(Part 2)

Presidential politics would become a game played along the east & west coasts, Ohio, Illinois, and maybe 8 other states. Everyone else? Just shut up and take a seat! No more discussions about farming aid, water rights and conservation, National Parks, etc.

It’s bad enough that POTUS candidates barely touch these areas once the Primary season is over. Once you do away with the Electoral College there will be no need for anyone on the National level – aside from Reps and Senators from these now forgotten states – to be bothered politically with the center of the country.

Now back to the partisan message of Mr. Medved. His real concern - as a true Daily Beast contributor – is buried in the article. His REAL concern? If somehow, a third-party candidacy for POTUS were to be so successful as to through the Electoral College into a tie (last time was in 1824), the DEMOCRATS would be at a disadvantage! This due to the NUMBER of States (In such a circumstance, each State would receive ONE VOTE.) Republicans currently control!

So please, let’s drop any pretense that somehow this challenge is meant to look at the issue from the point-of-view of the entire country. It’s a partisan ploy just like anything else in politics.

If third-parties want to challenge the status quo, then they have to start building local grassroots efforts; not just trying to always hit the grandslam every four years on the National Stage!

Mike, you said "The one thing the Electoral College offers - that most people choose to disregard when they bring up the issue - is a Voice to the middle (or fly-over) sections of the country."

My response...These people in the middle of the country would still have a voice with the "popular" vote if the electoral college were eliminated. Their voice would be equal to every other voter with one person/one vote. In addition, the less populous states have disproportional representation in the US Senate because every state has 2 Senators regardless of population.
Further, you argue that the less populous states can be ignored with the popular vote. Isnt that what happens with the electoral college? The race is not competitive in about 40 of the 50 states. The other 10 that can go either way are the focus of the campaigns.

@Mike: Facts are the concentration of population in this country are along the coasts, especially east and west, along the Great Lakes, etc. If one wants to win a "popular vote", all they need do is concentrate their efforts - including policy discussions and program preferences - towards those areas to garner the biggest bang for their Election bucks.

Insofar as your comment about 40 of the 50 states being essentially decided well before the election has more to do with the politics of those individual states (i.e. are the Red or Blue), not the number of people living there.

++++ famalegoods.com ++++++++++

Best online store

WATCHES | POLO TSHIRTS | TRUE RELIGION JEANS | COACH HANDBAGS | UGG BOOTS SALE | DISCOUNT
Rolex Watches, Cheap Gucci Shoes,Wholesale, Buy Really Cheap Ed Hardy Clothing, Discount Chanel Handbags,cheap Christian Louboutin shoes For Sale, Ugg Boots ON SALE.
wholesale nike sports shoes,nike jordan shoes,paypal accept,dropshipping accept,,nike sneakers air jordan sneakers air max AF1 shox gucci adidas puma dunk kobe trainers and NFL jerseys jeans t-shirts hoody clothes
Air Jordan (1-24) shoes
UGG BOOT
Nike shox (R4, NZ, OZ, TL1, TL2, TL3)
Handbags ( Coach Lv fendi D&G)
T-shirts (polo, ed hardy, lacoste)
Jean (True Religion, ed hardy, coogi)
Sunglasses ( Oakey, coach, Gucci, Armaini)
New era cap
ATO shoes
Gucci shoes ,prada shoes
NBA jerseys ,NHL jerseys
YSL shoes
Bikini (Ed hardy, polo)
Westernunion,bank transfer(Wire),Credit card,Paypal and other safe way
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
welcome to

++++ mineokmalls.com ++++++++++
09-

but if the electoral college votes as the people do most of the time, why maintain the redundant system?

I just don't think I could handle all the pics of him tonsil-massaging Tipper.

All the 3rd party candidates were excluded from the presidential and vp debates. The Dems and Repubs signed a secret agreement with the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) to exclude all other candidates, and Obama and Romney are not allowed to participate in any debate not sponsored by the CPD. Green candidates Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala were arrested trying to get into the debates last week (says a lot about our great democracy).
Democracy Now will be having an expanded debate this Monday, Oct 22, at http://www.democracynow.org/. Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson will have an opportunity to answer the same questions posed to Obama and Romney in real time.
Also there will be a 3rd-party candidates debate on Oct 23 with Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode, at http://freeandequal.org/updates/larry-king-to-moderate-third-party-presidential-debate/.

i agree the college has got to go.

There already is "one person, one vote". It just goes towards deciding the Electoral vote for your respective state.

The Electoral College will never go away, because the less populous states will never go for it. And why should they? Presidential candidates will NEVER step foot in any of the "fly-over states" nor pay attention to their issues or needs without the EC.

Keep it, because it's the only way those states will ever matter in the national conversation.

Agreed. The electoral college is undemocratic, but that isn't necessarily a reason to get rid of it. Our governmental system wasn't intended to be a democracy, and there are many aspects of the federal constitution that aren't democratic as a result. The idea that we have a bicameral legislature isn't democratic. Neither is the fact that the president has a veto over proposed legislation or that the states have equal representation in the senate. Many of the amendments are undemocratic as well. This is an example: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." Well, what if a majority of congress wants to pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion? They are prohibited from doing so. Since the amendment restricts what majorities can do, it is undemocratic. That's not a bad thing. It might be better if you worried less about improving our democracy and more about improving our freedom.

Andrew, your post reflects a deep misunderstanding of the American system of government.

I think Andrew explained fairly well how we operate as a republic, not a democracy. However, Joseph did not explain anything about our system of government or add anything to this discussion on the electoral college.

We exist as a republic for a reason. This is so that the majority does not overrun politics. This explains a good deal of what Andrew complained of.

Attacking the system of checks and balances and the Bill of Rights? This is just too silly to bother with an explanation of.

The end.

Joseph - who attacked the system of checks and balances and Bills of Rights? And your statement about the majority is entirely compatible with Andrew's summary; it was called the tyranny of the majority, and much of our system was set up to limit the power of the majority over the minority, and to limit government in general. We simply do not live in a Democracy.

The End.

great explanation ... and much more succinct than mine! ; ^ /

Civics actually is taught in schools and will be a part of the Keystone exams that will replace the PSSAS.

I think it's silly to think a third party can just show up in the "big elections" and think they will be able to garner the support AND the grassroots work that needs to be done in order to win an election. They MAY be able to affect an election, but win it? No way.

Any political organization needs boots on the ground ... A LOT of boots! My opinion is that a third-party alternative HAS to be grown from a regional "root" if you will before it will ever be able to challenge the Big Two.

That's a pretty dark assessment; but the Ds and Rs have just been around too long. ANd they have the grassroot AND the National infrastructure to outperform any third alternative. There's just no way - IMO - that just getting them on-stage with the Big Boys is going to make much of a difference aside from possibly throwing the election to one or the other of the established parties.

That's the REAL reason you don't see them in the debates.

Jack and Mike, I suggest you dream a little. Never is a long time. btw, I am not trying to assert myself, I am trying to get the debate to exist (as it should). If a candidate is on enough ballots to win an election, they deserve to be heard. Not one is preventing your candidate from being heard. Get a grip. It's a big world. Get over it.

I dream from time-to-time, but not as often as I used to; and I can honestly say I have NEVER dreamed about a third political party.

Some of us work in hidden ways. Count on it. Not everything visible is all there is to reality. All great ideas start as dreams whether daydreams or night dreams. Cynicism prevents dreaming; try some optimism. It is, and always will be, a choice.