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.”
Its a matter of incentive. An exagerated illustration:
Lets say that me and all my bear friends form a corrupt political party called the Beartopians. Then we all move to Rhode Island, and take the place over. In the next presidential election Condoiza Rice(R) gets 55 million votes, Hillary Clinton(D) gets 50 million votes, AndyTheBear(B) somehow got 260 million votes (almost exclusivly from Rhode Island). Although fraud is suspected, we have the Rhode Island legislature and supreme court (dominated by corrupt Beartopians) review and certify the election. Under the EC system, we would only get 2 lousy votes no matter how badly we cheated, but under the popular vote, cheating is richly rewarded.
The President is the president of the States -- not of the people. Each of the States holds its own election to decide which candidate will receive its electoral votes. Then, the States choose their President.
Ours is a system of balanced interests and powers. The people are represented in the House of Representatives. The States are represented in the Senate. To elect the President, the Electoral College compromises the interests of the people and the States by combining each state's representation in the House and Senate in a winner-take-all election within each state. Beats the heck out of a mob.
The limit is that the fraud cannot extend beyond that state into the votes of other states. Say a team cheated and stole one game in the World Series by a margin of ten runs...
If all that mattered was the number of runs scored in all of the games, the fraud could affect the whole Series. But since this is a series, the margin of victory in one game does not matter, and the bad guys will have only stolen one game. The EC is much like the World Series...
I got California State Grange policy changed on this at state convention this year.
The operative word here is; EMBARRASSED.....to wear the American flag on her lapel! Now, she wants to alter the American Constitution???!!!
Exactly. The Dems would claim all over the country voter intimidation, long lines, lack of translators, etc. etc. etc. The follow with recount after recount after recount, coordinating nationally until, like WA, they have found (manufactured) enough votes.
No matter how you cut it Bush won but with the cheating being done in the cities some of us think they have way too much power and representation. PA was labeled as a blue state when in fact most of the state's landowners and taxpayers voted for Bush. I'm getting tired of my vote being cancelled out by some wino in Philly.
With the caveat that this not turn into a popular vote question but rather that rural areas be given back the equal representation they once had. When one city can nullify all the votes in the rest of the state something is wrong.
"Fortunately, the 70% of the states which hold only 35% of the popular votes are not about to surrender their powers under the Constitution."
The "DUmmies" and those like them probably think there is a way to bypass the states to get this done....they know what's best. [sarcasm]
"...that cannot also be said of the United States Senate."
Exactly.
It amazes me that most who don't like the Electoral College can't see that the Senate is very similar in its structure. Would Feinstein be in favor of abolishing the Senate?
Should the Senate be up for direct vote?
All right, Dammit. That does it. This woman has to go! I've put up with Feinstein as the lesser of two evils, but this is the end. I vow, here and now, that I will work to unseat this Senator in the next election just as hard as I worked to re-elect Bush. Dianne, your day is over. Start packing.
What about those red states that have two or 3 red areas in a sea of blue. Isn't there something wrong with that picture? If Philly had been in New Jersey Bush would have won PA each time. One city determined how the all state's electoral votes were cast.
This "debate" went back and forth for a bit, till the anchor said, "time's almost up". That's when the anti-prop woman pulled the trigger on her opponent.
She pointed out, why should Coloradans support this measure, when it owes it's existance entirely to people and money imported from California?
The pro-prop woman gave the only response she could - a wry smile that signaled the point's veracity, and the fact that there was no response to be made.
It was clear, to me anyway, who won that mini-debate.
CA....
Its has NO chance of passage. Let's recognize it for what it really is: an attempt to take away the Republican advantage in the Electoral (small states in Flyover Country have nearly 70% of the votes required to elect a President) College and allow the Democrats to dominate the election by winning the big coastal states (like New York and California) and hence the popular vote.
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.