Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FEINSTEIN WILL MOVE TO ABOLISH ELECTORAL COLLEGE - (They'll never give in or give UP!)
USGOV.INFO.COM ^ | DECEMBER 27, 2004 | ROBERT LONGLEY

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.”


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: abolish; college; directvote; electionpresident; elections; electoral; electoralcollege; judiciarycmte; rats; senatebill; senfeinstein; sorelosers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-191 next last
To: Ready4Freddy
Ready4Freddy said: "The Framers didn't expect slates of electors to be beholden to political parties - they wanted the electors to be able to vote for whomever they wanted. "

I'm sure that they didn't ignore the fact that electors would be elected based on which candidate the electors favored. Being beholden to political parties is just a consequence of needing to win in order to rule. The solution to this problem was to limit the power of government. Our Founders did that. Treasonous Supreme Courts have defeated it.

81 posted on 12/29/2004 6:19:12 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

Comment #82 Removed by Moderator

To: Hu Gadarn

Understand.

One interesting debate is whether the feds should mandate that universal standards be applied to vote counting / tabulation in federal elections. This would be done to try to eliminate the BS we have seen in the local election recount in King County, and in the Florida election debacle in 2000.

Of course, this then involves a fundamental infringement of states rights, in how each state chooses to conduct its elections.

Its an interesting topic for debate IMHO.


83 posted on 12/29/2004 6:22:48 PM PST by Dat Mon (will work for clever tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Feinstein is a Crazy lunatic. SOMEONE in California has got to be able to run this crazy nut out of office...

Visit the ANTI-DNC Web Portal at --->
http://www.noDNC.com

Radical new changes coming in a few weeks!!


84 posted on 12/29/2004 6:23:52 PM PST by woodb01 (See the ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kaxemma
EC votes are determined by population. Again, I come back to the point that Bush won the popular vote by several million. Why, in this day and age, should we defer to the EC on this issue? A few hundred thousand votes the other way in Ohio and Kerry would have won -- notwithstanding the popular vote in favor of Bush.

You missed the point. I doublechecked my assumption, did some research, and believe I'm right about how the number of electoral votes each state has is determined. Representatives are determined by population, however, Senators are not. So in essence, regardless of your population, you only get two electoral votes for your senate representation, whether you're Alaska or New York. It's the equalizer clause that the founding fathers intended.

Getting rid of the electoral college would primarily be like subtracting two electoral votes from your state's influence in presidential elections.
85 posted on 12/29/2004 6:26:51 PM PST by Thoro (Those who forget history are doomed to vote democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969
It will never happen. There are too many small states whose representation in the Electoral College is larger in proportion to their population. Voting for this amendment would reduce their citizen's voting power. Why would they do that? Since an amendment needs 38 states to pass, it's just not going to happen.

BINGO! The purpose of the Electoral College -- and the Senate -- is to protect minority rights by giving smaller states a greater vote than their strict proportional shares of the population would warrant. In 1770, the five largest colonies (VA, PA, MA, NC, MD) comprised 63% of the total colonial population. The eight smaller colonies rightly feared domination by the larger few until the Senate and the Electoral College were devised to protect their minority interests. Today, the imbalance is even greater -- in 2000, only 15 of the largest states comprise 65% of the total U.S. population!

Fortunately, the 70% of the states which hold only 35% of the popular votes are not about to surrender their powers under the Constitution.

86 posted on 12/29/2004 6:29:13 PM PST by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ready4Freddy
The Framers didn't expect slates of electors to be beholden to political parties - they wanted the electors to be able to vote for whomever they wanted.

Now how do you know that? The Founders made sure the states could select the electors in any manner they chose. In fact, we didn't even have direct election of electors until the 1800s. And I'm sure it didn't take long for states to figure out that to maximize their influence on the election, they should assign all their electors to a single candidate.

87 posted on 12/29/2004 6:29:17 PM PST by mcg1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
I don't see why they waste their time.

They don't have any GOOD ideas. All they care about is the Dem party.

88 posted on 12/29/2004 6:31:12 PM PST by lonestar (Me, too!--Weinie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #89 Removed by Moderator

To: Wolfstar
No, actually they'd love it. Why? Because a few densely populated cities on both coasts will rule the nation forever more. Those cities are all that's left of the Left/Dem power base.

You are right, but like them, you are looking only at the surface. What will happen is that the cities will elect the President and it will encourage both parties to put forward their most liberal candidate.

For awhile, city liberalism will reign supreme. But the people in flyover country will seek to balance it, and stop the liberal onslaught, in the only way they can....by driving the liberals out of power where they DO have control.

I suspect you would see that the divisions we see now would be nothing. Right now, we see some conservative Democrats elected in rural areas, and some liberal Republicans elected in high density areas. I think that would cease. I think the Democratic Party would effectively cease to exist in the red states and the Republican Party would cease to exist in blue areas.

