Posted on 12/29/2004 5:15:20 PM PST by CHARLITE
Amendment would provide for direct popular election
Dateline: December 27, 2004
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) has announced that she will introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College system and provide for direct popular election of the President and Vice President when the Senate convenes for the 109th Congress in January.
“The Electoral College is an anachronism and the time has come to bring our democracy into the 21st Century,” Sen. Feinstein said in a press release. “During the founding years of the Republic, the Electoral College may have been a suitable system, but today it is flawed and amounts to national elections being decided in several battleground states.
“We need to have a serious, comprehensive debate on reforming the Electoral College.
"I will press for hearings in the Judiciary Committee on which I sit and ultimately a vote on the Senate floor, as occurred 25 years ago on this subject. My goal is simply to allow the popular will of the American people to be expressed every four years when we elect our President. Right now, that is not happening.”
In further denouncing the Electoral College system, Sen. Feinstein pointed out that under the current system for electing the President of the United States:
Candidates focus only on a handful of contested states and ignore the concerns of tens of millions of Americans living in other states.
A candidate can lose in 39 states, but still win the Presidency.
A candidate can lose the popular vote by more than 10 million votes, but still win the Presidency.
A candidate can win 20 million votes in the general election, but win zero electoral votes, as happened to Ross Perot in 1992.
In most states, the candidate who wins a state’s election, wins all of that state’s electoral votes, no matter the winning margin, which can disenfranchise those who supported the losing candidate.
A candidate can win a state’s vote, but an elector can refuse to represent the will of a majority of the voters in that state by voting arbitrarily for the losing candidate (this has reportedly happened 9 times since 1820).
Smaller states have a disproportionate advantage over larger states because of the two “constant” or “senatorial” electors assigned to each state.
A tie in the Electoral College is decided by a single vote from each state’s delegation in the House of Representatives, which would unfairly grant California’s 36 million residents equal status with Wyoming’s 500,000 residents.
In case of such a tie, House members are not bound to support the candidate who won their state’s election, which has the potential to further distort the will of the majority. “Sooner or later we will have a situation where there is a great disparity between the electoral vote winner and the popular vote winner. If the President and Vice President are elected by a direct popular vote of the American people, then every American’s vote will count the same regardless of whether they live in California, Maine, Ohio or Florida,” Sen. Feinstein said.
In the history of the country, there have been four instances of disputed elections where the President who was elected won the electoral vote, but lost the popular vote – John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888 and George W. Bush in 2000. According to some estimates there have been at least 22 instances where a similar scenario could have occurred in close elections.
“Our system is not undemocratic, but it is imperfect, and we have the power to do something about it,” Sen. Feinstein said. “It is no small feat to amend the Constitution as it has only been done only 27 times in the history of our great nation.”
ok
What's your point? Bush won just about every way you count it. But the only count that matters is the electoral vote, which is why he truly won in both 2004 and 2000.
Exactly right. And the voters of Colorado must have realized this last month when they rejected a similar dilution of their own influence.
Agreed, the threads are different. But the effect is basically to shift the voting power of the state to one that is more closely (albeit not exactly) related to the popular vote. No state that is truly interested in maximizing its power to influence the presidential election should want that.
This is not a matter of technology. You should study our history, you would know that 'true' democracies are unstable. Mobs rule. Look at the out of control French Revolution. Our forefathers studied history's lessons at length and explained the steadying role of the electoral college. Read the Federalist papers.
Just as an aside, our recent election touched on the the real threat to republican government. That foreign influences can topple them. Think George Soros.
Better idea -- Why don't you move out here with like-minded folks and help retake the state? :)
Thanks for the warning.
We get about 70 cents back on every dollar sent to the Feds . . .
Based on the contents of the paragraph above, I contend that reducing California's "return" on Federal taxes to 0 cents on every dollar you folks send to Washington would be the best thing to happen to this country.
Oh, no it's not. What's flawed is liberal thinking, if you'll forgive the overstatement.
I don't think they've reduced their political power at all, for two reasons: 1) they only have four electoral votes apiece anyway, and 2) it is extremely rare (if it has ever happened at all) for the losing candidate to win one electoral vote in either state.
We do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Representative Republic.
It figures that The Distinguished Idiot from California, Ms. Feinstein would introduce legislation for Mob Ru......er.....I mean, Majority Rule.
Sheer lunacy.
Yes, just as happened with Bush in 2000.
But that's never been an unknown scenario, and just because there are occasional unusual occurrences within the system doesn't mean that it's the best system (so far designed) to TRY and make sure that the small states aren't ruled by a couple of big states.
It's not perfect, but far better than a straight popular vote in the framers opinion (and I happen to agree.)
And I think a concept that isn't taught well is one made earlier on this thread. It isn't a "national" presidential election where the "extra votes" beyond winning from California - counts against a vote in Wyoming.
Horrors!
Heaven help us all..
Smart guys, those founders. And shrewd bargainers, those small colonies.
This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.The point being that the people (at the time, through their State legislatures) would select the electors in a manner that each state saw fit. So again, seeking to maximize their influence on the election, it seems almost tautological that eventually the electors would be chosen to vote for a particular candidate, and to maximize a state's influence, a single candidate should be chosen.
Sure, the Founders did not necessarily know exactly how it would work out. But they didn't have to. Instead they constructed a minimal framework that ensured fairness and separation of powers, while leaving as much freedom to the states as possible. Thus it is entirely within the Founders' general intent, I argue, for the states to decide to select electors they way they do now. It is entirely consistent with their desire to maximize the power of the states over the central government.
States that have looser voting standards (no photo-id, vote as many times as you like, dead voters OK etc) will have a louder voice. Thus if the states continue to run the elections, they will continue to loosen standards to compete with states that tend to favor what tends to be their opposition party. On the other hand if the feds took over to keep everything uniform, then it just takes one highly corrupt political cartel to get in the White House once to become a virtual dictatorship.
Because with some of my firearms I would be an instant criminal as soon as I take them across your borders lol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.