Feinstein wants end to Electoral College - seeks constitutional amendment

[VTGold]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/23/MNGM3AGB2L1.DTL

Washington -- Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Wednesday that when Congress returns in January, she will propose a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a one-person, one-vote system for electing the nation's president and vice president.

In introducing the amendment, the Democrat from San Francisco is joining Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, who last month introduced a similar proposal in the House, which she said she would reintroduce in the 109th Congress that convenes on Jan. 3.

The two California lawmakers say the current system makes most Americans election bystanders, pointing toward the recent campaign in which President Bush and his Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry, focused almost all their time, energy and campaign funds on a handful of undecided states in search of their electoral votes.

"The Electoral College is an anachronism, and the time has come to bring our democracy into the 21st century," Feinstein said in a statement. "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.''

more:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/23/MNGM3AGB2L1.DTL

[Laelth]

1. While I agree in principle ...

... that the electoral college is patently un-democratic and a historical anachronism, what happens when somebody wants a recount? Would it have to be done nationally? Wouldn't that be more costly and difficult to order?

-Laelth

[anamandujano]

3. They could do random precincts to check for "glitches"

I also "agree in principle" but wish they would coordinate with Conyers and other leaders in dealing with the fraud of this current election. This can only be a distraction.

[me b zola]

15. Agreed that it is a distraction and

she should be working with Rep. Conyers and the CBC.
Perhaps we should e-mail her with these thoughts on a massive scale.

[anamandujano]

21. I can hear the talking heads now talking about a constitutional

convention. Glad I pulled the plug on cable. They will use up all the air time with this issue if they can get away with it.

I'm kind of burnt out on emailing for awhile. I'm not even sure what is productive and what might be counterproductive at this point.

[schawkfan]

8. Keep EC, but award by Congressional District

The best of both worlds would be to follow the leads of Maine and Nebraska. Keep the electoral college and award the votes per Congressional district with an additional two votes going to the overall winner of each state. That would really bring all states into play and make for some great drama on election night. Imagine 2-3 districts in red states putting the Democratic nominee over the top or the Republicans concentrating on a handful of districts in NY or CA to wrap up a win. This would truly take Presidential politics down to the local level.

[doubleplusgood]

16. congressional district = Gerrymandering

Also, by suggesting using congressional districts, aren't you trying to find some way of "mirroring" the popular vote ? What is the problem with just going by the popular vote itself ?

[liberalpragmatist]

32. Also the popular vote winner could still lose

Under this sytem, Bush in 2000 would have won under a bigger margin than he did in real life and Florida's two at-large voters wouldn't have mattered. Nixon would have won in 1960.

I do agree that if gerrymandering were banned it would make the race more national. But I prefer a single national popular vote. Or at least a proportional breakdown to the nearest tenth and abolition of live electors.

[ISUGRADIA]

34. Under this system Gore would have lost in 2000

According to analysts who looked into the vote per Congress. district and two per state proposal.

[Vidar]

11. Good for her. However, both parties are so invested in

Electoral College strategy that I doubt any possibility of passage.

[AndrewClarke]

23. The potential expense and difficulty of a recount . . .

. . . would give greater incentive to ensure that all votes are counted accurately the first time.

[electropop]

24. Rethug whining about recount costs is a sham.

The cost of a recount, even a national one, pales in comparison to campaign spending, or the amount of blood money we spill in Iraq every single day. Most democratic nations use paper ballots and human beings to count the votes. It's not that big of a deal. You just need a lot of people for a few hours. No, not 32 days, as Mr. Blackheart seems to think we'll believe.

[latteromden]

2. Not the way to go.

It'll take the focus off battleground states - but the candidates would then spend all their times in big cities (Democrats) or rural areas (Republicans). It's a system that would often favor the Democrats, not to mention make the people in smaller states (the ones with 3 or 4 electoral votes right now) feel like they have no say at all.

Abolishing the electoral college is the simple, flawed way to fix the voting system. We can't KEEP it, especially considering 2000, with one candidate winning the popular vote and one winning the electoral vote, and now 2004, with the entire election resting on one state. We need to find a way to reform the electoral college to make every state competitive, not minimalize the small states and forget the rural and even suburban, small town voters who, quite frankly, will see the Democrats less during campaigns than they do now (think Mankato, MN - you don't need Mankato if you can increase your percentage in Minneapolis, so why even visit Mankato?).

I wish the Democrats would THINK about it and come up with an incredibly well thought out proposal to blow the Republicans in Congress away, instead of just "get rid of it." Pretty disappointed in them on this issue.

[anamandujano]

4. They will go to smaller counties since everything is on TV

and going to a not-big-city will play well and still get the message out.

[latteromden]

10. Ideally, yes. But you didn't see Kerry in Texas or Bush in California

simply because it was on TV. I would also like to think that they would go to smaller cities to get out their message. Unfortunately, as long as you have the big cities, why go to the small ones? That's the mindset most candidates (some won't think that way) will have.

In a perfect party with a perfect candidate, both a straight popular vote and the electoral college would work, but that's not the case and we have neither, so we have to work with what we do have.

