Pennsylvania G.O.P. Weighs Electoral Vote Changes for 2012

I know there is a lot of controversy with various state legislatures toying with election rules etc., voter identification. I don't have a problem with it, but only if the proposed changes are voted on statewide. When you have one party in power, whichever party it is, monkeying around with how you vote, who gets to vote this close to an election, it kind of smells.

 

"It's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes." -- widely attributed to Josef Stalin

 

It can't stop it, but if you don't let the public vote for electors, then House representation is at stake.

 

Looks to me like it says that if you deny some proportion of the population to vote in an election, you lose a percentage of your representation, but that doesn't mean there has to be an election to begin with.

 

Does anyone think Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina represent what the majority of Americans want? I sure as hell don't.

If it wasn't for South Carolina, John McCain might have gotten the nomination in 2000. If it wasn't for Iowa, Michele Bachmann probably would have been run from the race by now. New Hampshire once voted 40 percent for Pat Buchanan.

I remember that watershed day in 1992 when Bill Clinton got three percent of the Iowa vote.

 

More than that, how would a nationwide vote be conducted? Each state has its own rules and procedures regarding how votes are collected (all by mail, punch card, optical scan, electronic, etc.), voting hours, absentee voting, recount rules, etc.

If you didn't have one set of rules and procedures that every state had to follow, you'd have a potential 14th Amendment Equal Protection claim. If the federal government tried to install such a universal standard, the states would sue on 10th Amendment grounds, since voting rules are not specifically delegated to the federal government in the constitution.

 

It's not designed to represent the majority of Americans. Like many of our governmental mechanisms, it is there to protect minorities, not help majorities.

 

I remember that being one big takeaway from the 2000 election, is how awful a national popular vote would be. Could you imagine having a recount of the entire country?

 

The fact that Iowa, N.H. and South Carolina have early, influential primaries doesn't have anything to do with the electoral college. It has everything to do with the calendar both political parties agree to.

The primaries in, say, California, New York, Ohio and Florida could very easily be moved up. But inertia is a mighty powerful force.

 

There is no reason except the power of small states in the U.S. Congress to prevent a popular vote for President. BTW, according to Bush v. Gore, if a state government passed a law getting rid of its own popular vote and had the electors selected by the legislature, by lot, or a karaoke contest, there's nothing in the Constitution to stop it.

 

Is the Electoral College going to the ACC?

 

I know. It's just two examples of how the current system pisses me off.