Senator vows to put an end to the Electoral College.

[whskyfan]

I'm not a fan of Feinstein, but it's about time someone got around to getting rid of the Electoral College.


Feinstein pushes vote change
Senator vows to put an end to the Electoral College.
By Peter Hecht / The Sacramento Bee
09/03/07 04:17:02


SACRAMENTO -- 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 now 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 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 founding fathers.

Continued here

[Fotograf]

From further down in that article we have:

Meanwhile, Feinstein's bid to eliminate the Electoral College is politically daunting at best. It would require a two-thirds vote in the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives -- plus ratification by three-fourths of legislatures in the 50 states.

This is correct because this is the process necessary to amend the US Constitution and it is the US Constitution that specifies the Electoral College.

In spite of the fact that some people think it is desirable for the population to elect the president directly, such an amendment would essentially eliminate small states from playing any role in the presidential selection process. Currently the candidates have to go to many states to seek primary and then general election votes in hopes of getting those states' electoral votes. Without the Electoral College the overwhelming majority of campaigning by party nominees would be done in a relative handful of large cities. If a candidate could get the majority of voters in places like New York, Philly, Chicago, Detroit, LA, Dallas and San Francisco s/he could win. You would never see the likes of a Mitt or a Hillary in Smallville.

[tiffany]

From further down in that article we have:This is correct because this is the process necessary to amend the US Constitution and it is the US Constitution that specifies the Electoral College.

In spite of the fact that some people think it is desirable for the population to elect the president directly, such an amendment would essentially eliminate small states from playing any role in the presidential selection process. Currently the candidates have to go to many states to seek primary and then general election votes in hopes of getting those states' electoral votes. Without the Electoral College the overwhelming majority of campaigning by party nominees would be done in a relative handful of large cities. If a candidate could get the majority of voters in places like New York, Philly, Chicago, Detroit, LA, Dallas and San Francisco s/he could win. You would never see the likes of a Mitt or a Hillary in Smallville.

I have never seen a candidate in any of the towns I lived in. I want us all to vote for who is elected. So what where they visit. They will be seen on TV. Everyone's vote should count and the best of the candidates no matter how much money they have should be the winner.

[whskyfan]

I think it's a as good as any place to start reforming our political system. It will be a rough road, but something needs to be done. I for one don't have to shake a candidates hand to know how I will vote. My little town doesn't matter to them and never will. But I want my vote to count.

[Fotograf]

Over-reaching federal power and a host of other things like the incorrect view that this is a pure democracy have undermined the role of the states since Lincoln. So, one must remember that this is the United States of America. The Founders saw this as a union of states, not simply a large mass of people who happened to live in places with names like Virginia or Pennsylvania.

The people of each state were to express their will to the state and then the state would do so with the federal government. All presidential votes in a state "count" because they tell the state how to vote (through its electors).

As I said, this is not a pure democracy. It is a republic. We the people vote for representatives who in turn make decisions on our behalf. This was done to avoid the "tyranny of the mob," as one founder put it.

I doubt the Electoral College will ever go away and that's a good thing. If you vote based only on what you hear on TV or read in the paper you are voting blindly.

[Biker]

I'm not into "+1s", but that was very well said, Fotograf.

Biker

[Fotograf]

Thank you, Biker.

In re-reading the posts I realize that I failed to address another aspect of Tiffany and Whskyfan's comments about not caring if a candidate vists their towns.

When I said most of the campaigning would be done in the large cities I failed to make it clear that the point of such campaigning would be to address the issues of the people who live in those places. Those issues might not be important in other places or the people who live in other places may hold opposing views on those issues. The candidates would respond only to the viewpoints of the large cities and ignore the concerns of Smallville.

Now, changing tacks, Tiffany said that the best candidate should win regardless of how much money they have. First, there is no agreement on the identity of the "best" candidate and there never will be. What one person thinks is best is what another thinks is worst. Second, a sad, pragmatic fact is that how much money they have makes just about all of the difference. Tiffany and Whskyfan both mentioned watching TV to hear the candidates' messages. First, most of what gets on TV is cleverly managed sound bites. Second, it costs a fortune to make sure those sound bites get on TV.

If candidates could not advertise on TV and campaigned by going to town meetings where they had to answer questions (press conference format) from the crowd instead of delivering professionally-crafted speeches people would get a much more accurate idea about who they really were.

[Psychicwolf]

The "tyranny of the mob" was refering to slaves, women, indentured servants as thought by our "Founding Fathers" who were all land-owning, many slave-owning, Christian white guys from Nothern European countries.
Many of us could not vote if their standards were still in effect. Times change and countries change. I would certainly vote for this change.
As for candidates visiting...The only time these folks visit Elbe is on their way to climb Rainier and they usually only visit the "billionaire city" Seattle to collect money.

[whskyfan]

Thank you, Biker.

In re-reading the posts I realize that I failed to address another aspect of Tiffany and Whskyfan's comments about not caring if a candidate vists their towns.

When I said most of the campaigning would be done in the large cities I failed to make it clear that the point of such campaigning would be to address the issues of the people who live in those places. Those issues might not be important in other places or the people who live in other places may hold opposing views on those issues. The candidates would respond only to the viewpoints of the large cities and ignore the concerns of Smallville.

Now, changing tacks, Tiffany said that the best candidate should win regardless of how much money they have. First, there is no agreement on the identity of the "best" candidate and there never will be. What one person thinks is best is what another thinks is worst. Second, a sad, pragmatic fact is that how much money they have makes just about all of the difference. Tiffany and Whskyfan both mentioned watching TV to hear the candidates' messages. First, most of what gets on TV is cleverly managed sound bites. Second, it costs a fortune to make sure those sound bites get on TV.

If candidates could not advertise on TV and campaigned by going to town meetings where they had to answer questions (press conference format) from the crowd instead of delivering professionally-crafted speeches people would get a much more accurate idea about who they really were.

First of all, they visit, they promise and they do what they damn well please after being elected. If more of our tax $$$ stayed in our own towns we would not need the promises.

Next, I do not watch television, I have a hearing impairment that makes that very difficult. I research, mostly on the internet, in order to learn candidates positions on the issues. Their voting record alone tells you a great deal about them. Lately, I have fallen behind, apathy I suppose from the actions, or should I say inactions, of the current Congress.

As Psychicwolf said, times and countries change. The electoral college worked well in its time. People were scattered all over and did not have the communication necessary to individually cast their vote in a timely manner. The system worked well for them. Today is a little different.