New “co-champion” of National Popular Vote movement is … Fred Thompson?

posted at 5:50 pm on May 12, 2011 by Allahpundit

I … did not see this one coming.

Senator Fred Thompson was named national co-champion of the non-partisan National Popular Vote campaign Thursday, saying the nation cannot “run the risk of having a president who is handicapped by not having won the most popular votes.”

“We live in a time when the American people are increasingly cynical about their government’s ability to deal with our most pressing problems,” said Thompson. “This means that there is a need for bold, effective presidential leadership as never before.

“Therefore, we simply can no longer afford to run the risk of having a president who is handicapped by not having won the most popular votes. The National Popular Vote approach offers the states a way to deal with this issue in a way that is totally consistent with our constitutional principles.

“This is an idea whose time has come.”

If you missed Laura Brod’s conservative case for a NPV — and Ed Morrissey’s response — published right here at HA last August, read it now, especially the rebuttal to the claim that small conservative states will be effectively disenfranchised if this passes. Grassroots conservatives (like grassroots liberals) forever insist that most of the country agrees with them ideologically. If that’s the case, then there’s little to fear from an NPV. The NPV probably wouldn’t be unconstitutional either: Peruse Article II of the Constitution and you’ll find nothing that explicitly says the will of the majority of a state’s voters should guide that state’s electors when voting for president. Arguably, of course, it’s implied in the organization of the electoral college: If the Founders thought a national popular vote was copacetic for choosing the president, then presumably they’d never have provided for state electors. Should the NPV ever pass enough states to decide an election, that’s one of the grounds it’ll be challenged on in court. The other is probably the Guarantee Clause in Article IV, which says the feds will guarantee a republican form of government in every state. If Texas votes Republican and America votes Democrat and Texas’s electors follow the latter rather than the former, then arguably you’ve tripped over that clause. I doubt that objection would win in court since Texas would only be bound by the NPV if its state legislature chose to ratify it, but if you’re looking for lines of attack, there you go.

And yet, arguments aside, it feels surpassingly strange that Fred Thompson is out in front on this, doesn’t it? He’s the avatar of no-nonsense conservatism, the guy you expect to hold the line whenever something of dubious constitutionality is tried. Instead, he’s helping to lead the end-around of the electoral college. Very odd. And while I understand his worries about perceptions of presidential legitimacy if, a la 2000, the electoral college winner has fewer popular votes than the loser, the NPV simply sets him up for the opposite problem. If we enact the NPV and a Republican who otherwise would have won a majority of electoral votes is denied the presidency because his Democratic opponent won the popular vote (or vice versa), the new president will be handicapped by the fact that he/she would have lost under America’s traditional system (the one used to conduct presidential elections in the times of the Founders, no less). You run into the same legitimacy problem, just on the other end. I don’t get it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Because nothing else is going on except…debt, finances, war, and trade.

This backburner issue.

Oil Can on May 12, 2011 at 5:52 PM

So instead of lacking the legitimacy of the popular vote (which our Founders didn’t want deciding the election) you’ll lose the legitimacy of the traditional American election system that our Founders established.

Good idea!

Fred, go back to reverse mortgage commercials.

amerpundit on May 12, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Seems like having a handicapped president isn’t such a bad thing – a good portion of the Constitution is designed to handicap the president, after all.

And while I am cynical about our government’s ability to deal with our most pressing problems, their action usually worries me much more than their inaction.

David Shane on May 12, 2011 at 5:55 PM

What I want to hear is MA say “with only 100 popular votes cast for Sarah Palin, the state of MA casts all 12 electoral votes for Sarah Palin”.

You just know the liberals would find a way to weasel out of it if a scenario like this ever happened.

huckleberryfriend on May 12, 2011 at 5:57 PM

I had a list of Republicans but almost all the names are crossed off now. . .
Fred Thompson
Ron Paul
Jon Huntsman
Donald Trump
Mitt Romney
Sarah Palin

Emperor Norton on May 12, 2011 at 5:57 PM

FRED?

Weight of Glory on May 12, 2011 at 5:57 PM

W.

T.

F?

catmman on May 12, 2011 at 5:58 PM

Incoming crr6 alert…

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2011 at 5:58 PM

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! And I like Fred! He was my 2008 choice!

duggersd on May 12, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Jeri! Fred got out, again! Come get him!

