Posted on 09/04/2007 9:00:28 AM PDT by SmithL
A proposed ballot initiative being circulated to change how California awards its presidential electoral votes is so irksome to Sen. Dianne Feinstein that she is vowing to change the U.S. Constitution.
Democrats say the so-called Presidential Electoral Reform Act -- which would throw out the Golden State's winner-take-all system -- is nothing but a ruse to win the Republicans the White House by assuring them at least 20 of California's 55 electoral votes.
"I think this effort to essentially skew the presidential system ... would directly change the election," Feinstein said in an interview.
So California's senior senator said she is determined to at last abolish the Electoral College and guarantee a direct popular vote of the president.
She is attempting to pull off what wasn't dared after 2000 -- when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the White House to George W. Bush -- or seriously pursued after 2004 -- when Bush won the vote but nearly lost the Electoral College, and the election, to John Kerry.
"I think people are now beginning to see that the Electoral College is a remnant of days gone by," said Feinstein, who announced Aug. 24 that she would introduce a resolution in the Senate to eliminate the presidential selection system created by the framers of the Constitution.
Feinstein's effort comes as activists nationally are seeking other means to change America's presidential selection process.
Two California residents -- Lafayette attorney Barry Fadem and computer scientist and visiting Stanford professor John Koza -- are spearheading efforts to persuade states to assign their Electoral College votes to whoever wins the popular vote nationally.
Meanwhile, GOP lawyer Thomas Hiltachk, who helped initiate the 2003 gubernatorial recall and worked until this spring for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, is drawing Feinstein's ire....
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
God I hate liberals!
This is going to be one fascinating Brouhaha.
Sorry, DiFi... I’ll go with the FRamers on this one.
FRamers... FReepers... Coincidence? I think not.
BTW, wouldn’t a EV split like what is being proposed in California be more like a popular vote anyway? The ‘rats are simply getting what they asked for.
Basing the winner of the states electoral votes on some factor outside the state (national popular vote) sounds unconstitutional to me. However, I am all for having California, New York, Illinois, and Pennsylvania divide their electoral votes up like Nebraska and New Hampshire.
We North Dakotans like our 3 Electoral Votes.
And so do all other relatively small states like their relative power.
The only way the Constitution was ratified was to ensure, by way of this exceptional over-representation, that small states wouldn’t be squashed by New York.
The only way to overcome it is by Constitutional Amendment, which all small states should oppose. You can’t get the Congressional and State House votes of enough states to pass that, because small states will be relatively harmed.
No action can be taken. The Electoral College is a historically required remnant of the signing that will never be abolished due to the interests of small states.
Feinstein can waste a lot of breath on this if she wishes. Maybe it will keep her from focusing on Lib priorities that will harm the nation.
Checkmate.
We can either have the existing system, which penalizes both sides equally, or we can have a system that is rigged in favor of one side or the other, depending on who does the rigging.
Frankly, our system is incapable of devising a fair procedure at this point. Better to keep what we have.
How about if the splitting of the California vote and the Constitutional Amendment process go forward simultaneously...
Works for me!
I totally disagree with Sen. Feinstein on this. A direct election of the president would mean that just a half dozen or so megalopolises would have effective veto power over the rest of the country.
But at least I give the Senator credit for doing things the right way. If one sincerely believes (as she claims to) that the Electoral College is a mere anachronism, then one ought to work to abolish it in the only approved way--i.e. through constitutional amendment--and not merely circumvent it.
On April 10, Maryland's Democratic governor, Martin O'Malley, signed a popular-vote law to award its electoral votes to the national-vote winner.
The Maryland program won't go into effect unless a sufficient number of other states also sign on. If states totaling 270 electoral votes -- the number needed to win a presidential election -- assign their electoral votes to the popular-vote winner, the Electoral College becomes irrelevant.
This is precisely what I am talking about. It simply attempts to do an end run around the Constitution, which sets a hugely dangerous precedent.
"It's really a too-clever-by-half way to get around the Constitution," protests Kevin Eckery, a Republican political consultant who backs the rival Electoral Reform Act in California. "Either do it right or don't try to be cute about it. They (popular-vote supporters) feel they can't change the Constitution. So they want to ignore the Constitution."
This sums it up perfectly.
Is there any other state that currently splits it electorial votes or doesn’t every state have a winner-take-all?
Me, too!!!
...and you know what side would do the rigging!
I believe Maine, and possibly Nebraska.
Maine and Nebraska.
Gee....she's so much smarter than those old dead guys.
Even Hamilton illustrated the importance of the electoral college system as a check against "mischeif" in Federalist No. 68
Finally, if the electoral system was done away with then there would be no need for national officials to address the needs of smaller states and "fly over" country. All work would be based on the most populated areas where the majority of votes reside. States like Wyoming, the Dakotas and my state of New Mexico would become insignificant in the determination of the Presidency. This can only serve to hurt these smaller states.
They tried the same thing here in Colorado - split our Electoral College Vote. Nothingless, it was funded by rich California executives. They couldn’t try it at home first though so they had to interfere in our affairs.
“Every vote counts” is SOOOO last fashion season...
Actually, what the California initiative is suggesting is excellent. Eminently fair.
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.