Chicagoist: Illinois to Bypass Electoral College

SAMiller

Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:49:03 -0600

There is no way this is constitutional. Glad to see the General Assembly is wasting their time.

plumbum82

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:52:44 -0600

@Spav: For the most part, I agree with you (After perusing Youtube and watching "Idiocracy", I'm beginning to think "What's Popular" isn't equal to "What's Good"), but to play Devil's Advocate: Did the amendment to allow popular election of senators subvert democracy? I just think it was a step from a republic to a real democracy.

sparky

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:38:25 -0600

Tilda: I agree with you. Are you comfortable with each state deciding how their vote counts (if it is debated)or should the US decide as a country how their vote counts? I do not recall ever reading about this issue in Illinois, but maybe I haven't been paying enough attention. If I remember correctly, California did have a referendum on how the electoral college delegates would be chosen--which is a different issue, but at least the people of the state decided.

Navin

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:37:35 -0600

without each state carrying its own weight, candidates would never have reason to leave the most densely populated areas. Of course as it is now they spend all their time courting people in 'swing states'.

Spav1

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:30:35 -0600

I am just saying, I am cool on ending Slavery, but for fuck's sake, the 14th amendment was like a Pandora's Box of rights giving. "Due Process"?! Who wrote that?! Seriously, who wrote the Reconstruction Amendments. The language used in the 14th amendment is the basis for like every criminal appeal. Who would have thought. It is a serious thing to jank with the Constitution and these states in this idiotic pact are taking it too lightly.

simplecreature

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 12:37:27 -0600

The 2000 election was one of only a couple elections in US history that came that close. The closest comparison was the election of 1800, in which two acrimonious political parties tore the country asunder with slanderous campaigns and while the system buckled and stressed. The end result? The country held together, Thomas Jefferson was elected, the world did not end. Every 200 years or so isn't a bad rate of crisis. I will say though, that I am for changing the constitution when it needs it. It is not sacred writ, but a living, breathing document. An end to Slavery, suffrage for women, the right of 18 year olds to vote, are all good changes to that old piece of parchment.

Slaphappy

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:56:45 -0600

This move stems mainly from emotional scars of the 2000 race, not logical policy. Exactly. What people don't seem to realize is that before 2000, a losing candidate won the popular vote three separate times.

matilda

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:49:29 -0600

I'm with Spav for the most part. Absent an amendment, stick with what we have. And to get that amendment would require a meaningful and lengthy debate about federalism and the real and ideal nature of a republic in the 21st century, both good issues to consider for all of us. I would welcome such a debate. This move stems mainly from emotional scars of the 2000 race, not logical policy.

mpg31337

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:49:26 -0600

I'd be much happier if each state just awarded electoral votes proportionately to the state's popular vote.

Slaphappy

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:37:18 -0600

Oops, I meant to say "two senators and a representative." =D

Slaphappy

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:35:43 -0600

I don't often do this, but I agree with Spav. The electoral college system is the perfect system -- the weight each state is given toward electing the country's president is directly proportional to its representation in the legislative branch in the federal government. (The only change we ought to be making in this regard is giving Washington, DC two representatives and a senator, the sole and completely egregious exception.) Shifting to a national vote would further subvert and erode the rights of each state as granted in the Constitution. Campaigning would become even more isolated than it is -- without each state carrying its own weight, candidates would never have reason to leave the most densely populated areas.

YoknapatawphaTourismBoard

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:23:15 -0600

As I've pointed out previously, this probably doesn't pass constitutional muster, though we won't know until a sufficient number of states pass it. It subverts the second article of the Constitution by rendering the other states' electors' votes irrelevant.

Spav1

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:04:01 -0600

I am of the school "Don't Fuck with The Constitution", it has worked great for a long time, the electoral college was created for a reason etc, etc. Knee jerk reactions to partisan issues are always a terrible idea and end up backfiring BAD. See: Term Limit amendment after FDR. So, fuck this. I think that this should have been a proposition voted on by Illinoisians, not some scheme cooked up by our legislature. And, why should the national vote subvert the will of the people of sovereign states? Hate. This.

magilla gorilla

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:46:34 -0600

if it reduces the influence of smaller states, i'm all for it. most of those redneck states priorities are totally backwards

smussy

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:35:51 -0600

what's your take on this, kevin?