Diane Feinstein wants to get an amendment to end the electoral college. That way, no one will have to run a national campaign--they'll just have to do big media buys in the major cities. Fortunately, her fellow Senators will never pass it out of that chamber. This won't be a partisan issue--it will be a large-state, small-state and urban-state, rural-state issue, and there are more small and rural ones than large and urban ones.

She can wish in one hand and Sh** in the other and see which one fills up first. She is just feeling left out since her sham gun ban expired.

If you want to see why we should not get rid of the Electoral College, take a look at what's happened with the governor's race here in the Banana Republic of Washington. Image what the Dems could do to steal a presidential election if they had not just Cook (opps, that's King) County, but every urban Dem controlled county in the country to work with. The Electoral College acts as a giant firewall, preventing the incompetence and criminal behavior in a Florida or Washington from overwhelming the rest of the country.

It's not clear to me why ending the electoral college would hurt small states. Do presidential candidates purchase much advertising in small states under the present system? It seems like the present system favors medium-sized swing states like Ohio over both large and small red and blue states. Small states would lose their two vote electoral college 'bonus' but since most small states are not swing states I think that would be offset by the greater attention they would receive in a national campaign.

Also I am no expert in media advertising but it was my understanding that the cost of airtime is tied to the number of viewers reached so would it necessarily be cheaper to advertise in cities than rural areas.

I remember seeing a map during the campaign of what states the candidates were doing personal appearances in. It was a ridiculously small number. I think it's the kind of change where the Law of Unintended Consequences would come into play. It will solve some problems (or inequities.) It will cause new problems. But I don't think we can reliably predict from this side what those problems will be.

I think like with all other forms of TV advertising, campaign commercials are losing their effectiveness anyway. I start looking for hyper-local, hyper-personal one-to-one marketing to become the gold standard of political campiaining. Especially if everyone's voter were actually equally valuable.

Folks are missing the point. It's not about campaigning--it's about governing. If the election can be won by simply focusing advertising in high-population areas, then there's no need at all to pay any attention to the rural and small states, during the campaign, or during the term of office. They would lose all of the clout over the executive branch that the compromise originally gave them. There are sound reasons for the electoral college, and despite Senator Feinstein's apparent historical ignorance (or disingenuousness), they haven't gone away in the modern era.

I think Senator Feinstein's being disingenuous. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that this attempt by her and Representative Lofgren is the kickoff of a cerain party's latest attempt to give the body politic 'election reflux' disease.

Ending the electoral college sounds really nice, at least until a freak storm hits the northeast on election day and completely skews the results.

From where I sit, DiFI is doing juuust fine.

Of course, where I'm sitting is Conservative-Republican Land. The more she and the rest of the idiots who make up the Whiny Party's leadership embarrass themselves and alienate potential voters, the better I will like it.

I can already see making this into a (Republican) campaign ad in any one of a dozen lower-population states...

I think her game is more layered than just doing away with the E.C. Doing that wins the Presidency for what are usually more liberal and Democratic areas of the country but doesn't help with the House and Senate.

This is her first step to parliamentary government. Deciding the national election by popular votes lets small one-issue parties have influence in the Presidential race and lets that influence work its way down to House and Senate races as a trade-off for supporting a national candidate. In her mind, better an independent legislator than a Republican one. The premise here is a popular vote President must have more than 50% of the votes cast. Coalitions can then be formed by these small parties to counteract a more organized moderate to conservative plurality and voila, a defacto parliamentary legislative branch.

Someone should ram Clinton winning the '92 election without a majority down her throat and remind her of the chaos that could result if a President is elected solely on less than 50% of the popular vote.

As congressional Democrats used to describe the Reagan and Bush budget proposals upon their delivery to the Capitol, this move by Feinstein is Dead on Arrival, no matterhow much sympathetic support it might get from the media. Even if the issue somehow did manage to get through the U.S. Senate, it would still have to be approved by 38 of the 50 state legislatures.

You can just walk over to a map right now and easily point to 13 states that don't have anywhere near the population of the Greater New York or Los Angeles metrpolitian areas, and the representatives in those states know it. Evem if you had Democratic state representatives there willing to go along with Feinstein's plan, the idea of giving away power to the big states would immediately become a major small state campaign issue and would in all porbability just about wipe out the Democratic Party in every state currently with 15 or fewer electoral votes.

A majority of the Senate -- not two-thirds -- actually approved a bill to abolish the Electoral College a few years back.

That wouldn't happen now 'cause the Senate is controlled by Republicans who benefit politically from the skewed power the College gives to vast areas of empty space.

Thank God the Republicans can't slice and dice state boundaries like they can Texas Congressional districts.

"Thank God the Republicans can't slice and dice state boundaries like they can Texas Congressional districts."

It's called 'whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander'

The demcRATS are masters at teh art of Gerrymandering.

Now that they have had the myth that "high turnout favors the Democrats because the Republicans are a minority" smeared all over their faces, Democrats are making the obvious grab to govern the nation without majority consent.

Is ANYONE suprised?

There's some people who love the nation, and there's some who just love the power.

And when Senator Feinstein's proposal is buried, the idiot wing of the Democratic party will find some tame-tabby judge to declare that the Constitution is unconstitutional.

They should get rid of the electoral college. It's archaic.

Let's face it. Right now - about 10 states determine the Presidency. It is pathetic that states such as Texas, New York, California, Illinois, etc. get absolutely zero attention from either party.

If the electoral college were abolished, politicians would have to campaign across the entire country.

This is not just a big-state/small-state issue. Which small states are really getting any attention from the candidates now? New Mexico, New Hampshire, Iowa. That's about it. Most of hte others (Nebraska, Montana, Wyoming, Hawaii, Vermont, Delaware, etc.) are ignored.

One man - one vote. Get rid of the electoral college.

Getting rid of the electoral college would be disaster. Not only would the high population centers rule the nation, but any candidate that got less than 50% of the vote would require run-off elections.

Run-off elections are a nightmare that we do not want or need.

Small states, which may have only one U.S. Representative, have a per capita advantage by getting two extra votes just for being a state -- corresponding to their U.S. Senate stake. They are not likely to relinquish these votes. Large states have secured an advantage of possibly greater magnitude by casting their EC votes as a bloc. States that fail to do so are politically dysfunctional. They are acting foolishly and are asking to be ignored by the candidates. In fact, small states could recoup all of their lost power by banding together and agreeing to vote as a bloc. Voters’ unions could do the same thing if they could endure the discipline.

The real power centers are the swing states. No one cares about pleasing you unless your vote is poised on the diamond edge, ready to fall one way or the other. Why does Arlen Specter get to keep his position in spite of a major political gaffe? Because he's from a swing state and beloved by his constituents. Why does Trent Lott get dumped for making a non-PC historical reference in a relatively private setting -- despite being beloved by his constituents. Because he's from a safe state.

If you want to enhance your political influence, you need to be less predictable. States and other voting blocs should pay heed to this. Many voting blocs do make noises about disloyalty, but really can't act because of their position in the natural political landscape. It's only when sea changes take place that their desires can become suddenly important. The swing states rule because they are on the cusp of compromise. This is really why the EC is a good thing.