Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Electoral College Bypass Approved By 2nd State

A second state has approved a plan that would bypass the U.S. electoral college, giving the presidency to the winner of a national popular vote.

read more digg story

This is terrible news, folks. The electoral college system was set up for several good reasons.


1. "If the electoral college is abolished, then the residents of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston and other highly populated cities (which are mostly liberal Democrats) will elect every president from now on. The rural votes from Nebraska, Wyoming, etc. won't mean a thing." (hat tip: LifeguardMom at Digg)



2. "In short, they are trampling on the very heart of our constitutional framework. The United States Constitution established a system of federalism, whereby governmental power is shared between the federal and state governments. While our Constitution makes the federal government supreme over the states, it also ensures the integrity and legitimacy of the states by granting them specific rights and reserving others." (hat tip: David Limbaugh's article)



3." The Electoral College itself is a constitutionally created institution flowing from the Framers' intention to preserve states' rights. In their wisdom they conferred upon the several states the critically important power to elect the President." (hat tip: David Limbaugh article)


Prior to the 2000 election of President George W. Bush, the election of a president who lost the popular vote occurred only three times (1824, 1876 and 1888) in our history! President Bush's electoral college win was the fourth time, in 224 years that this had happened!

My philosophy? Don't mess with what works!

I trust what the Founding Fathers believed were proper checks and balances more than what our current clueless Congress would do regarding a disasterous amendment on this issue.

I ask you. If Al Gore won the 2000 election through the electoral college system and George W. Bush had been the winner of the popular vote in that year, do you think that the Democrats would want to change the system today?

Of course not!

We are back to the year 2000 Sore Loserman mentality that the liberals have never gotten over!

In David Limbaugh's article published in 2000, he asked the question, Should America abolish the electoral college system?

Here is a portion of that article:



Both proposals before Congress-to abolish the Electoral College and to establish an election reform commission-would erode the power of the states. It is one thing to propose a diminution of states' rights through a constitutional amendment, such as with the Electoral College proposal. It is another thing for the federal government, through legislation, to usurp the prerogative of the states in establishing their own voting procedures. In the interest of safeguarding our federalist system, Congress must not force its will on the states in election matters, even respecting elections for federal officers, that is, President and Vice President.

The problem in Florida is not with the system. It's with certain people who are engaged in a systematic effort to hijack the presidential election. The problem is not with the laws, but the people.

It is time that we quit passing new laws and started obeying the laws already on the books. We are never going to achieve utopia, but we'd come a lot closer to it if we would concentrate on improving our behavior rather than our laws.

This knee-jerk response of proposing new laws for every imaginable difficulty is occurring with increasing frequency in our society. We are discouraged from focusing on violations of the campaign finance laws and gun control laws currently in force in favor of passing yet more laws in those are-as. Usually, advocates of new laws are trying to create a diversion from violations of existing laws.
The exponential proliferation of laws and regulations has the effect of cheapening the law itself and devaluing our system. It is born from the same mindset that sanctions judicial activism-he abhorrent practice of judges making (instead of interpreting) laws.
(bold mine)

We can clearly see what this is really all about.

*******

Update @ 8:27 a.m. P.T.:

Please read this important related article:

Wallbuilders: Republic vs. Democracy

3 comments:

Matt W. said...

Sadly, the push for Democracy is nothing new. For many years now people have been, wrongly, reffering to the US as a democracy, and have been touting, as you hear President Bush do on a regular basis, the establishment of democracies around the world. From my earliest memory I can recall my Dad trying to set people straight on the matter, as I still do today, and just as clearly I can see the looks he (and now I) have recieved in return. For speaking the truth about what our nation is, and what it was always meant to be, people treat you like you are crazy. Even in comments on other posts here at Talk Wisdom I have pointed this out, and found that even those willing to admit that this country is a Constitutional Republic still claim that it's a democracy at heart, which, as you point out, and that article makes so clear, is not true.

Democracies will always trample the rights of the minority, or even a silent majority. No laws can protect anyone in a democracy from the will of the majority, and as the US moves closer to democracy, we move closer to our own destruction.

I hope that some eyes are opened by your post here Christine, but I fear that they will not. So comfortable some have become in their blinders, they wouldn't know what to do without them.

Matt W.

Christinewjc said...

I think that our government officials need a history lesson - especially when they are describing our nation.

What should we start calling our nation?

1. Democratic Republic (what it used to be called)

Or, to separate ourselves from the incorrect view that we are a "Democracy," perhaps use one of the following:

2. American Republic?

3. United States Republic?

4. United States of America Republic?

We could also put "Democratic" before the term "Republic" in the choices above. But it would be such a long description!

I wonder. Why is the term "Republic" so often ignored in the description of our nation these days?

After reading the Wallbuilders article, I think we find the exact answer:

A pure democracy operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A republic differs in that the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation. A democracy is the rule by majority feeling (what the Founders described as a "mobocracy" 12); a republic is rule by law. If the source of law for a democracy is the popular feeling of the people, then what is the source of law for the American republic? According to Founder Noah Webster:
[O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.13

Matt W. said...

Well, I don't know if what we call it matters all that much. At this time it is called the United States of America. What our nation is, in fact, is a Constitutional Republic. Rule by law witht the Constitution being the supreme Law which no others may contradict (the fact that they do is because of ignorance and apathy on the part of both the people and the elected officials).

If you wanted to have something else to call it, may I suggest that the most accurate description would be "The United States of the American Republic."

I would leave "Democratic" out for the simple reason that it is confustion, especially with all the attention that has been given to "Democracy" for years, even decades, now.

When Benjamin Franklin was asked, following the Constitutional Convention, what the Founding Fathers had given to the people, he responded, "A Republic, if you can keep it." According to Richard R. Beeman, Ph.D. "The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health."