Dianne Fienstein proposes ammendment to end electoral college

[Clarkie1]

My California senator Diane Feinstein today proposed a constitutional ammendment to end the electoral college system. This is long overdue, and I am glad to see one of my senators taking a leadership role on this issue. It is a travesty the the greatest "democracy" in the world does not elect its head of state democratically by a simple majority of votes.

As a party, we need to take a leadership role on progressive, popular proposals that support real American values. We must not merely play the role of the opposition party in the near term; we must also actively promote our own proposals and democratic values. We must be the party of the people, by the people, and for the people.

I would like to see a strong, united democratic party take a leadership role on this issue as well as what I see as the two related issues of voting reform and campaign finance reform. Let's put the "democracy" back in the democratic party and in America!

[njdemocrat106]

1. Definitely!

Sadly though, it wouldn't have worked for this election. :(

[Hippo_Tron]

16. If everybody's vote counted for president there's no telling...

What would've happend for this year. People in California in New York had very little reason to turn out to vote for Kerry since they knew their state was solid blue and there were no competative senate races.

[American Tragedy]

41. I wish I had a dollar for every person in my state who said they weren't

voting because the state is overwhelmingly Republican and it wasn't worth the effort.

In fact, they're right: even if every single person who ostensibly leaned progressive in our state turned out, it wouldn't be enough.

[Hippo_Tron]

51. Well that's sort of true, because there's that 50% that don't vote...

Most of which would vote overwhelmingly democratic if we could just get them to.

[Sirveri]

2. That's a VERY bad idea.

The electoral college is actually a very decent system, and it works. It might be clunky and confusing, but scrapping it would simply screw all the small states and make everyone focus on the big 4.

[Clarkie1]

Not at all!

It would make the size of states, and states themselves, totally irrelvant in the election of the president of the UNITED State of America. Time spend in Rhode Island would be just as effective as time spent in California....the voters are everywhere!

[American Tragedy]

39. That's absolutely right.

The population and political demographics are still dispersed across the country enough that you couldn't win with only a few large states.

As an example: My state is roughly medium-sized, with one large, highly populated city that constitutes about one third of the total electorate in the state. The urban area where I live votes mostly Democrat in presidential elections, but is simply outnumbered by right-wing rural voters in the other 120+ counties. Thus, neither candidate touched our state this year. It was pretty demoralizing.

If the electoral college were abolished, it would have the opposite effect proposed by advocates of the current system, who claim that candidates would fixate on the larger states, as though there aren't massive voting populations outside of that area. A Democratic challenger could not afford to ignore a city of over one million people who lean liberal, regardless of the politics in the surrounding area! This would apply to many areas throughout the country.

[llpoperations]

17. Better to screw the large states?!?!

Explain to me why the voters of these small states should have a disproportionate influence on the election of OUR President???

There are 6.35 Million people in MA and the combined population of UT, MT, ID, WY, ND and SD is 6.45 Million people. MA has 12 Electoral votes and the "Empty Region" gets 21. How is that rational? The taxpayers of MA contribute much more Federal tax revenue, why should that much power be ceded to so few people? What makes one voter in Montana so much more worthy of political power?

I need an explanation, because it seems to me the folks collecting the most government welfare are in charge of giving it to themselves.

[spooky3]

31. Totally agree. Also, EC means many people's concerns are ignored

because they live in "safe" states.

[0007]

42. Excellent point, you've been doing some studying I see!

[foo_bar]

44. it's unfair to the Northeast

But it was designed to be, as the first of many compromises to keep the manifest continent under one regime. I don't know if it was worth it, but Jesusland wouldn't have invaded Germany.

[American Tragedy]

37. Bullshit

How often do presidential candidates pay any attention to Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wyoming, all states of small population? For that matter, they pay no attention to the three largest. Most states are already decided. Thus, the entire election fixates upon a few states.

Why the fuck should my vote be invalidated, just because I live in a highly Republican region? Why should tens of millions of people who constitute regional minorities have their votes effectively erased from the final count?

