Posted on 01/06/2005 7:06:55 AM PST by EA_Man
Electoral College must go say Chafee and Feinstein
The senators support legislation and a subsequent constitutional amendment eliminating the 18th-century method of electing presidents.
01:00 AM EST on Thursday, January 6, 2005 BY SCOTT MacKAY Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE -- In a bipartisan alliance to abolish the Electoral College, Rhode Island Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee said yesterday he will join California Democrat Sen. Diane Feinstein's proposal to get rid of the electoral system used to choose U.S. presidents and replace it with a one-person, one-vote popular plebisicite.
Feinstein said recently she will introduce legislation to eliminate the Electoral College, which has its roots in the 18th century, and use the popular vote to determine the White House victor.
Chafee said in an interview yesterday that the Electoral College makes too many voters irrelevant in the modern presidential election process. Rhode Island, seen as a staunchly Democratic state in presidential politics, has received virtually no attention from major party presidential candidates in recent election cycles, Chafee said.
"Under the current system, the only states that get any candidate visits are the battleground states," said Chafee. "As a Rhode Islander . . . I'd like to see the presidential candidates make an investment in Rhode Island. The last election came down to just Ohio and Florida."
What is more, Chafee said, is that a tie in the Electoral College in a presidential election would push the decision into the House of Representatives, where each state would get one vote. That, Chafee said, would not be a representative system.
Chafee acknowledged that the legislation abolishing the Electoral College is not likely to receive serious attention from the Republican Senate leadership. "Its chances of seeing the light of day are slim . . . but it is the right thing to do."
The legislation will probably be introduced Jan. 24, the first day senators can submit legislation, said Howard Gantman, Feinstein's spokesman.
And despite popular support, the proposal would face a difficult path because it would require a constitutional amendment. It takes a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress and ratification by 38 states for an amendment to become law.
It is an irony of the 21st century that presidential elections in an era of the Internet and internationl jet travel are decided by the Electoral College, a system established by men -- no women were allowed to vote -- who communicated by quill pen and horseback mail and traveled by clipper ship.
The system was erected by the men who founded the United States in 1789 because they did not trust average citizens. Voting was restricted to white males who owned property. And they only allowed those voters to select one segment of the U.S. government -- the federal House of Representatives.
U.S. senators were chosen by legislatures until 1913, when popular election of senators was established. The founders established the Electoral College -- which in those days was made up of community and political leaders -- to pick the president.
The Electoral College has evolved into a system that favors small states -- those with fewer than 10 electoral votes -- and focuses presidential campaigns almost entirely on closely contested states.
Each state's electoral vote is determined by adding the number of representatives, which is determined by population, and senators. Each state gets two senators, so California, with more than 30 million residents, and Rhode Island, with about 1 million, each start with two electoral votes. The rest of each state's electoral votes are determined by the number of people living in a state, as measured every 10 years by the Census Bureau. In almost every state, electoral votes are awarded on a winner-take-all basis, meaning that a candidate who wins Rhode Island by 100,000 votes or 1 vote gets all of the state's 4 electoral votes.
The winner-take-all aspect means that major party presidential candidates do not really compete for every vote. Rather, they concentrate their campaigning and spending on the narrow number of states that public opinon polls show as competitive.
Thus, Rhode Island and Massachusetts, viewed as Democratic strongholds in most presidential elections, receive scant attention from major candidates. Rhode Island and Massachusetts have supported the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1988. Some of the urgency in changing the system has been drained away since the 2004 reelection of President Bush over Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, an election where the Electoral College results mirrored the popular vote. But in 2000, Bush, who was then the Texas governor, won the Electoral College by a 271-266 margin over former Vice President Al Gore. That disputed election went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld Mr. Bush's win despite Gore's victory by more than 500,000 in the popular vote.
There have been four disputed presidential elections in which the man elected president lost the popular vote -- John Q. Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison 1888 and Mr. Bush in 2000.
"The Electoral College is an anchronism and the time has come to bring our democracy into the 21st century," said Feinstein, in a statement. "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."
I think it's very funny how people fall all over themselves in an effort to be oppressed by the country that was founded by the evil white man.
Since they're advocating a direct violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution (states guaranteed a Republican form of government), I'm proposing that impeachment hearings begin immediately on these two idiots. [Maybe if we just gave them some Happy Meals with the inflatable "Dave the Barbarian" Viking helmet and sword they would just shut up and go away!]
The Senate accounts for regionalism in the legislative branch. That alone would leave the executive and judicial solely in the hands of densely populated areas (given their "blue" propensity, areas populated by the dense). The electoral college puts some regional, small state influence into the election of the president, and thus the appointment of the judiciary.
I have a counter-proposal for Boxer and Chafee: let's return to state legislatures electing senators!
It would take the 37 states that have 10 or less Electoral Votes to pass an Amendment that would disenfranchise themselves. Also while I am not a Constitutional scholar, maybe if Ann C. is trolling she could confirm this, but since the Electoral College is set in the Articles, are they not sacrosanct?
This idea will be DOA in Congress...MUD
Getting Kalifornia voters NOT to vote for Boxer and FINKstein is like getting Hannibal Lecter not to chow down on errant census takers!
2/3's of the house and senate. 75% of the states.
"It is an irony of the 21st century that presidential elections in an era of the Internet and internationl jet travel are decided by the Electoral College, a system established by men -- no women were allowed to vote -- who communicated by quill pen and horseback mail and traveled by clipper ship."
This has to be one of the dumbest sentences ever written. The right to free press, the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to assemble, the right to due process of law, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and all of the other rights we cherish were recognized in a document "established by men -- no women were allowed to vote -- who communicated by quill pen and horseback mail and traveled by clipper ship." Without the rights guaranteed to him by these politically incorrect and technologically backward men, this Scott McKay person would be bludgeoned with his own keyboard, and forbidden from ever inflicting his ignorance on others. As it is, all we can do is marvel at his stupidity.
Ironic how the Dims don't seem to understand the principles of the whole thing that actually allowed them to have a minority-view say in things...
Gotta love the logic - or lack of it. Abolishing the electoral college will result in politicians flocking to Rhode Island to garner votes. :-)
. . . rather than in the cemetaries of Chicago, like they should be!
TS
Don't worry - its going nowhere. This is more about throwing mud on the legitimacy of Bush's win than it is an effort to amend the Constitution. Its all about politics.
Go back to sleep, Lincoln.
Make the other 48 states do what Nebraska and Maine do. That'll really wake up the "Blue" States when certain districts realize that their vote would count!
No kidding....
Who is this idiot Scott McKay quoting here? Or is he taking it upon himself to be wrong?
The representative method of voting for federal offices was established from the very beginning solely because the smaller colonies feared not having a significant voice in the new federal government. It had nothing to do with the founding fathers 'not trusting' the citizens, slow communications, or women not being allowed to vote. It didn't evolve into a benefit for smaller states, it was designed that way. Sheesh, nothing like showing your ignorance as a reporter.
Oh, and maybe someone should tell the good Senator Chafee that reducing the impact of his state's one million or so citizens is not exactly going to make them more appealing to babysitting visits from presidential candidates. Sorry, sir, you are still going to have to do your own campaigning.
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.