Posted on 08/26/2007 3:06:50 PM PDT by melt
The largest cities already have major input: just look at the election results by county map for 2004 and who certain states electoral votes went to.
Neither system is perfect but a democracy is winning elections by popular vote.
She wants to treat all of California as though it were just one big city. Really just Caesarism: Julius Caesar ruled Rome not just by threat of military force but because he controlled the "wards" through bosses. Shows the perniciousness of the " one-man, one-vote concept which the Democrats through bloc voting can control everything.
I thought Hillary promised to do that in 2001.
There simply could NOT be a worse idea. Unless you favor the speeding up of the slide to socialism.
Senator Feinstein is completely and thoroughly WRONG to start this crap.
See this earlier posting of mine:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1882512/posts?page=42#42
- John
First, there is no popular vote because there is not a single election AND because each state uses different procedures for counting and not counting votes. As crazy as it may seem, some states—California is one of them—do not count absentee ballots if the number of absentee ballots is less than the plurality by which the person was victorious. California uses that method because counting absentee ballots is costly and time-consuming because they have to be handled individually. If those votes had to be counted, because they would have a bearing on her one election for President, God help us. We would have chaos because people in other states would have a vested interest in how California counts or doesn’t count its votes.
What Dumanne Feignstein seems not to realize is what she thinks is the presidential election is not the presidential election. The presidential election occurs in each state’s capital when the electors, all 535 of them, cast their ballots for president (and vice president). What she mistakenly believes is the presidential election is an election for those electors.
We do not—as Dumb Ann Feignstein continues to spout—live in a democracy. We live in a democratic (that’s an adjective Dianne) republic (that’s a noun Dianne.)
When pigs fly....B***H!
Sure she does, then we could elect all of our Presidents with just the votes of urban leftists and we wouldn’t have to worry about all those pesky voters that don’t live in major cities, nor the Republicans they, in their infinite rube ignorance, vote for.
Because it doesn’t support the Communist tyranny that they prefer. Far, far too much power to the great unwashed people.
If the Democrats win the White House, they’ll move heaven and earth to keep it, even if it means no more elections.
Agreed!
Translation: "This initiative costs the Democrats electoral votes so we must reject it."
"I believe that the Electoral College must be abolished, and that the President be elected through direct popular election."
Translation: "The Electoral College blunts the Democrats' efforts to commit massive vote fraud in inner city neighborhoods so we must abolish it."
Fienstein is saying this to scare Republicans into thinking that if the GOP gets its way in California it means that paves the way for the whole country to change as well. Common people let’s be smart we can have our cake and eat it too, the
California proposal could very well save us from a Hillary admin
Leni
Perhaps Feinstein's misundertanding of federalism comes from the 17th amendment.
The President is not the ruler of the people, he is the head of the federation between the states. The governors are the leaders of the people.
Just as Senators were to be selected by state legislatures to represent the states in the Congress, Presidents were to also be selected by the states to oversee common defense, foreign affairs, and relations between the states.
The 17th amendment replaced state appointment of Senators with popular election, and repealing the Electoral College will replace state selection of the President with popular election, too.
-PJ
The problem being that doing it by popular initiative is probably unconstitutional. The manner of selection is given solely to the State legislatures.
Article 2, Sec 1: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."
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.