The Senate exists to represent and address specific state concerns. Presidential campaigns overwhelmingly focus upon national issues that affect us all similarly.

[0007]

43. yeah if your name is George W. Bush!

'Tis the small states that are screwing the big states.

....and the old argument that only the large area would be the focal point is hogwash! We don't live in the stagecoach days, BTW, news is instantaneous.

A decent system only if you haven't been screwed, for sure. But the freepers will get their turn in the barrel one day and then watch the screaming & the howling.

[madfloridian]

3. Here is a link about pros and cons.

It leads to other sites, looks pretty fair. I have mixed feelings, but tend to be for abolishing.

http://www.garraud.net/rays/2004/10/the_electoral_c.html

[Maat]

4. Me, too!

Weighing all of it, I tend to be in favor of abolishing it. Right now, I believe that small red states have disproportionate power over MY future.

[InvisibleBallots]

6. This is the wrong battle to fight - and she will NEVER win either

Feinstein is wasting our time - no wonder, since she is basically a pro-war, pro-corporate neo-con.

[MAlibdem]

36. You disagree with the amendment?

Or are you just taking the opportunity to bash a fellow Democrat?

[InvisibleBallots]

47. I have mixed feeling about the amendment

The electoral college is not the boogieman some Democrats and Republicans think it is, but I certainly understand the appeal of a straight majority vote. Frankly I think Instand Runoff Voting is a lot more important.

And I always take the time to bash "fellow" Democrats who collaborate with the Republicans. If we don't hold them accountable, who will?

[MAlibdem]

55. Her actions in this context seem honorable to me.

Smashing her for unrelated offenses is out of place. We should reward our politicians when they do well and criticize them where they err. For example, I like John Kerry and I agree with his policies, but he is, politically, a pussy.

[AntiCoup2K4]

5. While it certainly bears serious consideration.....

...the elimination of electro-fraud voting must take priority. Winning an election by popular vote is meaningless if you can't prove you won.

[Clarkie1]

8. Agreed, but winning the popular vote is also meaningless if you really did

win, but lose because of an antiquated, anti-democratic system.

[elperromagico]

7. But this is going to take a high level of commitment.

You can't just put up an amendment like this. That's not enough. The American people would have to be convinced that the Electoral College system needs to be scrapped.

Bush is preparing an ad/media blitz in order to convince a wary public that Social Security is in a "crisis" and needs to be "reformed." Are the people who back this amendment prepared to go to those same lengths - if not greater lengths - to convince the American people that we need to get rid of the EC?

If the answer's no, why bother? This is not a time for symbolic gestures.

[Clarkie1]

12. social security is in crises, and does need reform

I certainly do not think the democratic party should go about arguing against the obvious. That is not responsible government.

We should promote raising the cap on social security contributions, for starters.

But I don't want to debate social security reform on this thead; I am sure there will be many threads in the coming year on that topic as the debate rages. Regarding the ammendment, what I am saying is this is an issue WE CAN TAKE THE LEAD ON, instead of just opposing or working to modify the social security reform (for example) that the other side is commited to reforming. Social security reforlm (in some form) will take place; the head of the party pushing reform has the votes.

We need to be an activist, forward-looking, progressive party that looks beyond the next election cycle. Promoting voting, election finance, and electoral reforms will strengthen democracy, and that will stengthen the democratic party because we are the party of inclusiveness, not exclusiveness.

[elperromagico]

18. 2042 - That is when this alleged "crisis" begins,

and it consists of Social Security being able to pay only 80% of its financial commitments.

It does not require privatization to be fixed, but that is what the Bush team will likely propose. A far simpler reform could fix it long enough for it to last until both you and I are likely dead.

That is what is "obvious," and it's a perfectly "responsible" argument. Sorry to address just one point of your post, but you claim there's a massive crisis. There isn't.

[Clarkie1]

25. Don't want to start a social security debate here

Perhaps there is not a crises, but I am skeptical. I'm also wary of soaring deficits.

