The Democrats want to give North Carolina’s Electoral College votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote nationwide. Instead of to the candidate who wins North Carolina. The Republicans of course are up in arms, making the Electoral College sound as sacrosanct as the College of Cardinals.
Is the Democratic plan partisan? Yes.
Does it help Hillary, Obama, and Edwards? Yes.
Would it have elected Al Gore? Yes.
Does it mean – as the News and Observer says – the triumph of direct democracy over the Founding Fathers Federal Republic. Yes.
But should Republicans argue that the candidate who receives the fewest votes in 2008 should be elected President? If I were a Democrat I’d welcome that debate.
I looked at the comments on the News and Observer’s blog about its editorial. One said, ‘Since our President will now be elected the same way Idol winners win (popular uninformed vote), you can expect all sorts of good candidates NOT to be elected.’
Imagine that debate.
Republican: The Electoral College will elect more qualified candidates.
Democrat: Let me get this right. A candidate wins a majority vote. And the Electoral College elects the loser. Because you say he is more qualified.
Another comment said, ‘Four candidates could split the vote in North Carolina and in theory the candidate who came in last could get all our state’s Electoral College votes.’
Think about that.
Republican: We’re looking out for North Carolina. We put North Carolina first.
Democrat: That sounds fine. But what about the other 300 million Americans? Are you saying we should force our candidate on them? Even if they voted against him?
Yes, this is a political power grab by the Democrats. But they’ve got a point. Do Republicans really want to argue that the candidate who loses should be President?
Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.