God forbid the president should be chosen by a plurality of voting citizens, rather than by a platoon of election lawyers. By all means, let's do everything in our power to make sure another farce like the 2000 election remains a possibility.

As for Milwaukee, gee, I wonder how you would find something like that out...

Angryclown tried a search on the "Inter-Net," that new-fangled machine invented by Al Gore. Short answer: those responsible were fired, indicted, pleaded guilty. For some reason the low-level voter registration workers - who were getting paid a per-registation fee - failed to implicate Kerry, Dean or anybody above themselves, but that is just more evidence of conspiracy, I suppose.

http://www.jsonline DOT com/story/index.aspx?id=401262&date=2/13/2006

Good Lord, you right-wing kooks are milking Milwaukee even harder than Ruby Ridge. It makes sense, though. Otherwise you don't really have anything to stack up against the wholesale, organized disenfranchisement of voters by your party.

The Electoral College must be kept. New York has too much national influence now. Hey, how about doing away with the two Senator per state plan too, while we're at it? Give New York five. Or Eight? Heck, just give Chuckie and Hillary multiple votes.
It's called State's rights. There are 49 besides the Empire State (well chosen nickname, I might add).

So you'd rather give the toothless red state hicks even more control over the country, eh Kerm? Good call on the states' rights issue though. That was a really viable argument, you know, up until Grant hunted down Lee's army of traitors in Virginia in 1865.

Grant was a Republican. Grant was elected President. The electoral college was involved somehow.

If voting machines are so all-fired wonderful - which they are not - for counting votes, then the electoral college should be a thing of the past. They just have to figure out how to keep big money bribes out of the mix, and elections may once again be free, fair, and "pre-2000." I am of the opinion that corrupt Democrats are just as likely to buy ballots as corrupt Republicans, so those doling out the machines have to be the incorruptible ones. Good luck.

"But now comes a gaggle of bipartisan reformers with a cheeky idea worth considering."

If that line wasn't written by Nick Coleman. . .

"So you'd rather give the toothless red state hicks even more control over the country, eh Kerm?"

No, equal control.

So did you study bigotry somewhere? For all your talk about right-wingers you seem to have elevated prejudice and narrow mindenedness to an artform.

Clown has excelled at Red State bigotry since he first started haunting this blog.

He also likes it up the butt, from what I've heard.

"If voting machines are so all-fired wonderful - which they are not - for counting votes"

Nobody has discussed voting machines. It is completely off-topic and irrelevant.

I think that computerized voting machines are a lousy idea, FWIW. Paper ballots are the only way to go.

So, the Strib wants us to agree to send electors who will, alledgedly, reflect the popular vote? Does the Strib realize that that Electoral College electors can vote for whomever they please? Does the Strib realize that electors are selected by their local parties for their likely commitment to their party (i.e. they are highly partisan)? Or that since the state is prevented from forcng the electors to cast votes in any particular direction this whole compact idea is a pipedream?

If the Strib wants "compete in states that are predictably red or blue" it would push proportional representation in the Electoral College electors as is done in Maine and Nebraska rather than winner-takes-all like the other states do. That would then open up more states to more campaigning. That can be realized with just changes to state laws and requires no compacts. But here we face the Prisoner's Dilemma in that each battleground state maximizes its attractiveness by having a winner takes all system, while those tightly bound partisan states (NY and CA, for example) would have their partisan ruler's interests put at risk.

Paper ballots and picture IDs. It could almost be a slogan.

Since the topic was presidential selection by Electoral College, I say again Why should New York have more of a say than Montana or North Dakota? The president represents ALL 50 states, while Congress represents them in their singularity based on population. Fair enough. Maybe the question should be "Why maintain 50 soveriegn states at all?" We could have Atalatic Liberalia, Dixie, Jesusland and New New Mexico.

It ain't broke. Don't fix it.

Can someone explain to me how this "shift of 60,000 votes" works? Does that mean that 60,000 people who voted for Bush in Ohio on Tuesday's election day would rush to the county auditor's office on Wednesday and ask to have their ballot back? Is that how it works?

Votes don't "shift". Peole vote the way they vote. However, if candidate X can get 60,001 more supporters to the polls, he/she can erase a 60,000 vote deficit. There's no "shifting" involved. Just old fashioned getting more of your supporters to the polls than the other candidate.

This talk of the "shift of 60,000 votes" makes for a good political theatrical sound bite and is a great loser's lament, but as a practical matter (and politics after all is the art of the practical) I can't figure out that would work.

Kermit babbled: "Why should New York have more of a say than Montana or North Dakota?"

Gee, I don't know Kermit. Maybe cause it has millions more people than those two cousin-humpin' wastelands.

Thank Jeebus that our founding fathers had the foresight to realize douchebags like Angryclown would one day emerge so they put in place the electoral college.

Angryclown stammered "Gee, I don't know Kermit. Maybe cause it has millions more people than those two cousin-humpin' wastelands."

To which I would suggest Angryclown go get hisself a heapin' helpin of the Federalist papers and actually learn something about the country he lives in.
Use the internet. "It's not just for surfing porn".

Angryclown shows himself to be the douche' bag he is....

Personally California and New York and Chicago has too much influence and feeds at the neck like good vampires the "blue states" are like....

Love the Electoral College since it makes a candidate have to campaign in the small states as the large...all angryclown douche' bags political elites would try to rule the country from the cities....a sure recipe for civil war...(great though since were can cut off your cities and socialist machines just by cutting food, water, electricity and rail service....all items that come from "red states")

I don't understand all they hype. For two hundred plus years, voters have voted for electors. Despite the common miscomception, voters are not voting for a president. It seems that some people may have been gone from civics class on that day. Welcome to the wonderful concept of living in a republic, not a democracy. We have a democratically elected republican form of government. Is that such a hard concept to understand. It must be.

And, if we are going to do away with the Electoral College, why not also get rid of members of the House being elected by Congressional District (I know its not exactly the same, but its somewhat similar). Don't you know its not fair for those people who live in those rural "wastelands" to have a bigger share of voting power than those who choose to live in the higher populated areas.

Wow...so much to comment upon:

To the clown: Sorry, Sparky, but we do live in something called a "Representative Republic" where states rights DO still mean something (although you sometimes wonder). Our country is comprised of 50 states who have equal rights...where they are the blue-color commie variety or the freedom loving red-color. Our Founding Fathers devised this system of goverment to SPECIFICALLY stop the tyranny of a few states using their populations to ram a dictatorship down the other states throats.

If you can't understand this, go look at the writings about how the House and Senate were put together.

As far as the RedStar Tribune goes, the term "sour grapes" hardly describes their editorial board, which probably pops Prozac like Pez. But if you listen closely, that Idiot-riddled editorial board actually is saying that state should literally CONSPIRE to ignore their constituant's votes. I wonder if the RedStar would also have supported...oh...a grouping of small-population southern states...about 100 years ago...who conspired together after losing the 1860 presidential elections? Hmmm....sounds like the editorial board boobs would be on the side of the slave holders conspiring to protect their states....huh?

Well I must say, it's difficult to argue with your Constituional theory, Dave, Greg and Squirrel. Mostly because it's hard to decipher your incoherent ramblings. It's clear, however, that you're much impressed by the fact the Electoral College dates from a time when one could own black people and when the three of you would likely be long dead of syphilis. Angryclown does not share your right-wing superstition that, if it's old and antidemocratic, it must be a good thing.

It looks like the Strib finally got around to following it's marching orders from New York. The NY Times had an op-ed 2 weeks ago that was pretty much verbatim what the Strib wrote. I didn't get around to writing anything on it until early this morning, before I had a chance to read the Strib. When I was doing a little research into the subject for it, I found this little site (below). AC - I think you should go read exactly WHY the Founding Fathers set up the electoral college the way that they did. Their reasoning worked then and it works now.

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

We don't want to own black people, angry', I think of you on the leash for walkies is a better picture....

...of course you may like that....

The Electoral College...infurating the city intellectual for 200 years....and preserving us country bumpkins.

"That was a really viable argument, you know, up until Grant hunted down Lee's army of traitors in Virginia in 1865."

Hey, AC - have you ever read "Gotham" by Mike Wallace (not THAT Mike Wallace, a different one) and Ed Burroughs?

It's amazing; New York and New Yorkers supported the "traitors" in the South (for purely business reasons) by a staggering margin! Douglass swept NYC by a margin that John Kerry could only envy! The typical New Yorker either condoned slavery because New York was the fiscal beneficiary, or because they just hated black people.

But you knew that, right?

Yes, all that is more or less correct. (You forget to mention the draft riots, one of the most outrageous examples of public disorder in U.S. history.)

But unlike the fans of your blog, I don't feel the need to defend foolish decisions made by people who are long dead.

"(You forget to mention the draft riots, one of the most outrageous examples of public disorder in U.S. history.)"

Didn't forget; just didn't feel the need to go into encyclopedic detail about NYC's history of racist mob action.

"But unlike the fans of your blog, I don't feel the need to defend foolish decisions made by people who are long dead. "

Right. Because you have a specialty - the kissin' cousin joke - and there's much work to do!

Dave is spot-on: What the Strib is asking for is for the electors of states in the compact to ignore the will of their own electorate and vote for the winner of the national popular election.
Let's say, for example, that MN votes blue.
The blue candidate loses the national popular election but would win the electoral college vote.
However, as a member of the compact MN's electors are bound ignore their electorate and vote red?

You're right, I think ANYONE in MN would be upset by that at all.
If you can't beat the Constitution, usurp and ignore it.

“The popular vote almost always synchs up with reality; 2004 was an aberration.”

Mitch, I think that you meant to write that “2000 was an aberration,” if your argument is that the presidential candidate who wins the electoral vote usually also wins the popular vote.

But I agree with your larger point, the electoral college was put in place as a partial check on the power of the larger States and also ensures that a presidential candidate has to do more than just GOTV in the six largest cities. Curiously though the Strib, which seems to be taking its marching orders from the NYT, seems to miss this point in suggesting that Minnesotans should endorse a “reform” that would make it virtually certain that presidential candidates would ignore more of the country in their campaigns in favor of just targeting the largest cities. All in the name of a “more perfect union” of course.

Clown,
Have you ever heard that we are a nation of states?

Under the plan states could gain more power over choosing the president by inflating their vote counts. States run the elections, with their own ID requirements, poll hours, ballot counters, etc. Example: Suppose candidate A won by 110k votes and one of the pact of states let felons or non-residents vote to the number of 100,000?
You'd have 50 Florida's instead of just one.
The Star-Tribune and the NYTimes must have the same crack dealer.

"Clown,
Have you ever heard that we are a nation of states?"

The greasepainted one thinks America ends at the Hudson River and has an island possesion called "Hollywood".
He's also incapable of answering pointed questions. Must be a New Yawk thing.

Jack,

When Democrats opine about 60,000 vote shifts what they are saying is this. "If we had just cheated more, bussed around more homeless guys and placed more Democrats as election judges we could have stolen another election"

Democrats in Washington, Wisconsin and South Dakota have it down, nationally they'll be training other Democrats how to steal elections in 2008.

Kermit asserted: "He's also incapable of answering pointed questions. Must be a New Yawk thing."

Actually Angryclown is incapable of answering questions from people with pointed heads, Zippy.

Sixty-Thousand, Schmixty-Thousand.. A mere 4500 or so votes in NH and it wouldn't have made a difference.. Two can play the rediculous hypothetical game that libs love.

Clown: Take a civics class. We're not a Democracy...we're a Representative Republic.

But you sure are right...wasting any actual intelligent conversation on the ravings of the StarTrib editorial board on you is probably not needed. You can't comprehend our form of government...which is a fine example of our schools putting out skulls like yours, loaded with oatmeal.

Grrrr. I wrote: You're right, I think ANYONE in MN would be upset by that at all.
I meant: You're right, I DON'T think ANYONE in MN would be upset by that at all.
Anyhoo, my point is the overall stupidity of a state's legislature conspiring with other states to thwart the will of its electorate.

Lordy, Clown of Anger, from the looks of things above, you just got gangbanged by some toothless red state hicks. (Metaphorically speaking, of course).

If there was ever a more thorough, completely damning indictment of our public school system, it is the failure of so many people to comprehend the fundamental necessity of the Electoral College to self-government. To argue against it is to argue in favor of mob rule via popular opinion -- you know, like the French did in 1789.

That went well, eh?

I don't think we should be so hard on Ass Clown. After all he has a point. It's like I've said for 14 years now, and Ass Clown will agree with me, that The Minnesota Twins didn't deserve to win the 1991 World Title. Why? Well, they were out scored by the Braves 29 to 24. Wouldn't you agree, Ass Clown?

Democrats in:
1992-"We have 370 electoral votes! The 57% of the votes cast for someone else are meaningless! We win!
1996-"This time we got 379 electoral votes! The 51% of the votes cast for someone else are meaningless! We win!"
2000:"We lost the electoral vote 271-266 but we won the popular vote! We wuz robbed!"
2004:"We lost the electoral vote 286-252, but if only 60,000 more people would have voted for Kerry in Ohio we would have gained 20 elecoral votes even though we lost the popular vote by almost 3,000,000! We wuz robbed again!"

Eracus pontificated: "fundamental necessity of the Electoral College to self-government."

"Necessity" Eracus? So I guess they must have the Electoral College in Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany, Japan, Spain, Italy.... well, you get the idea.

Wait, you probably don't. You're not very bright!

"I guess they must have the Electoral College in Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Germany, Japan, Spain, Italy."

Parliaments have no chief executive (or a very weak or symbolic one); the comparison is invalid.

But then, given your field, I thought you'd know that.

Are you just trying to be difficult again?

Please read again what Eracus, long-winded cracker-barrel philosopher of the North, wrote: "fundamental necessity of the Electoral College to self-government." You may wish to jump in to give him an argument that's a little less stupid than the one he made, but I addressed the argument he made. 'Kay?

Yeah, I know - he mis-wrote.

But defending the rights of the minority from the majority *is* what that EC is about. It's worked well; the only reason to tinker with it is to give full political control of the nation to the people with the money and the clout (which would be the Star Tribune, among others).

He miswrites because he misthinks.

Ah, so the Star-Tribune is in charge, eh? Interesting how you flit back and forth between arguing that the "dead-tree media" is either irrelevant or all-powerful, depending on the point you're trying to advance.

I'd always thought the people with the money and power were, you know, people with money. And power. You know, like the Republican Party, which controls all three branches of the federal government. Or their corporate backers, which dominate the economic life of the country. But I guess the real power remains with the Star-Tribune and the ACLU.

Until you need to scapegoat them for a different purpose, anyway.

Ass Clown ducks another one like I was a tax collector trying to repo his house. Avoid that which doesn't help your lies. The point is that there is no ONE popular vote and you know that. It's a Democrat/Media creation. There are 50 popular votes. You don't get to add them up. That was Terry's point. You lefty kooks sure loved the electoral college when it worked for Bubba. Now...boohoo, I don't like the rules. You know the funny thing is that you'll change your tune when it works to your advantage down the road.

What three branches of government would you be refurring to Clown? The executive, the house and the senate? There's a ringing endorsement for your public education. The last time I checked the three branched of government were the executive, the legislative and the judicial. If memmory serves me, the judicial still has a 5 to 4 majority of liberals sitting there which means that the Republicans don't control all three branches. Ooops, what's that smell? Oh, I know, the Clown just got burned.

Pube: I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you. I read your scattershot post and judged that there are just too many foolish assertions that fail to address anything in Angryclown's posts. So I don't have any intention of responding to them - for many of the same reasons Angryclown doesn't play tennis against 5-year-olds. It looks silly. And winning brings no satisfaction.

Here's a couple thoughts for next time: narrow down your points to one or two. State them intelligibly. And make sure they have something to do with Angryclown's post.

Work on improving your game, Pube, and maybe one day you can play with Angryclown. :)

Kermit asserted: "He's also incapable of answering pointed questions. Must be a New Yawk thing."

Actually Angryclown is incapable of answering questions from people with pointed heads, Zippy.
Posted by angryclown at March 27, 2006 04:42 PM

Well, Harpo, there's just no denying such a forceful argument, now is there?
"I can't answer the question, so...so...your a poopyhead!" (er, pointyhead. What's the dif?)
What an intellect.

Congrats, Pube, that second post shows improvement! It's stupid, but it's on-point. As a result, Angryclown will grant you the favor of a response.

Seven of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents. Large majorities of the judges on federal appeals courts and federal trial courts were appointed by Republicans.

"Burned." Dumbass.

Your a legend in you own mind. The SCOTUS rules 5/4 liberally. Split hairs if you want, my point still stands.

Oh, dear. I neglected the little clown's need for expressed assistance from each thought to the next. Hence, the infantile tempest. My bad.

I should have written, "fundamental necessity of the Electoral College to our form of self-government." You know, as explicitly documented and amended in the U.S. Constitution some 200 years ago. Certainly most readers understood the inference, but such an abstraction would understandably be lost upon someone coddled since gradeschool and still playing dress-up. Desperately clinging to the idea of democracy as practiced in Mr. Sullivan's 3rd period gym class to decide between kickball and jumping rope, the concepts of a representative republic with an electoral college is obviously too vast for him to grasp. This is no doubt why he's so angry.

This was an oversight on my part and I sincerely apologize to everyone. At least my mistake will help serve to illustrate the great need for even more cultural sensitivity towards this poor angry clown and others like him, none of whom seem to have any idea who they are, where they came from, or where they are living. We should all remember just as it's not Quiet Time without the milk and cookies, any thought not explicitly expressed will ever stir in the mind of this angry clown.

Again, my apologies to all. Have another cookie, AC, the sandman's on his way!

You'd think that somewhere in all your windbaggery you'd be able to make a point, Eracus, without forcing poor Mitch to come to your rescue.

But now I understand. You were limiting yourself to the *American* form of self-government. I should have guessed that from your use of the French Revolution to support your argument. I guess the Electoral College is all that stands between us and the tumbrils, right Perfesser? Of course you still make no allowance for the many liberal democracies that lack the Electoral College but somehow manage to avoid the Terror.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of Eracus..."

No, I was only referring to the liberal democracy formed under the United States Constitution, a point which still seems to elude you, and which must be a document you have apparently never bothered to read.

The sentences are kinda long, afterall, and have lots of commas. No doubt it's way over your head.

Just a quick point. The fact that a justice or judge is appointed by a Republican or Democrat is not determinative of their judicial philosophy. Sometimes it may be an indicator, but there are plenty of examples where it played no role.

Is there anyone who does not like [url=http://www.bib6.com/big-tits/]big asian tits[/url] ?