Gunco Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Feinstein: Abolish Electoral College
Moderate Dem wants Senate to vote on reform.
By Adriel Hampton | Staff Writer
Published on Thursday, December 23, 2004
URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/122304b_feinstein

Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is lending her moderate voice to the fight to abolish the Electoral College, calling it an "anachronism" unsuited to the 21st century and promising to introduce legislation to provide for a popular election of the President and Vice President.

"We need to have a serious, comprehensive debate on reforming the Electoral College," Feinstein said. "My goal is simply to allow the popular will of the American people to be expressed every four years when we elect our President."

Rob Richie, director of the Maryland-based Center for Voting and Democracy, applauded Feinstein's commitment to the issue, saying the Electoral College's winner-take-all system and partisan dominance in most states may lead to fierce competition in as few as five in 2008.

"Most Americans never saw a presidential TV ad in their local market," Richie said. "In Toledo, Ohio, there were 1,400 or more. Some states get all the attention, others get none."

The last Senate vote on Electoral College reform was a quarter century ago, but with two back-to-back narrowly decided presidential contests, reform cries have again reached a peak. After President Bush won the 2000 election without the popular vote -- only the fourth such outcome ever -- Sen. John Kerry in November came only thousands of votes short of an Electoral College win, despite losing the popular vote by more than 3 million votes.

San Francisco Republican Party chair Mike DeNunzio said his concern with Feinstein's proposal is that candidates would lose focus on states like Nevada or Iowa, but he agreed the issue deserves serious study.

"They should be calling for a commission to rethink this as we go into the 21st century," DeNunzio said. "Some mending has to take place."

An Electoral College reform proposal by Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. is pending in the House of Representatives, and, unlike Feinstein's plan, it would require a runoff if one candidate did not achieve more than 50 percent of the vote.

Attempts to Abolish
Since its inception as Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution, there have been more than 700 attempts to abolish or amend the Electoral College system. It was modified by the 12th and 23rd Amendments.
In 1950, an amendment to make the electoral vote proportional to the popular vote passed in the Senate, but died in the House of Representatives.
In 1969, a proposal to shift to a direct popular election with a 40 percent threshold or a runoff passed the House, but failed in the Senate due to a filibuster.
In 1979, a proposal to abolish the college failed in the Senate.
-- Source: Center for Voting and Democracy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
If she's a moderate then I'm a contender for the "Mr America Title".
And if you could see me now.........well I even have trouble walking.
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
The best way to tell if Feinswine is going to say something stupid, just watch for her lips to move. It's a sure sign every time!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
What's the current advantage of the Electoral College system? Does it protect the smaller states, as does reliance upon a Senate?
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
What's the current advantage of the Electoral College system? Does it protect the smaller states, as does reliance upon a Senate?
The electoral college was designed to protect rural areas. Just take Kalifornia for instance, Kerry won the state. But if you look at it by counties, Bush won Cali hands down. It was the large cities that gave Kali to Kerry. Or that's what I remember from high school anyhow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Preacher said:
The electoral college was designed to protect rural areas. Just take Kalifornia for instance, Kerry won the state. But if you look at it by counties, Bush won Cali hands down. It was the large cities that gave Kali to Kerry. Or that's what I remember from high school anyhow.
I don't get it, Preacher. Seems to me you're describing how the Electoral College system failed to protect rural interests in California.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,214 Posts
Dianne Feinstein is by far the most extreme left wing radical I have ever known of. She is the driving force behind every gun ban law that has hit the books in the past 10 years. She used to have a permit to carry a pistol years ago. but now her and her body guards beleive that no one should have guns except for police and trained saftey profesionals (body guards). Well what about the people in the high crime neighborhoods that can not afford thier own body guards.
Feinsteins biggest flaw is that she bans things based on how scary they look in picture books. A gun is a gun and the second ammendment is suposed to protect our individual right to keep them. She swore to uphold the constitution but she shits on it every day.

Just my two cents worth,Redchevyman
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer said:
One of the dying gasps of republicanism.
Clearly, but republicanism holds no inherent advantages. Remember, it's the People's Republic of China. Anyway, what are the advantages to the Electoral College form of republicanism?
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
I don't get it, Preacher. Seems to me you're describing how the Electoral College system failed to protect rural interests in California.
I said that's how it was designed, not how it worked. Anyhow, just going on limited memory of American history class, so take it with a grain of salt.
 

·
Gunco Irregular
Joined
·
4,323 Posts
It saves us from the Tyranny of the majority.
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
redchevyman said:
Dianne Feinstein .........that no one should have guns except for police and trained saftey profesionals (body guards)......
First of all, you mispelled her name, it's Feinswine.(HaHa) And I think she should put her money where her mouth is and disarm her security if it works so well.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Dzerzhinsky said:
Clearly, but republicanism holds no inherent advantages. Remember, it's the People's Republic of China. Anyway, what are the advantages to the Electoral College form of republicanism?
You are too smart to miss that those governments misuse the term.

The Founders feared the tyranny of the majority especially if the passions were incited by some current fad or whimsy.

The entire Constitution is permeated with efforts to balance individual rights with the need to govern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
redchevyman said:
...
Feinsteins biggest flaw is that she bans things based on how scary they look in picture books. ...
I think you give her too much credit. I think she bans things based on how much political mileage she can get out of doing so. She'd ban Santa Claus if there were votes in it for her. Look up "pandering politician" and you'll see her picture.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Cephus said:
Well correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't you who said the other day that the commies started to use the word republic and democratic because they wanted to sound more like the USA. Maybe I'm wrong but I think I ccould find it some place. LMAO :thumbup1:
Yep, that was me. But my two points are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, the commies hijacked both the words "democratic" and "republican". As they did the word "people".

