Feinstein to call for abolishing Electoral College

YubaNet.com ^ | 8/25/07 | Feinstein office

[melt]

U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today announced that she will introduce a resolution to abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct popular vote of the President. Senator Feinstein's announcement comes against the backdrop of a bid in California to qualify a ballot initiative that would skew the outcome of Presidential elections.

"This proposed California initiative is very dangerous – it is an attempt to tinker with state law in order to influence the outcome of national Presidential elections," Senator Feinstein said.

"There is no question that our system of electing a President is outmoded, but this initiative is not the way to do it. I believe that the Electoral College must be abolished, and that the President be elected through direct popular election."

"Under the current system, it is possible for a Presidential candidate to lose the popular vote, but to be elected by the Electoral College. This has happened four times in the nation's history, most recently in 2000."

"And the current system enables a handful of states to become battleground states, and disenfranchises tens of millions of American voters in the most important election in the nation. By amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College, and replacing it with a system in which the winner is the candidate with the most votes nationwide, we will ensure that the method of electing the President and Vice President is fair and uniform."

Currently, California gives all of its 55 electoral votes to the candidate winning the popular vote statewide. This method is used by almost all the states. Under the initiative drive being circulated in California, the state would give Presidential candidates one electoral vote for every Congressional district that they win, plus two electoral votes for whichever candidate gets the most votes in the state.

[MinuteGal]

Is it or isn't it propitious that Fred Thompson has emerged unexpectedly just in the nick of time for the most important election in our history?

He's a state's rights guy, an announced federalist......and I'll bet he'll make mincemeat out of Feinstein if her proposed commie takeover legislation gets too far.

Fred may just be the right man to deal with all the wrong things looming on the horizon.

Leni

[mrsmel]

I accept the correction, it’s difficult for an “outsider” of those states to remember that their sum total is not their large cities :)

[rwilson99]

Why is it Senators... and only Senators... who seem to be so enthusiastic for abolishing the part of the Connecticut Compromise that doesn’t allow them to exist.

Blowhards.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

People such as Feinstein have no regard for our country and as this congressmen (no pandering to gender or office - senators and representatives are congressmen) should be tried for crimes against the country. Their oath of office requires them to DEFEND the constitution of the United States, not tear it apart.

This country IS NOT a democracy (read more here: http://brogdensmuse.menofhonorministry.org/Politics/the_Republic.htm) and we should thank God for that and not tolerate malicious government officials who wish to destroy this country.

[Finny]

Perhaps the answer is ... to divide California into two states?

Aaaarrrrggggghhhhh!! The political divide is not north-south, it's coastal-inland. It's safe to say that a division of California would be a north-south one. So you'd have TWO liberal-leaning states dominated by liberal coastal cities instead of one.

[Finny]

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.

Worth reposting.

[Wonder Warthog]

""This proposed California initiative is very dangerous – it is an attempt to tinker with state law in order to influence the outcome of national Presidential elections,"

Unfortunately, DiFi, the Constitution gives the STATES the power to determine their method of allocating electors. You don't have s**t to say about it.

Go ahead an propose your constitutional amendment. It won't pass either branch of Congress, much less the requisite number of state legislatures.

The proposed California initiative is a great idea--based on the same principle AS the electoral college, but applying to an individual state.

[Publius]

While her amendment proposal is unlikely to get the 290 votes in the House and 67 votes in the Senate necessary to pass it on to the states for ratification, I can absolutely guarantee it won't get the ratification votes of the legislatures of 38 states.

It's a combination of political posturing and an attempt to sandbag the initiative proposal to break up California's electoral votes like Maine and Nebraska do.

[Finny]

Translation: "The Electoral College blunts the Democrats' efforts to commit massive vote fraud in inner city neighborhoods so we must abolish it."

Bingo.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Neither system is perfect but a democracy is winning elections by popular vote."

The United States was and is not a "democracy". The Founding Fathers had no use whatsoever for "democracy" (termed "the tyranny of the majority" in their day).

[Radix]

More idiocy.

Go ahead retard, change the U. S. Constitution by getting the States with fewer Electoral votes to go along with your shameless posturing.

[Finny]

I know what you mean! That relief map of the red-blue areas posted above really puts it home. I hadn’t realized that so much of the immediate inland East coast was red.

[kalt]

Under the current system, it is possible for a Presidential candidate to lose the popular vote, but to be elected by the Electoral College. This has happened four times in the nation's history, most recently in 2000.

Recheck your history books, DiFi. It happened in 1876, 1888, and 2000. That's three times. If you are referring to 1824 as the fourth time, John Quincy Adams was not elected by the Electoral College but by the House of Representatives. (I doubt she is referring to 1960, in which Democrat JFK lost the popular vote if you count Alabama a certain way.)

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Yep...the Founding Fathers set up the electoral college for very good reasons, to keep the big states from perpetually steamrolling the smaller states. Also, the Framers would find the idea of allowing popular “mob” vote for presidential elections quite horrifying.

[Bob]

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..."

Good point. I really don't know how that's been (or is being) addressed.

[Political Junkie Too]

It's safe to say that a division of California would be a north-south one. So you'd have TWO liberal-leaning states dominated by liberal coastal cities instead of one.

That's true. I think the weight is to the south, but a North-South split is the only way to do it and still maintain two viable states.

-PJ

[ConservativeofColor]

I wonder, if Puff Daschle were still Senate Majority leader would he allow South Dakota, with its population of 700,000, to be 'disenfranchised' in such a way.

My guess is he would not only not allow it he would be extremely PO-d that his liberal counterparts would even try such a thing.

Think he's made any calls? :-)

[LegionofDorkness]

I’m not necessarily opposed to popular vote electing the president. After all it is a national election. Of course this would be all ‘in theory’.

In reality, however, having the nationwide poplar vote decide the presidency would be a recipe for chaos. A close vote would make Florida 2000 look like a school board election. Why doesn’t someone in the press ask her how you go about doing a nationwide recount?

Secondly, we would have to make sure our diebold machines are in every election district in the country (oops! I let our secret out. I hope no DUmmies are reading.)

[RobbyS]

Until the 1840s, the winner-take-all system was not universal. It’s a product of the two party system

[jonrick46]

In the Fifties we hid under our desks to prepare for what the Soviets would do to us with their Nukes. The Communists vowed to the drum of shoe leather in the United Nations, “We will bury you!”

Those old Communists are gone but their ideology is still going strong. The Democrat Party are the New Communists. Those who nursed on the Communist ideology in the Sixties are alive and well in the Democrat Party. The tactics developed by Soviet political scientists to bring down the institution of U.S. Democracy are now being applied by the likes of Soros and their agents, Feinstein, Kennedy, Reid, Clinton, Murray, Schumer, and other bit players.

If the DemonRATs get the Executive Branch, they will dismantle our Democracy post haste. Those who voice their opposition will be put through a period of repression like never seen in this country. Mark my words.