An inconvenient document

What would have happened if the shoe were on the other foot? Hmmm...

Further, this is an idea that "feels good" to those "disenfranchised".

Amazing what a little research digs up.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/15492126.html

and

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

~shakes head~ Amazing. When I first read about this last March I thought it was a fluke, I guess not.

Two things come to mind right away.

1) There are still way too many bent out of shape about 2000. (And don't know history. We survived this before, we will again)

and 2)
'States' are too restrictive and bothersome to some people. Why don't they come out and advocating abolishing states?

I for one would be upset if the states of CA, NY, and the others you stated would have the say for the entire country since I am in KY, for 5 mos now, having been in OH for all of my life.

By the time the primaries get around to us so much is decided I have always felt somewhat disenfranchised. So who cares about us out here in the boondocks of middle America fly over states? Huh?

We have to have the electoral vote or we'd get only what a few states dictated.

Good point. If we were to abolish the electoral college (I hope we don't), we would need to revamp the primary system, too. It becomes a bigger deal by quite a bit...

What you are describing is the effect of confusing democracy with republic. The founders rejected the idea of the popular vote because it would disenfranchise the states that we deemed the most important element of the union.

As we drift farther away from or republican roots it begins to make sense to the electorate that it should be just one gigantic popularity contest, rather than the will of each state entity.

Eliminating the electoral college, IMO, will be the final nail in the coffin of the republic.

Norman, a frequent poster in TH has invited all to participate in a grassroots effort to come up with an alternative to McCain:

My TH blog, The Blogatorium, has a new mission: To serve as a forum for disenchanted conservatives who cannot in good conscience support John McCain, and want to use their vote wisely and effectively in November.

This endeavor is predicated on the following assumptions:

1. That the GOP has abandoned conservatism, and that conservatives are consequently under no moral, ethical, or other obligation to support the so-called "lesser of two evils."

2. That no true conservative would willingly and enthusiastically support John McCain.

3. That the basic tenets of conservatism are accurately reflected in the "three-legs" model (social, fiscal, and national security), and that a true conservative will embrace all three.

4. That conservatives may, however, differ on the application of each "leg," particularly with respect to questions of faith, and should respect each others' right to do so.

5. That with unprecedented turmoil in both major parties, there has never been a better time to galvanize and mobilize conservative support for a viable, third-party candidate.

6. That compromise is often necessary in politics, but that there comes a time when compromise becomes counterproductive and even suicidal.

7. That the GOP, in making an abusive and manipulative “case” for John McCain, is asking conservatives to put party over principle and to help the GOP destroy the conservative movement.

8. That, in consequence of the aforementioned, a forum should exist wherein conservatives may discuss, debate, and compare the various third-party candidates.

9. That conservatives should, as much as possible, throw their support to ONE third-party candidate, en masse, in order to facilitate a strong showing in November, and future election victories.

Go to: http://blogatorium.blogtownhall.com/

Nice job, Welcome to the fight.

Urgent!

http://ww.Zzzoney.blogspot.com