Friday, January 14, 2005

DiFi to propose abolishing Electoral College

DiFi (that would be Senator Dianne Feinstein from California) said that she will propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to ban the Electoral College and implement a national popular vote in determining the presidency. Full story here. The article tries to give her idea credence by mentioning that it has the support of RINO (Republican in Name Only) Lincoln Chafee, a RINO from a liberal state (Rhode Island) who detests Bush.

Anyway, it's not going to happen, for a few reasons:

1. It would require that virtually every "battleground state" (such as Missouri, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, West Virgina, Ohio, Florida, etc.) give up its importance and quadriennial candidate courting. They like the attention, so they're not having it.

2. It would require all of the smaller states, whether battleground or not, to consider giving up their clout. Bush barely won the electoral vote in 2000, and it can be argued that the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho, etc., played a huge role in that. Granted, Rhode Island may want to go along with it, but only because they don't like the outcome of the last two elections.

3. Outside of California and New England, nobody likes California and New England, with their (generally speaking, clearly not applicable to all) sense of self-righteousness, haughtiness, rudeness, and lack of regard for all things outside of their blue spheres. Anything that we red states can do to continue sticking it to the loony left states, we're all for doing it.

It's for reason #3 that DiFi wants the EC abolished...that, and she doesn't like the current president. She fails to consider, though, that Dems have benefitted from the EC, too. In 1992, Bill Clinton won the presidency with an anemic 42% of the popular vote. Embarrassing, except for the fact that he won a whopping 370 electoral votes, giving him electoral legitimacy that conservatives wanted to deny him.

What's annoying, though, and typical of liberal disdain for our country and its origins, is DiFi's condescending quote: "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."

May have been suitable? Why, how did this country ever get going without DiFi's brilliance around?! Those morons Jefferson, Madison, et al didn't know what they were doing, I guess. May?

Also, DiFi's wrong about the elections being decided in several battleground states. Uh, DiFi...the election is decided in all states, not just battlegrounds! She's letting her frustrations with the last two elections cloud her thinking (which I though was supposed to be a liberal's strong point?).

Finally, this is a once-in-a-generation experience. For only four times in the history of our country, we've had different electoral vote and popular vote winners. States decide the presidency, not metropolitan population centers. If states want to divvy up their electoral votes differently, they can: Nebraska and Maine do, and Colorado voted on it...and opted against it.

So is this really necessary, other than to placate disgruntled liberal constituents? If so, knock yourself out, DiFi...but realize that you have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting this amendment voted on, much less ratified.