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

Skip to comments.

Feinstein and Chafee want to abolish Electoral College
The Providence Journal ^ | 1/6/05 | Scott McKay

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."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: electoralcollege
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last
To: EA_Man

This makes it bi-partisan.


61 posted on 01/06/2005 7:44:54 AM PST by econ_grad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luddite Patent Counsel

"The [electoral] system was erected by the men who founded the United States in 1789 because they did not trust average citizens."

So the average citizen in 2004 is to be trusted with his evaluation of how to vote? Want to see what that theory is worth on Skid Row in Chicago where you can buy a vote for a cheap bottle of booze, a night out with all expenses paid for welfare Moms, an open bar for the entire neighborhood at the pub on the corner, or a $50 downpayment on a "new"
car?

Boxer....get real!


62 posted on 01/06/2005 7:46:27 AM PST by Grendel9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: econ_grad

Why the heck did they name this country the United STATES anyway? The EC is one of the most brilliant of the checks and balances.


63 posted on 01/06/2005 7:47:55 AM PST by Lekker 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
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?

While I am not Ann Coulter, I can answer your question: Article IV, section 4 of the United States Constitution guarantees to the states a republican form of government. What these two morons are proposing would turn us into a vile and dangerous democracy, which we are not and never have been. The word 'democracy' is never mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and our Founding Fathers stated quite plainly that it would be a direct threat to our liberty. The article linked to Walter Williams' name on Drudge discusses this.

64 posted on 01/06/2005 7:50:02 AM PST by HenryLeeII (Democrats have helped kill more Americans than the Soviets and Nazis combined!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: EA_Man

Do away with the EC and watch the union dissolve!


65 posted on 01/06/2005 7:52:53 AM PST by RAY (They that do right are all heroes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EA_Man
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.
These two sentences show just how ignorant this writer, notice I didn't say journalist, is. (a good article on the EC)
While the second sentence is correct it is supposed to give emphasis to the first sentence...in other words, the poorer, landless citizens were those not to be trusted. The electors were restricted to white males who owned property.
And if you consider the debates of the time that is how it should be. Property owners were more likely to vote for those who were willing to protect their property rights as well as their individual rights. If you had no property you could vote for someone willing to take away those very rights.
Secondly, the EC has changed over time from how it was originally composed so that it isn't anything near to what was initially created. To my understanding there was no popular vote for the POTUS when the EC was established and the legislature voted for electors. Political parties put a damper on that though.
Eliminating the EC would be the final straw that broke the camel's back.
66 posted on 01/06/2005 7:55:43 AM PST by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII

You hit the nail on the head. "Democracy" is nothing more than a decision-making process. It is not a form of government. And I am quite pleased with the federal republic that we have. We have thrived for over 200 years with this form of government. What makes these clowns think that elimination of the EC would "improve" our form of government. If it ain't broke don't fix it.


67 posted on 01/06/2005 7:58:12 AM PST by Lekker 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: EA_Man

This would take a Constitutional Amendment and it would never pass.


68 posted on 01/06/2005 8:02:24 AM PST by KC_Conspirator (I am poster #48)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EA_Man
Feinstein and Chafee want to abolish Electoral College

Over my dead body.

Literally.

69 posted on 01/06/2005 8:03:21 AM PST by Lazamataz ("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grendel9

Of course they trusted average citizens. They distrusted, and rightfully so, average politicians and their parties.


70 posted on 01/06/2005 8:13:08 AM PST by Luddite Patent Counsel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
consider the debates of the time
71 posted on 01/06/2005 8:13:19 AM PST by michigander (The Constitution only guarantees the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Lekker 1
What makes these clowns think that elimination of the EC would "improve" our form of government. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Oh, but a real Christian who believes in effective foreign policy and tax cuts won twice, so it must be broke, don'tcha know!

72 posted on 01/06/2005 8:17:41 AM PST by HenryLeeII (Democrats have helped kill more Americans than the Soviets and Nazis combined!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: L98Fiero
Actually, the requirement is 3/4ths of the states for ratification of an amendment.

Not a chance in hell of either fraction being reached, of course.

73 posted on 01/06/2005 8:17:52 AM PST by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: EA_Man

It really wouldn't matter if the federal governemnt and the President followed Constitutional limitations.

No one would get too hacked off over who was running the post office and overseeing the military.


74 posted on 01/06/2005 8:22:58 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EA_Man
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 should realize that the House of Representatives is a representative system based on population. Each Representative would get a vote, not each state...
75 posted on 01/06/2005 8:30:23 AM PST by Plumrodimus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SAJ

"Actually, the requirement is 3/4ths of the states for ratification of an amendment."

Oops, my bad. It's gotta pass both houses by a 2/3 vote in each, then to the states for a 3/4 marjority, is that correct? If so, a snowball stands a better chance in Hades. (Some people call it "Hell", I call it "Hades", mmmmm-hm.)


76 posted on 01/06/2005 8:33:19 AM PST by L98Fiero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Plumrodimus
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.

Rephrasing my previous post: Chafee should realize that the House of Representatives is a representative system based on population. Each Representative would get to vote to determine the result of the state's single vote. It's still a combination of popular vote and vote by the states.
77 posted on 01/06/2005 8:36:47 AM PST by Plumrodimus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: EA_Man
No surprise that the liberals want to abolish the electoral college. It stand in the way of their power, they think, and their domination over the American people.

Sad to say that the American people have just spoken and not to well of the liberals.

78 posted on 01/06/2005 8:40:07 AM PST by sr4402
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nataku X
When was the last time a recount worked in GOP's favor?

Florida, 2000.

Ohio, 2004.

79 posted on 01/06/2005 8:41:17 AM PST by George Smiley (The only 180 that Kerry hasn't done is the one that would release ALL his military records.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
In a bipartisan alliance to abolish the Electoral College, Rhode Island Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee...

I don't think so!

80 posted on 01/06/2005 8:42:57 AM PST by John123 (Good grief! The Palestinians cannot even organize a state funeral!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 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