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Fallon on May 12, 2011 at 6:01 PM

We already have a focus on the states with the largest EC votes, the NPV would exacerbate the problem with states with smaller populations and tilt the race and campaigns even more to the high population states.

fourdeucer on May 12, 2011 at 6:02 PM

What The FRED?

powerpro on May 12, 2011 at 6:03 PM

The U.S. Constitution may be old, but the good thing about paper when it gets old: it doesn’t get senile.

Vashta.Nerada on May 12, 2011 at 6:04 PM

The subtext is that Fred! apparently thinks that Al Gore should have been President.

Emperor Norton on May 12, 2011 at 6:04 PM

This will be a great idea… right up until it becomes a disaster. Which it will, probably sooner than later.

First, the “benefit”. You avoid the Florida debacle from 2000… if you’re not pinning a large state’s electoral votes on a slim turnout; you don’t have the issues, lawsuits, and potential fraud of a “recount” in select areas to “find” votes.

Now the drawback… watch an election come down to .1% of the national total… now what? Every state has a recount? A handful of cities realize they “find” enough ballots to swing the election the other way? Instead of having a disaster for one area or one state you have a disaster for the vote tallies of the entire nation.

If we have trouble trusting Chicago or Florida or to get a vote tally right; why would we trust all of them rolled together where any one can tweak the total?

Sure if it isn’t close they can’t cheat enough to sway the entire nation… but if it is close enough; do you trust that nobody in the entire nation would try it?

gekkobear on May 12, 2011 at 6:05 PM

How many bandwagons are there!?

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

canopfor on May 12, 2011 at 6:06 PM

You just know the liberals would find a way to weasel out of it if a scenario like this ever happened.

huckleberryfriend on May 12, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Good luck trying to sue a state whose electors exercise their right to vote any damn way they please.

pedestrian on May 12, 2011 at 6:08 PM

HAVE ALL MEMBERS OF THE GOP LOST THEIR FREAK’IN MINDS?

They seem bound and determined to push the base to a third party and doom the Republican party to the dustbin of history. I am SOOOOoooo done with these idiots!

dominigan on May 12, 2011 at 6:10 PM

I’m fine with that so long as we add that
1) only citizens with a tax burden can vote unless they’ve served in the military and
2) if you’re not in the military, the voting age is raised to 27 to correspond with current concepts of childhood as established in healthcare legislation.

rogerb on May 12, 2011 at 6:11 PM

We’ve had decades of people being told the lie that we’re a democracy. This kind of stupidity is to be expected.
A lie repeated becomes the truth.

single stack on May 12, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Whats next, eliminate the bicameral congress and go to a direct democracy with majority votes taking all.

fourdeucer on May 12, 2011 at 6:14 PM

This is an insane proposal, as it would give states like California and Illinois an unlimited license to commit fraud that could swing the election.

LibertarianRepublican on May 12, 2011 at 6:15 PM

I demand a recount.

The Mega Independent on May 12, 2011 at 6:16 PM

It’s the fraud stupid!!

It will turn every voting precinct in the country into a mini-Chicago with the dead voters voting 4 times right next to the ACORN voters, voting 7 times.

angryed on May 12, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Fred, I want my 25 bucks back !

You were the only presidential candidate I ever put up money for. I feel so defiled.

birdhurd on May 12, 2011 at 6:17 PM

Fred is going senile.

RedRobin145 on May 12, 2011 at 6:19 PM

FRED!!!!

Seriously, if he says it I’m for it.

(reverse mortgages!)

Aquateen Hungerforce on May 12, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Dementia is not pretty.

stenwin77 on May 12, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Come on Fred, the Electoral College works just fine, protecting the small states from the will of the large states.

Zorro on May 12, 2011 at 6:21 PM

I will never watch Law and Order again /s

angryed on May 12, 2011 at 6:22 PM

This would give crooked democratics reason to blow up the vote in the inner cities that they totally control, even more than needed to win the electoral votes. If this passes we’ll see 200% of the population voting in the cesspools like Chicago, Philadephia, St.Louis, Madison, etc, etc, and many of them will be illegal aliens.

slickwillie2001 on May 12, 2011 at 6:23 PM

NO! Absolutely NO!!

SC.Charlie on May 12, 2011 at 6:27 PM

UGH! Not another loser retread from the past. Hey GOP, you need new ideas and fresh faces to compete. Are you trying to hand the presidency to Obama again?

