From Dissident Voice today, Feinstein Gathering Co-Sponsors for Bill to Abolish Electoral College by Matthew Cardinale. Excerpts:
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is currently gathering original co-sponsors for her proposed bill to abolish the Electoral College system for the U.S. Presidential Election, and to replace it with a direct vote for the Presidency, according to Feinstein press secretary, Adam Vogt.Well, Matthew, I think the last coupla 'lexions mighta jest proved that there last point, doncha think??
The Electoral College has been described by critics as confusing, complicated, alienating, diversionary, unnecessary, undemocratic, and moreover, as hypocritical to the fundamental principles of American governance, which has otherwise been a global leader in democracy.
“A President can be elected without receiving the most popular votes -- this is the fundamental flaw of our electoral system,” Senator Feinstein said during a press statement on January 6, 2005, the day of the Electoral College certification of George W. Bush.
“It has happened four times in our history and there have been close calls in 22 other presidential elections. It will happen again and again unless we change the system,” the Senator continued . . .
Proponents of the Electoral College system generally argue that the system will safeguard the wishes of the states, rather than the wishes of the people.
This is as if the geographical boundaries themselves act, with personal discernable “state wishes.” As if “Georgia” itself has wishes that are more important than, and independent of, the wishes of the citizens of Georgia.
According to Article 1 of the Constitution, smaller states already get overrepresentation in the U.S. Senate, the appropriate place for states to have unique individual representation, wherein each state gets two representatives regardless of the size of the population of the state.
But there is something more fundamental at stake here. The real basis underlying the Electoral College is not a states’ rights argument, or one of protecting the rural states against those with urban centers, but an argument that voters are not smart enough to make choices for themselves regarding something as important as who is their President . . .