Posted on 12/29/2004 5:15:20 PM PST by CHARLITE
Amendment would provide for direct popular election
Dateline: December 27, 2004
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) has announced that she will introduce legislation to abolish the Electoral College system and provide for direct popular election of the President and Vice President when the Senate convenes for the 109th Congress in January.
“The Electoral College is an anachronism and the time has come to bring our democracy into the 21st Century,” Sen. Feinstein said in a press release. “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.
“We need to have a serious, comprehensive debate on reforming the Electoral College.
"I will press for hearings in the Judiciary Committee on which I sit and ultimately a vote on the Senate floor, as occurred 25 years ago on this subject. My goal is simply to allow the popular will of the American people to be expressed every four years when we elect our President. Right now, that is not happening.”
In further denouncing the Electoral College system, Sen. Feinstein pointed out that under the current system for electing the President of the United States:
Candidates focus only on a handful of contested states and ignore the concerns of tens of millions of Americans living in other states.
A candidate can lose in 39 states, but still win the Presidency.
A candidate can lose the popular vote by more than 10 million votes, but still win the Presidency.
A candidate can win 20 million votes in the general election, but win zero electoral votes, as happened to Ross Perot in 1992.
In most states, the candidate who wins a state’s election, wins all of that state’s electoral votes, no matter the winning margin, which can disenfranchise those who supported the losing candidate.
A candidate can win a state’s vote, but an elector can refuse to represent the will of a majority of the voters in that state by voting arbitrarily for the losing candidate (this has reportedly happened 9 times since 1820).
Smaller states have a disproportionate advantage over larger states because of the two “constant” or “senatorial” electors assigned to each state.
A tie in the Electoral College is decided by a single vote from each state’s delegation in the House of Representatives, which would unfairly grant California’s 36 million residents equal status with Wyoming’s 500,000 residents.
In case of such a tie, House members are not bound to support the candidate who won their state’s election, which has the potential to further distort the will of the majority. “Sooner or later we will have a situation where there is a great disparity between the electoral vote winner and the popular vote winner. If the President and Vice President are elected by a direct popular vote of the American people, then every American’s vote will count the same regardless of whether they live in California, Maine, Ohio or Florida,” Sen. Feinstein said.
In the history of the country, there have been four instances of disputed elections where the President who was elected won the electoral vote, but lost the popular vote – John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888 and George W. Bush in 2000. According to some estimates there have been at least 22 instances where a similar scenario could have occurred in close elections.
“Our system is not undemocratic, but it is imperfect, and we have the power to do something about it,” Sen. Feinstein said. “It is no small feat to amend the Constitution as it has only been done only 27 times in the history of our great nation.”
That would be the deathnell for the Democrats. As it was, 100,000 votes in Ohio could have given John Kerry the election even with a 3+ million vote defecit in the popular vote. These DUmbasses can't see past their "election fraud" blinders.
Like it or not, Dianne, you're stuck with the flyover people.
Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous. The US will be a far, far, different place if they ever manage to pull this off. I would predict that it will change the US in ways that, in the end, the Democrats will hate.
So she wants to replace a few battle ground states with a few urban centers? Let's see, who resides in the states and who resides in the urban centers? I think things are just fine.
As expected, the dictatorial-oriented Left will seek, once again, to eliminate one of the best systems in place to prevent mob rule from destroying our Republic. Let her go down in flames as other previous attempts by these lunatics have. Long live the Republic.
Undermining the Constitutional is all the National Socialist want to do. Time to get them out of office!!
[[groan]]
Ha, the demwit knows how hard it will be for her party to win in the electoral college process in the future.
You may not believe it but many Freepers apparently don't mind the idea.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1309093/posts
Amazing.
That's because unless we let California and New York vote for everybody in this great country they'll never see a DemocRAT in the white house again!
It will never happen. There are too many small states whose representation in the Electoral College is larger in proportion to their population. Voting for this amendment would reduce their citizen's voting power. Why would they do that? Since an amendment needs 38 states to pass, it's just not going to happen.
Just goes to show that if they can't get a judge to rule in their favor its times to declare the Constitution null and void.
Obviously Diane knows better, than our Founding Fathers. (sarcasm)
You've got the right name for the Demo Rats = National Socialists. They want to abolish the U.S. Constitution. Maybe their next presidential nominee will look something like Adolph Hitler, or Josef Stalin? Demo Rats, Socialists and Communists have a lot in common.
It's almost as if they don't know they're losers!...Can they be that dumb?
As much as I would like to see Feinstein removed from government, abolishing the Senate is not something I would support.
If our Founders knew the mischief that would be committed by Congress, there would be three houses in the US legislature instead of just two and supermajority votes would be required for many classes of legislation.
IMHO, this needs major media exposure....
"Kalifornia 'Rat wants to overthrow fundamental election process...
Talk about a nice solid, oak club to do some beating with....these people are priceless.