Tommy_G on May 12, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Instead of wasting their time on this foolishness, maybe they should figure out how to take the politics out of the Federal court system. These courts no longer make decisions based on the Constitution. They make decisions based on how they can entwine their own political ideologies with excerpts of the pertinent constitutional language to end up with a politically based decision rather than a constitutionally based decision.

As a Conservative, I think we’re in deep doo-doo. Look at the latest development with the VA challenge of ObamaCare. If SCOTUS had agreed to fast-tracking it, a tie would sustain the lower court ruling of ObamaCare’s unconstitutionality. Instead, it’s in the hands of three judges, one appointed by Clinton and two appointed by Obama. If they overrule the lower court, and it then ends up in SCOTUS, it will take a majority decision to declare it unconstitutional.

What we now have are courts that are, in fact, unelected legislative bodies masquerading as judicial bodies.

NoNails on May 12, 2011 at 6:27 PM

National Popular Vote movement = Mob Rule

Nobody’s money or property would be safe as the Mob rampaged from place to place and issue to issue.

By the time people figured out that every person belongs to some kind of “minority,” it would be too late…we would have already devolved into another lawless Nigeria.

landlines on May 12, 2011 at 6:27 PM

If as the law(Obamacare DOJ position) says; the government make make any darned law it choses, then this end run, by yet another Washington insider and power seeker, will become an unecessary attempt to ignore or destroy the constitution.

This is but Saul Alinsky’s mind-set:any means to an end.

In view of the paltry real choices offered the voter by the manipulative machination of the control/media/ruling class (of which Fred is but one of many)the American people, through lack of diligence and commitment, have eagerly allowed their individual freedoms to become the sole business of the political class.

Welcome to the end of a grand and elequent social experiment called democracy -for it is in its very last death stage – a victim of voluntary euthansia.

Don L on May 12, 2011 at 6:28 PM

fred ( I wont even capitalize his name.) must be tired of doing reverse mortgage commercials and is trying to get some work from his Hollywood or New York friends.

meci on May 12, 2011 at 6:28 PM

I am truly surprised that Fred is in favor of this. He is just dead wrong!!

Sxyrzrbck on May 12, 2011 at 6:31 PM

That’s it. I’m tearing up my Fred Thompson T-Shirt.

Tennman on May 12, 2011 at 6:31 PM

What I want to hear is MA say “with only 100 popular votes cast for Sarah Palin, the state of MA casts all 12 electoral votes for Sarah Palin”.

You just know the liberals would find a way to weasel out of it if a scenario like this ever happened.

huckleberryfriend on May 12, 2011 at 5:57 PM

This. That scenario will bring all this foolish NPV talk to a screeching halt.

Democrats would do well to remember that it was Republicans who passed the 22nd amendment. They did it in response to FDR’s four terms. It came back to bite them in the ass when Reagan was not allowed to run again. This whole NPV thing is a reaction to 2000 and policies enacted like that will come back to haunt you.

Kafir on May 12, 2011 at 6:35 PM

The electoral college is a bulwark against massive voter fraud. It contains fraud to a particular state. Imagine if Chicago, New York City, and Los Angeles could manufacture votes that would count towards the popular vote. They would, voting early and often.

Paul-Cincy on May 12, 2011 at 6:40 PM

The incentive for voter fraud is tremendous under a NPV. Right now, the strong Dem machines in places like Boston, Chicago, LA, etc. are held in check because those states are reliably blue. But once they’re able to cancel out red state votes…

billy on May 12, 2011 at 6:41 PM

I don’t get it.

Agreed…in fact, I don’t know how you pull this off without eliminating the electoral college….sort of a major structural change ….no?

First big lawsuit comes from the first winner of the electoral votes, who loses the popular vote.

This ends up being a mess…baffling.

Tim_CA on May 12, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Fred is handicapped with laziness.

I am just glad that he outed himself another liberal in republican clothing, so people can stop supporting this noodle-spined double-faced loser ….something that I saw in the ’08 primary.

Good riddance, Fred..!!

Mcguyver on May 12, 2011 at 6:41 PM

He77, Why don’t we just let the evening news Anchors for NBC, CBS and ABC , and the Editor of the New York Times decide who rules us?