I think the Senate would go Republican in a huge way. Even if they kill the electoral college, people in the red would figure out that they could control things somewhat by controlling the Senate and presenting a united face (sort of like the South did pre-Civil War).

Then you would see the rise of sectionalism again in our legislative bodies and the red section feeling that they were screwed every time in the Presidential arena and the blues feeling they were being screwed out of their utopia in the Senate. A house divided against itself and all that....

I think, even Democrats, in the long run would regret eliminating the electoral college since it would finally completely push them out of the rest of the country and into enclaves in the cities. Its a sure way that they can enshrine their party as nothing but a party of the city.

They are of course too power hungry and dumb to realize this right now.
90 posted on 12/29/2004 6:34:21 PM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Sen. Feinstein announces that Democrats no longer respect the concept of States.

In a way, I see this as a Separation of Powers issue. On the one hand, the Electoral College is the State representation of the Executive Branch. On the other hand, the Senate is the State representation in the Legislative Branch. The Congress already threw away its own State representation with the passing of the 17th amendment. Now the Congress wants to take away the States' representation in the Executive Branch, too?

Someone should argue that the Legislation is tampering with the Executive Branch, which is a Separation of Powers issue.

-PJ

91 posted on 12/29/2004 6:34:21 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
HEY Pistol Packin' Mama!

You can take your "democracy" and put where the sun don't shine!

92 posted on 12/29/2004 6:34:28 PM PST by Studebaker Hawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
If she really wanted to do something she could work inside California to have us moved to a proportional electoral vote. That is, if she was really concerned about disenfranchising those who vote for the loser and candidates ignoring a state as large as CA because it's seen as a given.

But this idea of hers cannot stand... it would increase the likely event of endless court battles. How could you recount only state-by-state? We'd have to have recounts in every state to ensure there aren't another half million votes out there... And since those "faithless electors" are picked because of their party loyalty who's fault is it that a few voted for someone else?

93 posted on 12/29/2004 6:36:02 PM PST by newzjunkey (Demand Mexico Turnover Fugitive Murderers: http://www.escapingjustice.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: antiunion person
I have an easy resolution to our problems pertaining to demoRats. 1: Load all demoRats onto a huge ship, preferably one you don't mind losing.

I propose the Douglas Adams approach. ;) We build two giant spaceships and tell the liberals that a giant space goat is about to consume the earth and they need to board the first spaceship to escape, and we'll board the second one after they've left. Let them blast off, and we stay here.

I'm going to go clean my phone now. /obscure Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference off
94 posted on 12/29/2004 6:36:08 PM PST by Thoro (Those who forget history are doomed to vote democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
". . . today it is flawed and amounts to national elections being decided in several battleground states."

Ms. Feinstein doesn't even understand how a presidential election works. A presidential election is not a "national election" at all . . . it is a weighted combination of 50 individual state elections (plus the District of Columbia).

What I find most amusing about her complaint about the Electoral College system is that she has obviously realized the paradox in which she finds herself: She is entrenched in the U.S. Senate because California is such a consistently Democrat state, and yet this is precisely what makes it largely irrelevant in presidential elections.

The bitterness you hear in her comments comes from her realization that she'd be better off in a state that was 49.9% Republican.

95 posted on 12/29/2004 6:36:14 PM PST by Alberta's Child (If whiskey was his mistress, his true love was the West . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969

Go with the popular vote and Bush won big time, go by district and Bush would have had PA and from the looks of it a lot of NY too.


96 posted on 12/29/2004 6:37:58 PM PST by this_ol_patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kaxemma
That's right...senators have nada to do with population. Each state is 100% equal w/ respect to senators -- 2 each -- they have nothing to do with the EC.

They have everything to do with the EC. Each senator is worth one electoral vote. Without the EC, those electoral votes are gone, and that state's given up a tiny bit of equalizing power that it previously had.
97 posted on 12/29/2004 6:38:57 PM PST by Thoro (Those who forget history are doomed to vote democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969

That idea discussed in that thread is not the same as the elimination of the Electoral College. That thread contains some very interesting ideas about replacing a "winner takes all" system for each state with one in which candidates are awarded electoral votes based on congressional districts (and the candidate who gets the most votes statewide gets the two additional electoral votes for the two U.S. Senators). That's exactly how Maine and Nebraska already apportion their electoral votes.


98 posted on 12/29/2004 6:40:09 PM PST by Alberta's Child (If whiskey was his mistress, his true love was the West . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mcg1969

Read The Federalist Papers, 68 in particular.


99 posted on 12/29/2004 6:42:10 PM PST by Ready4Freddy (Carpe Sharpei !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Thoro
Don't panic.

-PJ

100 posted on 12/29/2004 6:42:21 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 181-191 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson