News-Record.com

Good post, Doug. Inasmuch as this plan would seek to subvert the constitutional design, I wonder if it would survive court challenges.

It's a brilliant conception in that it seems not to violate the letter of the constitution. But you're right: it subverts the clear intent of the founders. I don't know what the courts might do with a case like this.

I addressed this just a bit in my post on the issue, but I think there are some very important issues to deal with when we talk about "original intent" and the Electoral College.

From my post: Historically, I think there is little doubt that the Electoral College was put in place for pragmatic and practical reasons. In the late 1700s it was just the easiest way to get elections over with and results reported to the federal government. The People would vote in each state and �Electors� would go to DC and report the election results by casting their votes. Back in the 1700s, there was no such a thing as "Election Night Coverage from MSNBC."

In 2007 and taking into consideration the original intent and purpose of the Electoral College, we have no need for it. Doug makes a great point, however, in that the College gives smaller states more of a voice in elections. But then again, "original intent" and "purpose" can be skewed... therefore, we have a debate on our hands.

But the Electoral College is meant to mirror the popular vote, is it not? If so and if we truly have come to a place where it is so easy to count the popular vote, why don't we just use that? If our government really is a government of, by and for the People, then the People should be have the last say... in their popular vote.

But Doug does have a good point: It would be better to scrap it through the real process of changing the system: The Amendment Process.

The Electoral College was designed to mirror the popular vote in a similar way that the composition of Congress is meant to do so.

The House gives proportional representation to states according to their population. That's democratic, although it is possible for one party to win a majority of House seats even though most people actually voted for candidates from the other party. Then there's the Senate, which gives equal representation to each state regardless of its population. Originally senators were't even elected by popular vote but chosen by each state's legislature.

It's all sort of a hybrid. The popular vote is important and has the greatest influence over the selection of representatives and the president, but that's tempered a bit by the desire to even up the score between larger and smaller states. The Electoral College does that to a relatively slight degree in presidential selection, while the senate achieves that goal to a great extent in terms of how Congress functions. I really appreciate the balance of it.

You get a A+ finally in understanding the Founders and the constitutional authority in a Republic form of government for the people. I am repeating your comments in hope that you will not even think of a amendmening this last constitutional thread of the peoples rights and liberty. This is not a democracy nor a system of mob rule. As Ben Franklin said upon approving the constitution, after being ask what form of government we have. " It's a Republic if you can keep it?"

at the composition of Congress is meant to do so.

The House gives proportional representation to states according to their population. That's democratic, although it is possible for one party to win a majority of House seats even though most people actually voted for candidates from the other party. Then there's the Senate, which gives equal representation to each state regardless of its population. Originally senators were't even elected by popular vote but chosen by each state's legislature.

It's all sort of a hybrid. The popular vote is important and has the greatest influence over the selection of representatives and the president, but that's tempered a bit by the desire to even up the score between larger and smaller states. The Electoral College does that to a relatively slight degree in presidential selection, while the senate achieves that goal to a great extent in terms of how Congress functions. I really appreciate the balance of it.* Doug

Back in the 1700s, there was no such a thing as "Election Night Coverage from MSNBC."* Matt

Sure there was! You never heard of this amazing internet login quote during the American revolution?

" One if by sea, two if by land"

And for instant election returns in the community, one had to only visit the local saloon and get the scoop or results within 5 minutes after the poll close in the saloon along with a good pail of Ale.

Wrong Connie... in 1795, a person in Salem, North Carolina would have NO way of knowing just the election results from New York, much less the results from the ENTIRE nation until MONTHS after the elections.

Wrong Connie... in 1795, a person in Salem, North Carolina would have NO way of knowing just the election results from New York, much less the results from the ENTIRE nation until MONTHS after the elections.*Matt Hill Comer

Matt if that is true! Than the battle of Kings Mountain would have not been fought nor the results would have been posted until 4 years later after the Tory surrender at Yorktown.

It appears that you miss a communcation skills course in the American revolution. Never mind, they don't teach that anymore in public schools nor the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, much less American Revolutionary history.

By the way Matt! If the American communication skills were so lacking and backwards in revolutionary warfare. Can you explain why the first submarine in history was a American name the Turtle that scare the hell out of the British fleet in New York city habor for 3 months.

Wrong Connie... in 1795, a person in Salem, North Carolina would have NO way of knowing just the election results from New York, much less the results from the ENTIRE nation until MONTHS after the elections.*Matt Hill Comer

Matt! Maybe you should use this to make your point on communciation skills in the 21 century instead of the American revolution.

Wrong Connie... in 2006, a person in Knoxville, Tennessee would have NO way of knowing when a Congressman would be home from Washington, DC. Michael Aaron Lay was pulled over at 4:57 am on a Thursday morning heading down Highway 321 in Dallas, Gaston County. Presumably Mr. Lay was leaving his “home” in Cherryville on his way to I-40 and Knoxville, TN much less the overnite results to the ENTIRE nation until MONTHS after the elections.:>

Than the battle of Kings Mountain would have not been fought nor the results would have been posted until 4 years later * CM

Matt! Now why do you think I used Kings Mountain as an example of communication skills in American congressional history. You do understand what district Kings Mountain is in? :>

ps....My Tory spies are much better than a truckload of Log Cabin Republicans.

Hey Matt! How does it feel to be a big media internet star now since the Patty Frat party is out in the open?

Thank God! At least we have remove Nicole Smith, American Idol, Paris Hilton, Don Imus off the front pages of Pop culture with North Carolina own Congressional scandle.

Connie... I admit, the attention to my blog is nice, but I'm more interested in seeing McHenry go down: There is no way he hasn't done something illegal in his McHenry-Lay Voter Fraud Scandal. :)

Now to your comparison about "results" from a battle not being known until four years later.

Firstly... I said months. Secondly... The victor in a battle doesn't have to be counted. Not like ballots anyway. Yes... counting ballots and getting results to the entire nation would have taken longer than it does to count ballot results in our 21st century, technological age where most of the counting is done by computer.

Bad comparison.

Matt, there'd have to be a lot more than one campaign worker voting in two jurisdictions to take down a congressman. Why are you so interested in McHenry's demise, other than that he's a Republican? After all, he was duly elected by the voters of his district.