The Electoral College was not a freak of nature
Submitted by tog2476 on Tue, 04/17/2012 - 21:33it was designed for us at this moment, right now, and to think of the foresight of all of this foresight is amazing foresight. Our forefathers gave us backup plan after backup plan, and I think we are using all of them right now, of course the r3VOLution is using them beyond the wildest imagination of most sheeple Americans. It is funny to think that most Americans don't know that a tireless irate minority is going broke and spending every last second they have fighting to save the country. Everything looks hunky dorry around here if the remote control to your television has given you callouses on your thumbs. On the surface if you look at the delegate process, it totally looks like it was set up by the elites to centralize power, on the contrary, it looks like it was to centralize power for us, the Ron Paul r3VOLution. I think this is the most effective time in history that the delegate process has been used. The delegate process was genuis, it is simply incredicble if you sit back and think about it.
- Login to post comments
A little confusion...
...the electoral college is totally separate from the delegate process in the Republican Party. But anyway, yes, the same concept underlies both: namely, that pure democracy is very dangerous and there should be checks on it, opportunities for a wiser and more passionate minority to have disproportionate influence.
Current System was NOT established by the Founders
The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founders intended.
The Founders also didn't
The Founders also didn't envision National Popular Vote, but you support that; which deprives States of their vote and will make it impossible for someone who wants smaller government to ever win without winning over the hearts of 20 million people and we know that will never happen.
The Electoral College is used
The Electoral College is used in the general election, not the primary, right? I don't think our state delegates go to the electoral college? We are attempting to dominate the state and national conventions, not the electoral college.
Yes, Now gathering delegates to GOP Convention
I think we ought to find out more about the Electoral College. How does each state manage their own? Or is their a Federal standard?
Free includes debt-free!
Great post
After the GOP convention in Tampa, someone should take pictures of all the Ron Paul delegates and post them on a site to commemorate them.
The Ron Paul delegates will be written about in future history books!
I can't wait for Tampa!
So far has never remedied a problem
Regardless of the "politics" anyone may have, the fact is in the year 2000 we had a completely stolen Election.
George W. Bush lost the popular vote by a whopping 500,000 votes Nationally. In Florida, all the exit polling showed Bush also losing that State Election. A "memory chip" tampering activity deleted 16000 votes from Al Gore's total, and allowed the right-wing FOX News Network to put out disinformation that Bush should now be declared the "winner". All the other TV Networks then followed in kind (except MSBNC). Al Gore was so confused that he almost conceeded, but then with that problem corrected -- that's when State government Katherin Harris and Bush Campaign mechanic James A Baker (CIA) took the whole thing over, and turned Florida's Sunshine Laws on its head.
In summary, the manual recount (which is required by law) was obstructed very openly and brazenly right in the light of day, and surprisingly with the U.S. News Media also cheering on this criminal fraud - and all too eager to proclaim Bush "the winner", claiming that Al Gore was "damaging the Country" seeking a simple recount. Widespread Voter Disenfranchisement did not matter to the Media. Instead artificial "deadlines" and quick "finality" were demanded by the Media, rather than the accuracy and integrity of the count, and honoring the will of the people.
Gore's Campaign was also directly sabatoged by CFR's Warren Christopher -- who (corruptly) made the recount to be all about just four counties -- totally undermining the whole issue for Gore, instead of just asking for a clear, straightforward, understandable, full Statewide recount, as the Law prescribed.
The Florida State Supreme Court finally sorted it all out, and eventually called for a Statewide recount, but by then Bush's buddies on the U.S. Supreme Court (Thomas, Scalia, Renquist) corruptly intervened in a State Election for the first time in U.S. History, and abruptly ordered no further counting of votes could take place.
The next year it was very quietly reported that if a full statewide count had been performed, Al Gore would have won regardless of whatever chad standard was applied. That fact was buried by a headline repeating just the 4-county totals.
__
So the point here is that we just recently saw an Election stolen right out from under one candidate in the light of day. Given that fiasco, the Electoral College could have easily had the conscience to regard the U.S. Supreme Court's actions as corrupt and without precedent, and gone ahead and voted for Gore, and not Bush.
And without Bush, Cheney and the Project For The New American Century crowd in positions of power, there might not have been any "Sept 11" as we know it. There would have been no War in Iraq. And it is unlikely that the Democratic Party would have shifted over to endorse all of the Bush-Cheney tyranny and even enlarged it.
But Electoral College did not protect us, or save us then -- when it mattered, and it was so obvious that corruption and not actual votes had put George W. Bush "over the top".
So if the Electoral College won't even rebel in that situation (a stolen election), when then would they ever act on their own, and do the right thing??
The truth is that the corrupt Florida State Government had threatened to send the Bush delegation, regardless of the outcome of the voting. This shows that the Electoral College is also controlled by partisan State Party politics.