LegendHasIt on May 12, 2011 at 6:42 PM

It would be an interesting idea. Considering some small states have had a significant amount of Presidential visits because they’re swing states, things might fundamentally change. New Hampshire has been considered a swing state in 2000, 2004 & 2008, but in 2008, it gave less total votes to John McCain then New York City, which would suddenly be a viable place for Republicans to try.

A strong effort in some urban areas could develop 100,000 new votes by Republicans. For Democrats to appeal outside of their bases, they need to go to urban areas, where the rewards are much smaller, you can’t focus on a county of 100,000 when the rival has siphoned 100,000 votes in a city.

amazingmets on May 12, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Paul-Cincy on May 12, 2011 at 6:40 PM

Excellent point. wish I had thought of it at 6:39PM

billy on May 12, 2011 at 6:43 PM

If Texas votes Republican and America votes Democrat and Texas’s electors follow the latter rather than the former, then arguably you’ve tripped over that clause. I doubt that objection would win in court since Texas would only be bound by the NPV if its state legislature chose to ratify it, but if you’re looking for lines of attack, there you go.

Here’s a fun game:

NPV is a go for 2016. Obama wins a 3rd term (hey if you’re going to shred the constitution on EV, why not shred it on presidential term limits too?) but his opponent wins 280 EVs using the old system. In 2017 the TX supreme court finds NPV unconstitutional and voids the 2016 TX election results. Taking TX out, Obama loses the election.

What happens?

angryed on May 12, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Democrats would do well to remember that it was Republicans who passed the 22nd amendment. They did it in response to FDR’s four terms. It came back to bite them in the ass when Reagan was not allowed to run again.

Kafir on May 12, 2011 at 6:35 PM

Yeah but it also saved us from a 3rd (4th? 5th?) Clinton term as well.

angryed on May 12, 2011 at 6:45 PM

The other is probably the Guarantee Clause in Article IV

Each state has their own voting laws. The national popular vote movement is a direct attack on this.

I understand why Republicans in deep blue states support this because their turnout is suppressed a bit… while I understand them, they are still a bunch traitors.

ninjapirate on May 12, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Another fun game:

NPV is a go for 2016. There are 20 states sign up for a total of 272 EVs.

2020 census comes in. Those 20 states now only have 266 EVs combined after redistricting. Is NPV null and void? Do they go find a 21st state? If they do, will all the other 20 states have to re-vote on NPV?

Just a few inconvenient truths that liberals conveniently forgot in their lust for revenge over 2000.

angryed on May 12, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Go back to sleep Fred. The Founding fathers were a lot smarter than you will ever be.

HalJordan on May 12, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Anyone who supports NPV is supporting a system where Cook County Corruption can dominate presidential elections. Democrats know this, they know they can control the vote and get enough dead people to vote twice in democrat strongholds to overwhelm the GOP every time.

Any GOPer who supports this is an idiot or a plant.

Spartacus on May 12, 2011 at 6:50 PM

To be consistent, if one advocates doing away with the Electoral Collage, one should advocate doing away with the Senate and doing that first. If Sleepy Fred does not understand that, then he is more asleep than I thought.

HalJordan on May 12, 2011 at 6:52 PM

His wife probably now feels like she married her grandfather instead of her father.

HalJordan on May 12, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Instead of being so fricking lazy, Fred could use his stature to educate people as to why the electoral collegae vote is the fair and right way, instead of demonizing what has worked for over 200 years.

Fred is displaying the true definition of an IDIOT..!

Mcguyver on May 12, 2011 at 6:57 PM

among the many reasons to be against this, Fred comes up with one of the best. I know this will come as a shock to our political betters, but a split between the EC and popular voter is extremely important information to the new president

bush always took pains to say that he was president of all the people. when was the last time barry said that…..

the country is headed into very bad waters because of sloppy thinking, Fred.

r keller on May 12, 2011 at 6:58 PM

If you want to end the electoral college, get a Constitution amendment. Doing it in this manner will end in tears.

ninjapirate on May 12, 2011 at 7:00 PM

So the plan is this will give every state better attention. Big deal. I want every state to get the attention when selecting the presidential nominee. Quit making problems and fix the ones we have. Fred you dolt.

derft on May 12, 2011 at 7:04 PM

NO! Absolutely NO!!

SC.Charlie on May 12, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Yeah, I’ve tried to read a lot on this subject, and there are pros and cons to a NPV…but the pros come way short to the cons.

So I second that NO.

JetBoy on May 12, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Here’s a better idea: Each state gets an elector for each Senator and Congressman. Have the two Senator electors go the the winner of the NPV, but have the rest of the electors go the way their districts voted.

Kafir on May 12, 2011 at 7:04 PM

OMG, I would expect this from carter, not you fred! I wanted you as president in the last election, but now you are sol. It seems the good old boys r’s are out in force to see to it they get who they want us to vote for? Gads, the whole flippen bunch, both r’s and d’s make me sick!
L

letget on May 12, 2011 at 7:08 PM

This is the problem with the widespread practice of referring to America as a “democracy”–historic ignorance is what led to the passage of the 17th Amendment, and is what supports this. Mr. Thompson should know better. As much as it pains me, he is now on my persona non grata list.

DrMagnolias on May 12, 2011 at 7:11 PM

And yet, arguments aside, it feels surpassingly strange that Fred Thompson is out in front on this, doesn’t it? He’s the avatar of no-nonsense conservatism, the guy you expect to hold the line whenever something of dubious constitutionality is tried. Instead, he’s helping to lead the end-around of the electoral college. Very odd.

The old fool, like so many, doesn’t know when to retire with grace. He’s an idiot on the fraud which is “reverse mortgage” too.

There is no intelligence left, hardly. There’s no hope any more.

Schadenfreude on May 12, 2011 at 7:20 PM

Next to join the movement, Arlen Specter.

slickwillie2001 on May 12, 2011 at 7:26 PM

The GOP will betray you

True_King on May 12, 2011 at 7:52 PM

How about… the red states split off into a new nation under the pre-progressive Constitution, then the blue states can do whatever hairbrained nonsense they want.

And Fred!, I voted for you, but this is wrong.

Rebar on May 12, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Each state gets an elector for each Senator and Congressman. Have the two Senator electors go the the winner of the NPV, but have the rest of the electors go the way their districts voted.

Kafir on May 12, 2011 at 7:04 PM

This is what I’ve advocated for years, along with only those who pay taxes, or have at least served in the military (i.e. actually have the proverbial skin in the game) be eligible to vote.

Siddhartha Vicious on May 12, 2011 at 8:16 PM

This is a bad idea and it has nothing to do with “strict constitutionalism.”

Elections are already haphazard guesswork and open to widespread fraud. The reason fraud is not more prevalent is because committing fraud is not worth the risk. Even in Chicago, where the chances of getting prosecuted are zero, are “activists” really going to bother to write up a thousand votes or ten for Obama when they know he’s going to win by 30% and take all of Illinois electoral votes anyway? The fact that fraud, no matter how widespread, can only permeate up to the state level (where it is usually either pointless or redundant) is a big reason why our ramshackle system of unsigned ballots monitored by clueless old biddies works just fine.

But imagine if all the corruption that goes on in these one-party cesspools had a direct impact on who got elected President? Imagine if all the votes “found” in the back seats of cars in Queens and Madtown canceled out the votes of the bitter clingers on a 1-to-1 basis. Conservative activists would soon retaliate or accept that Republicans can’t win with less than 60% of the vote. Even landslides would turn into bogus 50-50+1 Internet polls. Close races…

That would be the end of elections in America. It could very well be the start of a civil war.

HitNRun on May 12, 2011 at 8:22 PM

We’ve had decades of people being told the lie that we’re a democracy. This kind of stupidity is to be expected.
A lie repeated becomes the truth.

single stack on May 12, 2011 at 6:12 PM

It’s not a lie. We are a democracy. The words you’re looking for are direct democracy, which we’re not, but a Constitutional Republic is a form of democracy.

Esthier on May 12, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Yeah, this whole constitutional republic thing is just so much trouble, so let’s chip away at it a little more. I’m sure we’ll all fall in love with what we end up with. Besides, the Founding Fathers were morons and electoral votes were always a stupid idea.

/sarc

Aitch748 on May 12, 2011 at 8:42 PM

I don’t get it.

No kidding.

moochy on May 12, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Fred was my guy in 2008…. yep, worked great too….

Fred Thompson has made the official decision to suck now, I guess.

Fred Thompson sucks.

rightwingyahooo on May 12, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Think Al Gore.

No, just NO.

karenhasfreedom on May 12, 2011 at 9:13 PM

but a Constitutional Republic is a form of democracy.