When I know more about the issue, there will be plenty of time for that debate. Like I said, I think the first thing to do is raise the contribution limit. As far as I am concerned, all taxable income should pay a percentage into the social security safety net.

[InvisibleBallots]

24. that is false, SS is not in crisis

What makes you think it is? The program is solid for another 75 years.

[Radical Activist]

9. Durbin did that in 2000

Right before the election before Gore won the popular vote. It didn't go anywhere then and I would expect the same thing to happen now.

[mcscajun]

10. I have mixed feelings about it...

...on the one hand, before the election, I was swearing up and down to anyone who'd listen that regardless of WHO won the 2004 Presidential Election, we needed to scrap the Electoral College.

On the other...we've only got so many resources to fight so many battles...and we have to keep Social Security from the hands of those who would destroy it...and we have some big fights for the future of the Supreme Court coming up.

Can we spare the time, energy and resources on this right now?

[elperromagico]

13. I honestly don't believe the amendment's backers

are all that interested in seeing it pass. It's a symbolic gesture. And you know what? I'm getting sick of symbolic gestures.

I agree with you completely. Let's fight the most important battles right now - SS and USSC being two of the most important. This Electoral College amendment is not a fight we can win right now unless we invest the bulk of our energies in it - and I don't sense any strong commitment from the Dem leaders.

[Clarkie1]

19. If not now, when? If not us, who? Someday never comes....

We can fight more than one battle, and we must not merely play the role of defense.

We just had two of the closest elections in history, both dominated by a few "battleground" states.

There should not be any battleground states in our democracy; the battleground for our would be leaders should be AMERICA.

The time is now.

[elperromagico]

20. Fine then. Tell me how we win this thing

with an apathetic press, a Republican Congress, a shitload of small states that don't want to lose their inflated power in the EC, and a Democratic Party not particularly interested in fighting this battle.

Tell me. Please. I want to be convinced.

[Hekate]

54. Same way we win anything else: don't mourn, organize

I'm not going to bother sniping at you -- I'm as bummed as any other Democrat. I'm so down I don't know what to do next to make this nightmare end.

But I am encouraged by the number of people I know, both at DU and in my own town, who get up every day and do something to defeat the Bushites' evil purposes. When I get low enough I think of them, and I remind myself that we have a lot of fellow-travelers on this rock-strewn highway. One woman I know says she keeps her spirits up by believing that over half the people in this country agree with us.

Hekate

[Hekate]

53. The EC's a remnant of compromising to slave-states ...

... same sort of compromise as the crap about counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for purposes of gaining members in the House of Representatives.

It's long past time for it to be junked; the Electoral College system has caused our democracy nothing but harm in the past two elections, and doubtless before that.

DiFi deserves kudos for bringing it up.

You're right: If not now, when?

Hekate

[Webster Green]

11. She needs to challenge on the 6th of January....

Or she has lost my vote for good. I told her that in an e mail a couple of days ago.

I hate her, but I have always voted for her.

But, if they all roll over and kiss the chimp's butt on the 6th, I'm going back to the Green Party.

Getting rid of the Electoral College won't change a damn thing if the repukes still run the show and continue to throw dem votes in the shit can.

[cally]

14. It's interesting that she chose to offer the amendment

I don't for a second think it will pass, but Feinstein must be getting enough pressure from us that she wants to appease us by offering an amendment.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. I don't care about the cons, EVERYBODY's vote should count the same

I don't give a shit if presidential candidates have to campaign in all 50 states and I don't give a shit if small states feel like they are loosing power. Small states get pleanty of power by the fact that they get two senators no matter what. That's enough pandering to the small states as far as I'm concerned. The system is undemocratic and unfair.

The ONE legitimate reason to keep the system is because of concerns over voter fraud, which we need to work to prevent any way.

[Kurovski]

21. Good.

The damn thing is way outdated.

[Lenape85]

22. My respect for DiFi has gone up a bit

[TheDonkey]

23. GOOD GOOD GOOD

doubtful it will go anywhere, but hopefully the thugs will be excited b/c * won the pop. vote this time.