No: The Electoral College will not save us. It in fact was the reason why the popular vote winner was exiled from power in 2000, and an imposter governed like a dictator for 8 years (and ruined our Country).
The only difference today is that now, with Diebold and ES&S machines, and the Associated Press, and the non-reporting of Exit Polls, etc. ... the popular vote today is just another shell game, and tells us little about the will of the people.
I'm afraid you miss the point most entirely
The sham in 2000 was the pretence that the popular vote selects the president. Popular vote never has and was never intended to select the president.
Hidden Harvest: Long Term Food Storage Techniques For Rich And Poor is and inespensive ebook for beginners to advanced food storage preppers. Download one today!
I afraid you have no ethics
The sham in 2000 was the deliberate rigging and criminal obstruction of an Election (Florida) -- without which would have then produced a different Electoral College result, and a very different 8 years.
I see you don't like the fact that the people do not
directly elect the President.
Boo Hoo.
I also see that in one post, you do not grasp how the EC is chosen, yet in this one, it seems you do.
Which is it?
The Electors are chosen by voters, but WHO is on the ballot to be chosen by the voters is determined by the parties.
Thus there was never ANY reason to believe that the EC would have elected Gore in 2000.
You see, that is what the fight was over. (and you seem to indicate understanding of this in this latest reply)
The Florida results would determine WHICH Electors cast their votes for Florida - Democrats or Republicans.
It would be absurd to presume that Republicans would be chosen, and then cast their votes for Gore.
Now, it might have been more likely that they (or someone else) would have been disgusted by the process and then voted for someone OTHER than Bush or Gore sending the election to the House.
I don't recall who controlled all the delegations back then, but if it was the Dems, you can rest assured, no Republican was going to be "faithless" and vote for someone other than Bush.
The problem is not the EC.
The problem is the popular vote.
As long as it is there in its present form, the media is going to swindle the electorate to think "this is the most important election in our lifetime" and try to keep it as neck and neck as possible, so that there is no way anyone will stand up for their country, but will instead - go with the lesser of two evils so as not to "waste their vote."
If we went to a different system, where Electors were chosen independently of the candidates, if not well in advance of parties choosing their nominees, then we might see more cases where more than two candidates would be "viable" and at least where more electors were faithful to country, rather than to party.
Most of our present problem with Presidential elections today is that the parties control too much of the process. To the extent we can reduce or eliminate this, we will fare better.
Sorry but I have no simpathy
for your rant or assessment. As bad as Bush was and as much as he is hated he is still ten times better than AlGore. In spite of Bush I thank God every day that AlGore wasn't and hopefully will never be our president. As far as I'm concerned his defeat is reason enough to be thankful for our electoral system.
I felt the same way at first. But whatever relief I felt on
inauguration day evaporated on September 11th, 2001.
That day made it clear to me that we certainly would have been better off with Algore as President.
Certainly, we'd have other problems to deal with, and the economy would still suck, and we'd be battling socialized medicine and cap and trade just the same, but one thing is certain, we would not be staring down all out civil war against a tyrannical government.
We would not be living a 'reich-like' hell.
Or, maybe it wouldn't have mattered at all, and 9/11 still would have happened, and the response would have been the same.
If that's the case, then you're still wrong. Bush wasn't better than Gore.
IT DOESN'T MATTER.
If it is either a Democrat or Republican in the White House - We The People still get the shaft.
Is That You Ted Nugent?
You are freakin NUTS!
Without the PNAC Crowd being illegally installed into power (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, "The Project For The New American Century") and by a stolen election against the wishes of the public -- There would have been no Sept 11!
There would have been no illegal Iraq War!!
There would have been no Human Torture.
There would have been no Patriot Act.
There would have been no U.S. slaughter of over a Million people!!
If you seriously think that the Bush years were "ten times better" than the continuation of the 1990s Clinton-Gore policies than you are just a spoon-fed ditto-head NEOCON fool.
Anyone who would ever defend a stolen election, and the hell that was unleashed by these NEOCONS is a traitor to this Country (that's you!!).
There are no greater criminals than Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld. In 8 years, they literally destroyed the Country, destroyed the image of America forever, murdered Millions of people to enrich their Halliburton and Exxon-Mobile buddies and corrupt Bankers, created 15 Trillion in debt, totally dismantled "The Bill of Rights", and allowed Wall Street to rob Americans blind on the order of Trillions of dollars right from your own pocket.
And you think this was an improvement over the 1990s?
Nothing....nothing....nothing...was ever ten times better under Bush!!
And Ron Paul (who himself never voted for Bush either year) would totally agree with that statement.
On the contrary, I'd bet all the same events would have
happened anyway, just with different actors.