No, constitutions could establish any sort of dictator they intend….. even Iran is called a Republic, so that does not wash either.

We are a Representative Republic. I don’t like the term democracy, at its root is the mob. The idea that 51% can do whatever they want to the other 49%.

No democracy, yes to representative republicanism….

rightwingyahooo on May 12, 2011 at 9:16 PM

“And yet, arguments aside, it feels surpassingly strange that Fred Thompson is out in front on this, doesn’t it? He’s the avatar of no-nonsense conservatism, the guy you expect to hold the line whenever something of dubious constitutionality is tried. Instead, he’s helping to lead the end-around of the electoral college. Very odd” AP

A ‘Gang of 14′ by any other name is still a Gang of 14. The freeking ruling class is pulling out all the stops in trying to control the whole ‘tea party’ spirit. Like it is continually said, “When is ‘X’ going to get it?????” These old stodgy Blue Bloods are NOT giving up at all. And we thought 2000 and 04 were nailbiters.

I would love to see a man like Herman Cain be our next President. The Black President this nation SHOULD HAVE HAD!

Its time SOMEONE raised a little Cain on Washington.

auspatriotman on May 12, 2011 at 9:53 PM

The Framers did not envision a direct popular vote for President (or Senate), even within a state. Let’s go back to the Constitutional method: each state choose its electors, who then meet to vote for President. This is a Republic, not a democracy.

I’ll bet the Puppet President would never had won had we stuck to the system created by the Framers.

And while we’re at it, let’s get rid of primaries, too. The idea of people ‘running’ for President is anathema to Republican principles. There’s a reason why candidates have to be nominated. You can’t nominate yourself!

/Mr Lynn

MrLynn on May 12, 2011 at 10:12 PM

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! And I like Fred! He was my 2008 choice!

duggersd on May 12, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Hate to say it, but there is a reason why Fred got no traction, this is only a small symptom of the much more obvious.

scotash on May 12, 2011 at 10:48 PM

Mr. Thompson: I double-dog dare you to call Mark Levin and discuss the popular-vote issue with him on the air! I’m afraid you don’t understand why the founders created the electoral college and how critical it is! It was designed to protect the smaller, less-populated states. If a national popular vote is implemented, small states will become irrelevant and our leaders will be selected by the states with large urban areas. Is that what you want, Mr. Thompson?
Get your head out of your old hairy ass, idiot!

Mark7788 on May 12, 2011 at 10:53 PM

If we’re going to change the voting system it needs to be to instant-runoff voting.

Ortzinator on May 12, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Dang. And to think, way back when, HotAir used to be the support group for all the “FredHeads.” No more I guess.

Mayhem on May 12, 2011 at 11:35 PM

What he wants is majority rules. What that really means is the mob rules. Then we are in bing trouble.

Mirimichi on May 13, 2011 at 12:06 AM

The people elect the House.

The states (should) elect the Senate.

The Electoral College elects the President.

The founders were worried about EXACTLY these types of problems.

The president isn’t supposed to have the power of the people.

And, the people don’t elect the president!

Pablo Snooze on May 13, 2011 at 12:21 AM

Anything liberals want is bad. Any republicans that support anything that liberals want should be removed from any positions of influence.

trigon on May 13, 2011 at 1:56 AM

I wanted Fred in 08 and I still think he would have beaten Obama. This insane idea removes him from any further consideration.

duff65 on May 13, 2011 at 8:23 AM

Looks like George Soros bought him too….

adamsmith on May 13, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Who is that guy and what has he done with Fred Thompson?

backwoods conservative on May 13, 2011 at 10:26 AM

This president needs to be handicapped with his EOs and his end runs around Congress and his endless czars. If we remove the electoral college you will never see another republican in national office again. The founders put the EC in place to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

abcurtis on May 13, 2011 at 10:30 AM

I don’t have a problem with a national popular vote for President. There is even a method to make this happen provided for in the Constitution. Pass an amendment, and voila, there you have it, a national popular vote for President. Otherwise, forget about it.

Federalism is the only way a country this size can be governed. Too many differences between Texas and New York, Mississippi and Wisconsin. This proposal would destroy Federalism, and would bring nothing to the table I can see. Didn’t Bush win the EV and lose the PV in 2000? Seems like me managed to come through that one without too many problems. Hell, Obama won both and things have been going to hell ever since.

Skywatcher44 on May 13, 2011 at 12:58 PM