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!!
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
You can take your "democracy" and put where the sun don't shine!
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.
Oh, no it's not. What's flawed is liberal thinking, if you'll forgive the overstatement.
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.
Another way to alter the dynamics of the Electoral College is to change the limit on the number of Representatives in the House. Originally, there was a formula for determining the number of representatives based on population per district. The early sessions of Congress had far fewer representatives, thus fewer Electoral College votes, thus a smaller target number to win the Presidency. At some point, the number of Representatives in the House was locked in at 435 (creating the 270 EV threshold), but the nation's population continues to grow.
Maybe we should rethink the 435 limit. How would increasing the size of the House of Representatives affect the Electoral College?
-PJ
Oh goodie. I want to play to. How about we amend the Constitution to say we don't need two liberal nuts from California proposing amendments to the Constitution?
Do you think We The People will let the Big Cities like Chicago and Philadelphia pick our Presidents???
If so .. YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND!
I got California State Grange policy changed on this at state convention this year.
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.
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.