And brainless.
LVM
Interesting 'Rat definition of disenfranchisement: in effect, if the candidate you vote for loses, you've been disenfranchised.
I pray that the 'Rats keep this up for four more years (and way beyond).
I agree.
There were some interesting discussions of this on C-Span back in 2000.
If we get rid of the electoral college, presidential candidates will, in essence, only need to go to big cities to campaign. They will not need to explain their message to a variety of voters.
Without the electoral college, a demagogue can appeal to a few large special interest groups and win. His message will not need to be tempered by the wishes of people outside those interest groups. (This would favor the Democrats, of course, who have a history of appealing to special interests.)
Without an electoral college, someone like Ross Perot or Howard Dean, who has a smaller, but fervent, following, has a much better chance of winning.
No thanks, Dianne.
This would be a precursor to another civil war.
Small states and rural people would be cut out of presidential election. It would be a tyranny of cities versus the heartland.
"Ha, the demwit knows how hard it will be for her party to win in the electoral college process in the future."
Because she knows it's next to impossible to steal the electoral votes the same way they try to steal popular votes, so let's just get rid of the electoral votes all together.
It ain't the system that's broke - it's the demonRATS.
hey i'd be for the thing they wanted to do in Colorado and make the electoral votes count for each region....that way calif would give most of its votes to Repubs since we are primarily Red when it comes to counties as a whole
Well, then.
We'll just filibuster this little act of tyranny and refuse to give it an up or down vote.
Done.
And George Bush wants to amend to the Constitution to say:
Marriage is between a Man and a Woman! - (Going Nowhere)
And some want foreign born eligible for President - so-called Schwartzenegger Amendment - (Going Nowhere)
And some want the Abortion Amendment (Going Nowhere)...
Showboating by Feinstein (Ach Weh!)
Socialism.
Our Founders gave us a Constitutional Republic. This is meant to accomplish limited government overseen by people who are recognized as capable of making the most important decisions affecting our nation.
"Democracy" has been described as "two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner". The evil that a majority will do to a minority has been recognized for many centuries. It is only judicial activism that has allowed many of the evils of democracy to infect our republic. The effects are so widespread and pervasive now, and the public educators so collectivist in mindset, that the distinction has almost disappeared.
How else can one explain the all-to-common acceptance of states deciding by majority vote whether the people shall be allowed to keep and bear arms?
The country would fall apart if it weren't for the EC.
Oh, I forgot. It takes 2/3? of the States to pass a Constitutional Amendment.
Care to count the red states.
Dianne apparently has forgotten to count!
If Americans lose confidence in a directly elected President in less than four years, there should be some provision to vote him out of office before his 4 years are completed.
The Democrats like to pretend that Republicans are extremists, but Feinstein's goal, in getting rid of the electoral college, is to get rid of moderation.
Do you think they will ever figure that out?
This is an excellent point about the value of electoral votes being awarded as winner-take-all in each state.
Stealing votes in Kalifornia or New York, once the electoral votes are awarded, cannot offset majorities in the red states. The potential for fraud is reduced, although not eliminated.
This is an excellent reason to oppose proportional awarding of votes, such as was suggested in Colorado and as is done, I believe, in Maine.
yep.. total joke.. never happen...
yep all the red state senators are really going to go for this... bawahhhhh !!!!!
(She's a real nowhere woman, living in her nowhere land.)
In retrospect, shame on me, what a pathetic thought.
Sorry folks.
Series, she and her ilk are pathetic exucses for Americans. Their objective is to undermine the Constitution of the United States.
With their filibustering W's Judges, just twists my shorts.
Hopefully W, will put on his cowboy boots and kick these slick sonz'a beetches in the buttocks.
I very much doubt this. The difference in the "popular" vote always seems to be just about the same as the difference between the crucial swing states. For instance this last election Ohio difference was 2% advantage for Bush, vs 3% "popular". In 2000 Florida and the "popular" were both within 1%.
Let her move. Move to Europe!
It will be interesting to see who joins her in this nonsense.
Good posts. Although I don't think the founding fathers were thinking about vote fraud, the prevention of vote fraud is now the best reason to maintain the EC and the constitution in its present form. The state legislators, who would have to approve a constitutional amendment, are well aware of this issue and therefore Feinstein's proprosal is going nowhere.
The abolition of the electoral college would, I think, have consequences Diane Feinstein, and the others who favor abolishment of the electoral college, have never considered.
We have never had a national election. The election of the president and the vice-president are state elections to chose a slate of electors in a manner designated by the respective state legislatures.
The abolishment of the electoral college would bring about a national election of the president and a national election would require a national standard for voter registration, for presidential ballots, for the method of voting. It would mean that the election officals for the presidential election, and only the presidential election, would be Federal officials. It would mean that we might have to have two different election date for president and for senators and representives.
There's more but I think everyone gets the idea.
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.