[ashmanonar]

26. "won?"

i don't believe for an instant that the chimp actually won this election...too many problems in ohio, florida, pennsylvania, etc...if his popularity is lower now than the number he won the election by, what does that tell you?

incidentally, i think the electoral college can go...too non-democratic...(most democratic nations in the world can do without it, why not us?)...as long as every person's vote counts then it'd be a damn sight more effective.

[greenohio]

27. Its a DLC plot to keep the repukes in control

Gotta watch those DLCers. They're tricky.

[genius]

28. Yeh. But if she doesn't stand up Jan 6th, we still won't forgive her.

Jan 6th will be her second chance to do the right thing.

[Pushed To The Left]

29. It's about time!

Let's make every vote truly count, regardless of whether you live in a blue state or a red state.

[The Gigmeister]

30. It will never happen.

It would take ratification by 38 states. That's not going to happen.

[American Tragedy]

40. Perhaps if you made them see that the system does not help them.

How often do presidential candidates pay any attention to Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wyoming? These are all states of small population. How can one argue that the electoral college empowers them?

[Catchawave]

32. I'd like to see an effort by both parties to change...

and improve the way we vote, otherwise it just looks like sour grapes to the repugs, and I'm sick of them telling us to get over it.

This would be a good time to fix the damn system, with President Lame Duck (no offense to ducks) working on his legacy and not re-election.

[hopein08]

33. Good for her!

My uncle lives in San Francisco and really likes Feinstein. He wrote her and Boxer about the Lewinsky thing and Feinstein took the time to send a detailed letter back explaining her position. He'd never vote against either of them but that just proves why he likes her.

I hope it works!

[IndianaGreen]

34. This is long overdue!

The Framers of the Constitution did not believe in democracy anyway, they wanted to protect their own station of privilege, and keep their slaves as well.

This is long overdue!

A word of caution: Democracy by itself does not guarantee good government. Nazis were a majority in Germany at one time.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Is it called the "Snowball's chance in hell" ammendment?

As long as the red(neck)states run the country, it has about as much chance of getting anywhere as the proverbial snowball.

But, good for her for trying.

[leesa]

38. I hope this is the move I have been waiting for from Feinstein to regain

some credibility, at least with me. This is good. The red states wield too much power, but both sides need to be educated about the other's issues, and compromises can be obtained, I'm sure.

[Silverhair]

45. Won't happen.

ANY 13 states can block a constitutional amendment. Can you think of 13 tiny states that benefit from the electoral college system?

[w4rma]

46. That's nice. But how about working on something useful? Like getting rid

of the DRE voting machines?

[fujiyama]

48. That's nice

and while I agree with her, it's a waste of time.

Why can't she do something useful for once? I haven't been very impressed with her in record in the senate...

But I do think her state gets shafted by the EC.

[flaminbats]

49. Why didn't she propose this four years ago?

Gore's popular election victory was still fresh on voters' minds, and thanks to Jim Jeffords..Democrats briefly held the Senate!

[Clarkie1]

50. I must say, I am disappointed by some of the negativity expressed by

so-called "progressives" regarding this ammendment.

"It won't happen"

"Snowball's chance in hell"

Glad The founding fathers didn't think that way.

[outraged2]

52. electoral college...

No doubt SOME kind of reform has to happen, I don't think doing away with the electoral college is the answer though. I believe it would actually hurt dems way more than help them. If you get rid of the electoral college you remove one more check in our system. Direct/pure democracy is not the answer, it works on the playground or in other small groups but part of the reason we have the system we have is to prevent tyranny of the majority. Majority rule is not always best. I do NOT like the way the present system is, but doing away with it completely is not a good idea. A more managable reform, and more fair in my opinion is IRV. It negates the 'winner take all' dynamic, would help third parties and would give voice to more people than even the direct, completely unrestricted popular vote would.

[kamqute]

56. If we went over to a parliamentary system..

..it would be fine