But it still stands that there is no inherent merit to republicanism. I would contend that its merit is linked to the extent to which it is the product of democracy. I don't think folks who say that the United States is a republic, not a democracty, are right - I think the United States is a kind of republic, a democratic republic. But were they speaking of Red China, I'd agree with them: Mainland China is a republic, not a democracy.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Yeah, right...


CHAPTER I. General Principles

Article 1. Socialist state

The People's Republic of China is a socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants.

The socialist system is the basic system of the People's Republic of China. Disruption of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited.

Article 2. Power belongs to the people

All power in the People's Republic of China belongs to the people.

The National People's Congress and the local people's congresses at various levels are the organs through which the people exercise state power.

The people administer state affairs and manage economic, cultural and social affairs through various channels and in various ways in accordance with the law.

Article 3. Democracy

The state organs of the People's Republic of China apply the principle of democratic centralism.

The National People's Congress and the local people's congresses at various levels are constituted through democratic elections. They are responsible to the people and subject to their supervision.

All administrative, judicial and procuratorial organs of the state are created by the people's congresses to which they are responsible and by which they are supervised.

The divisions of functions and powers between the central and local state organs is guided by the principle of giving full scope to the initiative and enthusiasm of the local authorities under the unified leadership of the central authorities.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Compare:

Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer, that extract from the Chinese constitution (thanks!) and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are both pretty good examples of how it doesn't matter what you've written into your constitution if you then ignore it. Although, thankfully, we are coming to recognize that the Ninth Amendment is what confers the right to healthcare.

I was taken by "The socialist system is the basic system of the People's Republic of China. Disruption of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited." given how Red China is increasingly becoming Fascist China as it moves away from socialism with governmental ownership of the means of production and towards fascism with the means of production held in private hands. I'm unaware of any of the folks in power in China being held to task for "disruption of the socialist system".
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Here is how I see it.

The Founding Fathers get a B- for drafting but an A+ for sincerity.

The Red Chinese get an A+ for drafting but an F for sincerity.
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
Preacher said:
The electoral college was designed to protect rural areas. Just take Kalifornia for instance, Kerry won the state. But if you look at it by counties, Bush won Cali hands down. It was the large cities that gave Kali to Kerry. Or that's what I remember from high school anyhow.
I don't get it, Preacher. Seems to me you're describing how the Electoral College system failed to protect rural interests in California.
Went back and done a little homework. I guess the point I was trying to make and didn't, was that if there was a state level of an electoral college, that Bush would have won California. Lack of memory and poor wording made it come out all wrong. The electoral college is used on a federal level but not on a state level.

Here's some History:

The electoral system was devised by the drafters of the Constitution of the United States, who hoped thereby to entrust the responsibility to people whose choice would be unaffected by partisan politics. In Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution, the method of selecting electors is delegated to the separate state legislatures, and the voting procedure to be followed by the electors is carefully defined. According to the electoral procedure originally specified in the Constitution, the electors were to vote for the two most qualified persons without specifying which was preferred for president and which for vice president. The candidate receiving the greatest number of electoral votes, provided the votes of a majority of the electors were received, would be president, and the candidate winning the second largest number of votes would be vice president. A serious flaw in this procedure was revealed in the election of 1800, when Thomas Jefferson was the presidential candidate of the Democratic-Republican Party (the forerunner of today?s Democratic Party) and Aaron Burr was the candidate for vice president. The electors, by voting strictly for candidates of their party, gave Burr and Jefferson the same number of votes. As the Constitution provided, the election was referred to the House of Representatives, where a protracted struggle took place, requiring 36 ballots before Jefferson was chosen president and Burr vice president. Therefore, in 1804 Congress enacted and the states ratified the 12th Amendment, providing for separate electoral votes for president and for vice president.
Another important change resulted from a serious dispute in the presidential election of 1876 in which the Republican, Rutherford B. Hayes, and the Democrat, Samuel J. Tilden, were the candidates. The dispute involved the validity of the electoral votes of four states, and the outcome was crucial, since Tilden needed just one of the 22 votes to have a majority and Hayes needed all 22 to win. Under existing law, it was the duty of Congress to resolve the dispute, but Congress found itself deadlocked. Finally, the issue was settled through the creation of the Electoral Commission of 1877, which chose Hayes on a strict party vote, eight to seven. Later, in 1887, Congress enacted a law that gave the states almost exclusive power to resolve all controversies regarding the selection of presidential electors and that made mandatory, except in cases in which electors vote ?irregularly,? the acceptance by Congress of all certificates of election duly made by the states. The enactment also provided that Congress may intervene to settle a dispute over the election of the presidential electors of a state only when the state is unable to do so.
Apart from the changes described above, the procedure worked out by the framers of the Constitution is substantially the one in use today. The 23rd Amendment, however, adopted in 1961, permits residents of the District of Columbia to vote for three electors in the same manner as residents of the states. Through its power of apportioning representatives among the states, Congress determines the number of presidential electors to which each state is entitled. At the present time the total of state and District of Columbia electors is 538; a simple majority of 270 is necessary for election. Presidential electors meet in each state at a place designated by the state legislature, usually the state capitol. By decision of Congress, they meet to vote simultaneously in all the states, on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December of presidential election years. On January 6, following the meeting of the electors, their votes are counted in the presence of both houses of Congress.
Microsoft? Encarta? Encyclopedia 2002. ? 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top