[anamandujano]

12. I saw Dean in Texas in person. Kerry was also here but I did not

go.

If this did happen, the campaign style would change across the board. At this point though I don't care about anything but the fraud and making sure it is remedied and those machine cast into the dustbin of history.

Why these dems want to go there now with what is already on the table is beyond the beyond.

[latteromden]

17. Dean is a different sort of candidate, the kind that actually believes

we need to be a 50-state party, with his "We're going to bring our party to... IDAHO!" ;) He's exactly the kind that WOULD be going to the small towns just because it was the right thing to do. Both candidates WERE in solid states for fundraising (the only one I can recall is Bush being in New York, I believe it was), but I certainly don't remember Kerry in, well, most of Texas or Bush in San Francisco trying to pick up votes.

And THAT, is very much agreed. I think the actual integrity of the elections should be dealt with before we think about changing the electoral college (like, oh, maybe paper trails? Or even national election standards? Why don't we HAVE these things, again?).

[merh]

18. The important thing is a "CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT"

The repuths shouldn't fight it since this time the allegedly have the "popular vote".

The votes of the entire country would not necessarily be subject to recounts during contests, but as now, each county, each state in question. The amendment would require that a system of uniform laws throughout the nation be established regarding contests and the recount requirements.

[hoosierblue]

5. This is actually the most auspicious time to do it...

what with Bush bragging about his supposed mandate and all. Repubs may perceive this as a positive, given that the popular--again, supposedly--went to Bush.

I'm all for it, but then again I'm a Dem living in a VERY red state. I'd actually like to feel that my vote means something other than the fact I like to vote. If they refuse, at the very least they should award electoral votes according to percentage of the vote won.

[jsascj]

7. That's the way to go...IMO

I too live in a Red state. Every time I vote...I feel that it doesn't count.

After this election, I walked around for awhile saying "Why even bother?"

[skids]

6. Personally I support the electoral college.

(EDIT: I must say, I am thrilled by reading the other responses so far to this thread that whether pro or con, most everyone seem to agree that this is a DISTRACTION. What a great group of focused people! Now if only we could do this with the Bev Harris versus KO versus Randi versus BradBlog threads.)

Or at least, that part of it which divides up the vote, not neccessarily the presence of human electors. It isn't the best system to prevent tyranny of the majority, but it is a bulwark nonetheless.

But it's not a fight I am going to engage in now, and I would advise everyone to simply ignore it unless the Hill picks up steam on it. It is a distraction, a way to get us mired in the details.

Electoral college or no, constitutionally upheld right to vote or no, today the ONLY issue is FRAUD.

There are only two details we should attack on, and only because it gives us purchase to do so:

1) When the rebublicans try to ban exit polling.

2) Whenever someone steps up and tries to "unify" voting technologies. I'll have a diary on Kos about this in a few days, but the gist is, different voting technologies/systems, especially lateral ones like absentee voting versus poll voting, produce hard statistics that can be used to monitor elections for fraud.

[KnowerOfLogic]

29. It is not a distraction; it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same

time. The election problem must be attacked on all fronts, and there must be a single, uniform, one person-one vote election process for choosing the president. If nothing else, this issue could raise more interest in the whole election mess than talk of fraud, because of course the winners won't hear anything about ending fraud.

[read the law first]

42. I'm in favor of EC too.

What's worse, deciding an election in nineteen battleground states or in nineteen battleground cities?

[progressoid]

46. What's the difference?

When was the last time a candidate went to North Dakota or Alaska anyway? Here in IA (supposed battleground) they hit the cities anyway, which were primarily blue.

[read the law first]

48. I don't choose my candidates based on who comes to town.

The point is to have electoral power, not to have company over for dinner.

If Wyoming votes for this, they will be MORE irrelevant than they are now. Why would they agree to become MORE irrelevant? They won't.

This has no chance.

[anti-fundie]

9. Unsure...

Although a pre-2000 electoral college ban would have helped us, I'm not sure if it would have helped this year. Fraud is fraud. No doubt there was fraud in Ohio, which should have gone to Kerry, I'm not sure if there was 3.5 million votes worth of fraud throughout the entire U.S.

[saltpoint]

13. maybe electoral college votes --

-- could be apportioned correspondent to the percentage of eligible voters who actually vote.

A state's electoral clout would be determined by the turn-out and participation (yikes -- a democracy!) instead of whether or not it was in a major media market alone.

A rural precinct in northern South Dakota could be just as significant and participatory -- and represented -- as Los Angeles or the Quad Cities.

[skids]

45. Now that's a neat idea.

Of course good ideas never go far. But that's a fun one to mull over.

[KittyWampus]

14. Feinstein Should Be Focusing On Abolishing PAPERLESS E-VOTING!!!

this is a complete non-starter and waste of fucking time.

If she REALLY cared, she'd focus on the FRAUD.

[hoosierblue]

19. Can't we do both? n/t

[KittyWampus]

26. No, Cause Abolishing Electoral College Is NOT Going To Happen

Feinstein is wasting resources and creating a disruptive distraction.

