In response to:

Electoral College Is Democratic, Not democratic

michigander4 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 9:28 AM
The best reason not to abolish the electoral college is never mentioned. I'll use Chicago Illinois as my example, notwithstanding many other big city political machines fall into the same category. Illinois has 21 electoral votes. As everyone knows, Chicago/Cook County has steam rolled over the rest of the state for more than 100 years when it comes to stuffing ballot boxes to assure democrat victories. Votes from the graveyard and voting multiple times is standard procedure, the election of JFK being the most remembered example. (continued)
michigander4 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 9:33 AM
But no matter how many votes come from Chicago graveyards, and no matter how many people vote more than once, Illinois is only able to provide 21 electoral votes to the candidate. If the rules were changed to a popular vote, Chicago would find more grave yards and more people to vote multiple times. Thank God the electoral college places some limitation on this corruption.
ksatifka Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 12:13 PM
If Chicago does indeed remain are corrupt as you say, then the Feds have some jurisdiction to get in there and clean things up. Just because some cities are corrupt is no reason to give up on a popular vote. If Illinois was close, then under the EC it would be HUGE if Chicago put the Dem over the top. When dispersed over the nation, corruption in Chicago would have less bearing on the outcome.
lancer50 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 2:08 PM
Isn't Obama (who controls those who would investigate) from Chicago?
ksatifka Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 2:52 PM
In spite of what many on the tea party, Limbaugh-right have been led to believe, Obama is not a dictator. He is not some puppet-master pulling all the strings. That he has the ability to control election investigations, when they by law would be bi-partisan, is absurd.
michigander4 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 3:13 PM
Outsider, RE: "If Illinois was close, then under the EC it would be HUGE if Chicago put the Dem over the top."

You're probably too young to remember, but Chicago actually did "put the Dem over the top" in 1960. It was John F. Kennedy. I'm not making this up; it's a well known fact. And it's not just Chicago that has corrupt voting; Philly is just as bad, though on a smaller scale.... and many other large-democrat-machine cities are the same way. The feds have been paying lip service to cleaning it up since I was a little boy. They haven't done it yet, and I have no reason to believe it will happen any time soon.
michigander4 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 3:17 PM
And, lancer50 is right. A dem administration certainly won't do anything to correct it. Do you actually believe a justice department headed up by Eric Holder will ride into Chicago on a white horse and clean up the corruption? LMAO
lancer50 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 4:06 PM
Well Holder did prosecute the Black Panthers In Philadelphia.

Oh wait, he was the one who dismissed the charges after they won a conviction. My mistake.

In 2000, conservatives were obligated to explain why they supported preservation of the Electoral College even though it produced a victory for their candidate, George W. Bush. In coming elections, their devotion may face a sterner test: Will they favor it if Democrats win the White House even when Republicans carry the popular vote?

Mitt Romney managed to avoid that problem by coming up short across the board. But while Republicans have noticed that the voting public is changing in ways that don't help the GOP, they may not have noticed that the electoral map has also shifted to their clear disadvantage.