To think either a Democrat or Republican is in any slightest way, marginally better than the other is pure folly.
It's that sort of thinking that keeps this nation trapped under a two-headed party rule.
Are you argueing FOR Democracy?
the "will of the people". is that what you espouse? Democracy is mob rule, or tyranny of the majority. get with the program!
the idea behind the Electoral college, is to stop Texas from overwhelming Rhode Island. to give equal weight to each state.
is it working? well mebbe not, but it is not for want of effort on the part of the Founders!
Peace
Corruption...
It is always easier to corrupt (and Bribe) a handful of appointed "representitives" than it is to corrupt the entire population.
But this is what we have with our own U.S. Congress itself. We all have relinquished our own individual power, by granting over to them all the Lawmaking powers. So it is then easy for the Banking/Military/Industrial/CFR Complex to just go around and bribe, blackmail, manipulate, and corrupt this small set of chosen people into supporting their World-Government-World-War agenda -- and robbing from and screwing the American people.
So the system I think we really need is to have direct government coming from the people (policymaking role). Senator Mike Gravel has a petition on this. Washington will never solve our problems when it is itself a criminal-protection-system.
So Democracy may be 'mob rule'. But having "proxies" that do all the thinking for us just has not worked out very well. For example: The people would have never in a million years voted for the Bank Bailouts. But the proxies did (representatives) after various threats and pressure were applied ... and therein lies the problem.
And for Elections: Back to paper-ballot, with public inspection of the counting, and independent auditing. No secrecy.
There is no evidence anywhere to even suggest a hint that
any Elector has been compromised or corrupted.
What absurd nonsense!
Your arguments against Congress are misplaced. The problem isn't representative government, the problem is we don't have representative government that is accountable to whom they represent.
This is caused directly by Congress failing to so regulate their number that the size of the House should maintain relative parity with the size of the nation.
We need a corrected Article the First to be ratified as a Constitutional Amendment, so that Congressional districts are not so large that it is so difficult to throw a bum out, to get elected in the first place that you need millions to do it, and that there are simply too many people in your district for them to hold you accountable, or for you to properly represent them.
Limit districts to 50,000 inhabitants and watch all the ills you hate evaporate.
Current System was NOT established by the Founders
With the current state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, winning a bare plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population, could win the Presidency with a mere 26% of the nation's votes!
The Electoral College does not give equal weight to each state.
Delaware has 3 electoral votes. California has 55.
We are a Republic and a Democracy. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states. Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote. Since then, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC.
The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founders intended.
Under the current system, there is disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.
There were six states that held popular votes for
elector in the first election.
As for the "winner take all" system, that is a problem related to parties controlling part of the elector selection process and linking them to candidates.
If electors were chosen by election completely independent of prospective presidential candidates, or parties, this would not be an issue.
Moving to a National Popular Vote is not going to solve the problem of "mob" rule. It will entrench it.
If you really want to stop mob rule - then the correct solution will involve changing the way electors are selected by the State Legislatures.
I pretty much understand all of this except the electoral vote
It is confusing to me and I don't know if it would be good or bad for us. What if Texas gets the most delegates for Paul, but all electoral votes goes to Romney. I can see that happening, but I still am confused in the process. There is a good Daily Paul thread (comments) about it, and I find myself going back to read it all the time...yet, I still am confused.
http://www.dailypaul.com/215278/the-dirty-word-no-gop-conven...
Don't confuse the delegates with the electors.
Delegates choose a party nominee to stand for election.
Electors choose from among party nominees (really, anyone they want) to vote for President and Vice-President.
These are two separate and distinct groups of people.
The delegates through a majority
can unbound themselves before even the first vote I believe. It is hard to tell where we stand, but I think we stand pretty strong right now in Ron Paul's corner as far as delegates go. I don't think the elites imagined this would happen so fast, but we came fast!!!!!
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine
The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!
I believe the Electoral College was designed
way back when because our forefathers knew that there would come a day when the popular vote would be manipulated. I truly believe they must have foreseen that the media would become very large and manipulate the people, but that beyond the people there would rise a people who found the truth and were able to go out and fight regardless of the populace's brainwashed state. The Electoral College is the only fight we have in this election. We have delegates spending maybe their last penny to go to stand for you and I, and infact every person that has lived and died for freedom. Delegates are the last line of defense, we are the front lines. A delegate deserves every last bit of praise we can give them, they are America's last line of defense and our forefather's amazingly knew this.
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine
The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!
On the contrary, they designed it so only the House
would always end up picking the President.
It only happened twice that way though.
Electoral College Votes as Rubberstamps for Party's Candidate
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors now are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
That's because of the present method of choosing electors.
It isn't a flaw in the EC itself.
Fixing that is up to the State Legislatures.