I can't believe people even listen to former vice president Al Gore anymore. In light of his obvious continual promotion of the lie of global warming, which has made him big money, there are some people who continue to want to hear from him. However, now Gore has gone completely out on a limb and sawed it off behind him as he continues to hold sour grapes over the election of 2000. Now Gore is pressing for an end to the very thing that cost him the election, the Electoral College.

Gore wants a popular vote instead. In other words, he wants unadulterated democracy or mob rule.

“I’ve seen how these states (battleground states) are written off and ignored, and people are effectively disenfranchised in the presidential race. And I really do now think it is time to change that,” Gore said on Current TV.

Maybe this all came up as a result of the Republican platform which reads,

“We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose “national popular vote” would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency.”

The Hill reports on Gore's thinking in the matter:

Gore said he supported the Electoral College even after the 2000 election, in which he won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College vote by 271-266 to George W. Bush. He has since had a change of heart.

“The logic is it knits the country together and prevents regional conflicts and goes back through our history with some legitimate concerns,” he said.

One proposal to change the system is through a constitutional amendment, which has been suggested numerous times but never gained traction. In the House, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) sponsored legislation that would provide for direct election of the president. It has attracted 29 Democratic co-sponsors but hasn’t made it out of committee.

Gore, on the other hand, said there is another route to take.

“It is always tough to amend the Constitution and risky to do so, but there is a very interesting movement under way that takes it state by state that may really have a chance of succeeding,” he said.

A Constitutional Amendment would be in order if one was going to change the Electoral College to a popular vote. Currently the Electoral College is made up of 538 electors. One needs 270 of those to become president.

Understand that the Electoral College is not perfect, but there is definitely wisdom in the Electoral College. As a good friend of mine, Shea Bernard, has pointed out the problem is in how the states present their electorates. The problem is that the electorates of the individual states basically are named in a popular vote. In other words, if a candidate wins the state, they are not give electorates proportionally, but they get all of the electorates. In my opinion, this ends up being a popular vote in the state and not representative of the people.

If you're going to change how things are done, it needs to be that electorates are presented to the Electoral College to each candidate in proportion to the percentage of votes they got. For instance, a Democrat wins 40 percent of the vote in a state and a Republican wins 60%. If the state has 20 electoral votes, then they should be proportioned out with twelve going to the Republican and 8 going to the Democrat. This is much more consistent with the "will of the people" rather than the "popular vote theory.

I don't see how red states would ever vote to Amend the Constitution that would, in affect, cut off their voice in presidential elections. The Constitution, Article V, states how the process of amending is to be conducted as follows:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Here's how the process works:

To Propose Amendments

In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.

Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

To Ratify Amendments

Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or

Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.

I would say that to get three fourths of the states to approve such an amendment as Gore wants will be a daunting task. Possibly he should just go back to trying to convince people about fictitious global warming while driving around in his SUV.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.