On August 25, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein said she will introduce a constitutional amendment when Congress returns on September 4, for the purpose of electing the president by popular vote. Feinstein is chair of the Senate Rules & Administration Committee, and a member of the Judiciary Committee, so she is likely to succeed in getting it through all committee hurdles. But in the Senate itself, as well as in the House, it can’t pass without a two-thirds vote.
Hopefully it has a majority threshold to win, not just plurality.
Joel and all,
Yes, we can hope the proposal will require a majority winner rather than a plurality one. But Sen. Feinstein is very unlikely to propose that herself — especially in the absence of lobbying by activists. Her bill can be amended during its trip through Congress. There, too, it won’t happen without intense activism.
My hope is that the electoral reform community is not so committed to the National Popular Vote plan that we neglect to talk to Sen. Feinstein as well. The two strategies are not mutually exclusive.
Were it not for the Electoral College, in 2000 we would have had to have looked at all the votes from all the counties in the country. Not just four counties in Florida.
This won’t go anywhere. Just remember more amendments have been proposed concerning the Electoral College than any other issue. She will really be doing this for show.
Bob Richard,
I’m personally supportive of ANY plan that would make more votes count nationwide.
Bob Richard,
I’m supportive, and I’m sure I’m not the only one, of ANY plan that would make more votes count nationwide.
sorry didn’t think my first comment went through.
Keep the Electoral College. While we’re at it let’s return to state legislatures electing US Senators.
In defense of the Electoral College, the winner-take-all by state is the problem which the EC gets blamed for. That arrangement exist because the bipartisan party wants it that way so long as it’s expedient. But the EC could be reformed without a constitutional amendment.
Plurality smurality. How about a nation-wide recount of a Presidential election? Care to go there?
The better solution is to enlarge the size of the EC and aggregate the vote district by district. I think the size of the EC could be increased to 1876 with range-voting in each district plus two votes only the over-all winner in each state. This would reduce the skewing of winner-take-all to about 5%.
Besides I like the idea that at least 1876 people might change their minds if something catastrophic happened to a set of candidates – with a repeat national election. Orderly succession is no of the most dangerous aspects of government. The EC can be heat-sink which might otherwise become a civil contagion. NO more Presidents appointed by the Supremes.
“Plurality smurality. How about a nation-wide recount of a Presidential election? Care to go there?”
This is a false argument. Everytime we’ve had a presidential recount in a single state, the national total has been big enough that it wouldn’t have been necessary. The gap between the top two candidates is always much larger and therefore much harder to rig.
In 2000, the top two candidates spent months in a recount that wouldn’t have happened nationally since both were separated by half a million votes. In 2004, with a tense Ohio situation, the gap was 3 million votes.
The EC makes it far easier to steal an election since you’d have to steal or stuff at least a million votes to do it nationally, but only a few thousand in the right place with the EC.
These “national recount” fears are phantoms and nasty drawnout recounts are far more likely with the EC than without it.
The real nightmare in the EC is that should no candidate get an EC majority, all of our votes are tossed out and the House gets to choose the president.
“This is a false argument. Everytime we’ve had a presidential recount in a single state, the national total has been big enough that it wouldn’t have been necessary.”
Before 2000, if you’d proposed that a big state like Florida would have a margin
wtf!? sigh. Never mind.
I wonder if the Feinstein Amendment will include a write-in provision? What if the write-ins deny a candidate a majority? What kind of access to the Presidential ballot will it allow? Nationwide petitions? I can’t wait to see this mess.
Would all FEC filed candidates be allowed on the ballot?
It’s not going to happen this time out. Besides, this would be another nail in the coffin of state sovereignty. The smaller states will NOT go for any anti-EC amendment.