean something, rather than with the Electoral College system where votes for the candidate losing a state are effectively worthless.

[CANDO]

62. Agree with you to an extent, but...

the current "swing state" campaigning is not a permanent situation. It is more a recent past political 50/50 ideological divide situation in those states. The populous state campaigning would be more of a permanent setup. CA, TX, NY, FL, PA, MI, OH, IL and so on. Those states would be the only ones that would get any attention.

[hardtravelin]

63. localized population centers

The cities will control the entire nation...this is one of the protections built in to the Constitution.

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. Is that how big businesses work?

Do they only bother with advertising campaigns in the top few states? Does TV in the other states have very few adverts on, because it's just not cost effective to try to reach everyone outside the most concentrated cities?

[CANDO]

67. Conflating business ad buys with political campaigns?

I don't see the logic. The business world does indeed concentrate their ad buys for demographic reasons. They run ads depending on time of day, or day of the week. You simply wouldn't get party nominees showing up in Casper, Wyoming on the 15th of September of an election year. They will be in CA or NY or Miami.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. and how much do candidates show up in Wyoming under the EC system?

Given that it was 69% Republican, 29% Democrat last time, the state was a foregone conclusion, and, unhappily, will be again this time. With the college, efforts are concentrated on swing states. With a popular vote, they'd be concentrated on people, which is better - it's far more democratic to have politicians talking to lots of people than just a few who happen to live in a swing state.

But it wouldn't be just 5 or 6 states. For a politician, their 'target market' is all adults. So, yes, you won't get political ads during children's cartoons; but apart from that, they are looking for one of the widest demographics there is. With a popular vote, any undecided voter is worth talking to, wherever they are. You say that business concentrates on demographics - but if their product is not regional in nature (demand for pickups is going to be higher in rural areas than New York, for instance), they won't just say "we'll market this in the 5 or 6 largest states, and forget about the rest". They market it to the whole group of possible users.

[CANDO]

80. You win! Pissing contest over.

eom

[Zynx]

75. That's ridiculous.

That would only work if those states voted 100% the same way. If their votes split, which is what would happen, the election would still come down to the rest of the country. 24% of voters in the last election were described as living in rural areas and small towns. That's a powerful voting bloc.

[argyl]

60. It needs to be scrapped. As it is now, a small percentage of people in swing states literally elect

the president if the election is close.

[Nutmegger]

68. It's now time to abolish this damn Electoral College.

:kick:

[demo dutch]

70. Agreed, the EC creates a lazy voting population. US ranks last in voter turnout among industrialized

nations.

[bdamomma]

76. they needed to dissolve that Electoral College for a long time.

what a messed up system we have. we should a standardized way of voting too, bring back paper, mark your X here.

[Traction311]

77. Why does Sen. Nelson hate the Founding Fathers?

:sarcasm:

[goforit]

79. HELL YAH!!!! FEDERALIST Society is anti-democracy!!!

[mdmc]

82. YES!

too late to R

[bobthedrummer]

84. Yes he is a DLC apparatchik-yet the EC has got to go. ASAP.

Also, there has to be a papertrail and the "privatized" vote cagers and disfranchisers like ChoicePoint et al. must be held accountable as well as those who "hired" them.

[otherlander]

86. One person, one vote.

:thumbsup: