On one aspect of one issue….
Although I wouldn’t go as hyperbolic as him in calling HB 198 unAmerican or a vote stealing bill.
HB 198 is Delaware’s component legislation in a national effort to eliminate the electoral college. The measure who allocate Delaware’s electoral votes (as well as all other state’s electoral votes) to the winner of the popular vote, no matter who Delaware voters actually vote for. Basically, it is an end run around the Constitutionally established Electoral College. To change or abolish the Electoral College, you really need to pass a Constitutional Amendment, which is exceedingly difficult, and hence popular vote proponents are choosing a short cut. David is probably right that this short cut will not and does not pass constitutional muster.
Personally, I like the Electoral College, for I believe it is the best way to ensure a national Presidential campaign. While having the national popular vote determine our President is appealing, as it is the most democratic way to do things and would have assured that we never had to suffer under the horror that was President George W. Bush, it would also relegate presidential campaigns to only high population centers, like cities on both coasts, and leave the middle of the country ignored. Now, as a Democrat, that would benefit me since more Democrats than Republicans live on the coasts and in cities. But that doesn’t make it right.
If you want to change or abolish the Electoral College, you have to amend the Constitution. It is hard to do, but it is supposed to be hard to do. However, wanting to change the Electoral College is not unAmerican, David. It is the flip side to the coin of wanting to keep the Electoral College, and it is far past time you recognize that different opinions are held across this land than those contained in your religious fundamentalist mind. Most peculiar is David’s objections to plurality rule over majority rule. First, it should be noted that David even objects to majority rule and prefers supermajority rule (until of course the supermajority passes something David doesn’t like and then David will move on the the tyranny of the minority rule). But pluralities are common in elections, even in the United States. Bill Clinton was elected twice with a plurality, because both times there was a significant third party garnering between 9% and 20% of the vote. Al Gore was elected once with a plurality in 2000, because Ralph Nader’s third party garned enough votes. Richard Nixon was elected with a plurality in 1968, John Kennedy in 1960, Harry Truman in 1948, Woodrow Wilson in 1912 and 1916, Grover Cleveland in 1892 and 1884, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, James Garfield in 1880, Rutherford Hayes* in 1876….. and I could go on and on…. but all of these Presidents received only pluralities in the popular vote.
Indeed, the smallest plurality ever received by a President who still won the most popular and electoral votes was none other than a supposed hero of David Anderson, Abraham Lincoln, who only received 39% of the vote in 1860.
Pluralities are American. They are constitutional. They are what happens when you have more than 2 ideas or 2 candidates in an election. David’s aversion to them is odd, given our American history, but perhaps he wishes to rewrite history like his fellow conservatives in Texas so that pluralities never existed. If David just is a fan of majority rule, than I look forward to his support of the Senate Democrats against the obstructionist Republicans.
But I do agree with him on HB 198. Defeat that bill, Representatives.