[read the law first]

49. crying shame is correct. n/t

[freedom_to_read]

20. Why not

This is a good thing. It has NO chance of passing, probably won't even get brought to the floor by the Repubs. BUT the fight for electoral reform has to start somewhere.

Banishing the electoral college would, IMHO, be a positive step. The presidential elections should be a moment for a nationwide debate about the future of our country, not a contest to control a few strategic battleground state. The current system effectively disenfranchises not only democrats in "red states" but also people like me who live in uber-blue states. But it also makes more sense on a philosophical level. Every vote should count, plain and simple. The EC arose out of the political and frankly technological exigencies of the 18th century; in the current day and age, I believe, we can and should strive for a more representative democracy.

That being said, I would hope there would also be a movement toward establishing more uniform standards for holding elections and counting ballots. The existence of a paper trail, for example, should be mandated nationwide. Guarantees of fair access to polling places as well -- these should be explicitly inscribed in the law, rather than devolving from the 24th amendment. This would probably require another Constitutional amendment. The current "system" IMHO is too broke to fix.

Of course, none of these amendments are going to be passed in the current Congress. But the point is to try our damnedest to at least bring them to the floor, to bring political pressure to bear on the Republicans who do NOT want to see meaningful election reform in our country. As that article in the Village Voice said, we should force politicians who are benefitting from the current system to stand up a publicly defend it.

To be sure, the Republicans will not allow this to even come to the floor, they do NOT want this public conversation to begin. The only way to make that happen is to start generating publicity for it, which is what Feinstein et al. are doing. In order for real public pressure to arise, there needs to be a serious effort to educate the public. A lot of Americans don't really understand the EC, or really how national elections are handled in this country, since they are accustomed to thinking about it (if at all!) only 1x every four years. We need to do the heavy lifting of making a public case for why the current system is broken, and how we (Democrats) are going to fix it.

Which I why I'm surprised to see so many DUers grumping about this being a "distraction" from the fraud issue. This is not about trying to reverse the 2004 election, to be sure, but in the long term it's very important.

[bones_7672]

22. It will NEVER happen.

The smaller states will fight this, and a constitutional amemdment cannot be passed without them.

[GetTheRightVote]

25. I believe the prev person stated, but more, get machines out of voting

period. Many election official abuse the voter by pointing to the machine not counting a vote. This I heard in person at the recount in Ohio that I participation in, the Director would not count a vote even though it is Ohio law to do so because the machine did not count it. We really need to eliminate the machines from our votin period and go back to the save and sure way of paper ballots and hand counting again. If we are so fired up about our vote counting then let us count our votes the first time around at every election. Then and only then will we be safe in assuming that the count is correct and the right person sits in that elected office.

[bones_7672]

35. And in 2000 everyone was saying "get rid of the punchcards". n/t

[KnowerOfLogic]

27. YES!!!!!! America may finally emerge into the 20th century.... too bad it'

already the 21st century, but it's better late than never.

[nashville_brook]

28. shit-dog that would be cool!

[euler]

30. It's been said by others, but...

...this will never happen. The Electoral College is very important to small states. Any Constitutional amendment requires ratification by 2/3 of all states. You can't get there from here.

[Yupster]

39. 3/4 of the states I think

it's 2/3 of House and Senate.

[fooj]

31. first things first!

dianne...throw your hat in the ring and fight like hell to overturn the bogus election results!!!!!!!!We've got your back!!! Love you in California!!!!!!!!Power to the people!:bounce:

[alexisfree]

33. ok...

about time that lazy idiot did something did not even help me with my passport:mad:

[AntiFascist]

36. Whether it's a distraction or not....

why are we discussing it in this forum?

(and what happened to the head scratching smiley? Why are smileys mysteriously disappearing??? :tinfoilhat: )

[Niche]

37. Oh my... Feinstein has something to say... lot of news today

[slackmaster]

38. Not a chance of it passing 3/4 of the states' legislatures

Smaller states see the EC as a great equalizer. 25 states are smaller then the median. The chance of getting 38 states to approve abolising the EC is zero.

[read the law first]

43. slackmaster is correct n/t

[Fescue4u]

40. The electoral college is the reason we have a chance

To get Kerry inaugurated.

Feinstein is wasting her time anyway. But what else is new? I guess she needs something else to do now that shes not trying to ban rifles.

There is ZERO chance of ratifying an ammendment to eliminate the electoral college.

[read the law first]

44. Fescue4u is correct as well. n/t

[read the law first]

41. Requires the support of the small states. It'll never be adopted.

Sad, but true.

[enough already]

47. Nothing but a cheap diversion

What Feinstein NEEDS to be doing is standing up and fighting the FRAUD that is currently going on in the electoral system. What difference does EC vs. popular vote make if the fraud isn't cleaned out of the system? Feinstein and every other Dem needs to be screaming to the sky right now and especially on Jan. 6. If she doesn't, I have no reason to take her and her silly ideas seriously.

[read the law first]

50. She is grandstanding to the ignorant.

People who don't know anything about how the Constitution is amended.