General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSchiff would abolish filibuster, end the Electoral College in his pro-democracy plan
California Senate candidate and Congressmember Adam Schiff is calling for a major overhaul of American institutions, including getting rid of the Electoral College, expanding the Supreme Court and eliminating the filibuster.
The sweeping policy rollout, obtained exclusively by POLITICO, reinforces Schiff’s central pitch in his Senate campaign as a defender of democracy, drawing on his high-profile roles in the first impeachment of then-President Donald Trump and the congressional investigation of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
Though many of the individual agenda items are not new proposals for Schiff, together they present the fullest accounting of his vision to bolster America’s democracy in the wake of the norms-shattering influence of Trump. The package also lays down a marker for the Los Angeles-area representative’s driving message as the race to replace the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein nears its competitive March 5 primary.
“I think our democracy is at more grave risk now than ever,” Schiff said in an interview. “And it's clear that that issue is going to be front and center — and needs to be front and center — on the national stage.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/schiff-abolish-filibuster-end-electoral-140100078.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CaliforniaPeggy
(156,595 posts)He's being really smart to get them out in front of the voters who are thinking about the election, along with its ramifications.
Escurumbele
(4,083 posts)these ARE issues, they are anti-democratic, that is not how a Democracy is supposed to run.
I hope he is successful.
Tribetime
(7,145 posts)
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Has Schumer or Durbin? Who?
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)
mahina
(20,634 posts)Sinema is going to lose to Ruben Gallego and Manchin is not running, in order to spend more time with his money.
DENVERPOPS
(13,003 posts)In 8th grade debate class, we argued the point of getting rid of the Electoral College. It had long out lived it's usefulness.......
EIGHTH GRADE!!!!!!!!!!! (I am 75 years old, BTW)
forgotmylogin
(7,951 posts)"Procedural filibuster" - one side has a majority but only 60 votes that does not succeed because the other side might filibuster but they don't require them to actually hold the floor. "filibuster" in quotes - it's just artificially raising the threshold to pass a bill to 67 votes instead of simple majority of 50.
"Talking filibuster" - holding the floor classically to delay a vote. This requires a lot of work from the person(s) filibustering.
I can see a situation where congresspeople are late and the majority is a couple votes short, and I understand the strategy of holding the floor to prevent a vote from behind rushed through and just failing while people are stuck in traffic.
kimbutgar
(27,230 posts)The electoral college is outdated like the filibuster!
area51
(12,678 posts)durablend
(9,250 posts)And for those "oh noes we can't do that because if they get back in they'll screw us with it" people, if they get back in they're going to burn the country to the ground--filibuster or not.
Red Mountain
(2,336 posts)but until we have some limit on the dark money flowing.....gushing......into political campaigns from sources unknown I'm scared of the outcomes it might produce.
CousinIT
(12,516 posts)
WarGamer
(18,590 posts)At this point in time... I'm Team Porter.
yorkster
(3,814 posts)If I were in California, I'd have to vote for Schiff.
ificandream
(11,836 posts)
vanlassie
(6,245 posts)But I understand her wish to reduce the stress of campaigns. I’ve given her more money than any other candidate, ever, but I’m supporting Schiff for Senate.
spanone
(141,525 posts)Hekate
(100,133 posts)
tinrobot
(12,053 posts)1993-2017, Boxer and Feinstein. That's almost a quarter century.
I like Porter, but I think Schiff is way more qualified. He gets my vote.
Polybius
(21,876 posts)California had no men Senators for 30 years, and that was fine too.
kelly1mm
(5,756 posts)
Aristus
(72,126 posts)1. The Electoral College is hereby abolished.
2. In the quadrennial Presidential election, the total number of votes cast for each Presidential candidate in each of the several states shall be added to the total number of votes cast for each Presidential candidate in all of the states, with the candidate having the greatest number of votes being declared the winner.
3. Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation.
WarGamer
(18,590 posts)
COL Mustard
(8,192 posts)Otherwise nothing will ever happen. Yes, the odds are slim but not zero.
Nasruddin
(1,242 posts)
SlimJimmy
(3,251 posts)The smaller states will never buy into this. Getting 2/3rds is not possible.
whopis01
(3,919 posts)It only takes 13 holdout states to prevent it.
Demsrule86
(71,542 posts)et tu
(2,387 posts)this is why one needs whiteboards- to bring the point home to all voters
schiff is a super representative and will have a place in the biden admin
but in imho porter gets her messages across more directly~
FBaggins
(28,705 posts)If you advocate for positions that cannot succeed... all you accomplish is losing some races that you otherwise would have won. The end result being that things that you otherwise could have achieved get delayed/defeated.
Silent Type
(12,412 posts)I think it’s mostly malarkey.
Rafi
(280 posts)Just google it.
GiqueCee
(4,178 posts)ten squillion percent!
The Electoral College was a diseased piece of racist shit the day it was conceived.
oldsoftie
(13,538 posts)Nice to talk about, but will Never happen
Polybius
(21,876 posts)I like hearing "we have a major projection to make. Biden carries Arizona."
Voltaire2
(15,377 posts)With a provision for a run off mechanism to be legislated by congress. For example one of the instant runoff voting processes.
Also the money needs to be removed from our political system. For starters, citizens United needs to be undone.
And finally the shit this court did to the VRA needs to be addressed.
surfered
(13,343 posts)…It would require amending the Constitution, which means 2/3rd of the House and Senate and then 3/4th of the states must agree. A difficult process, which explains why there have been only 27 Amendments to the Constitution since it’s adoption in 1788.
GiqueCee
(4,178 posts)... the Republicans have jumped the shark, BIG time, and that intelligent thoughtful people will feed them to the sharks by voting their evil asses OUT. When the dust settles after the tantrums of room-temperature IQs have exhausted themselves, we can get down to the business of cleaning up the mess they've made.
Polybius
(21,876 posts)All but impossible.
Hermit-The-Prog
(36,631 posts)The House has been stuck at its current number since 1913. It is less and less representative. Use the least populous state as the basis for 1 representative and recalculate the rest. Using Wyoming at 576000 and an estimated 330 million U.S. population, that would give us a House of 573 members.
Some of Schiff's plan would require 2/3 of House and Senate to enact. It's still a good plan.
Fla Dem
(27,613 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 14, 2024, 12:36 PM - Edit history (2)
and of course, President Biden reelected.
I'd cap those initiative off by expanding the Supreme Court. There are 13 Federal appeal courts. There should be an equal number of SC Justices. They should hear cases on a rotating basis. Seven or 9 to each case.
TexasDem69
(2,317 posts)I disagree with most of these proposals. Expanding the Supreme Court is the dumbest and results in nothing more than an ever expanding court. And there’s zero chance of eliminating the electoral college. Proposing nonsensical or unrealistic policies doesn’t make Schiff a defender of democracy. And I like Schiff
Nasruddin
(1,242 posts)I'm not sure we really benefit from a supreme court at all (it doesn't seem to solve problems), but what we
could do if we can't agree to scrap it (within the bounds of what article 3 unfortunately demands)
is look at some other models, like Germany's. Congress can make most of the rules about how the court is
constituted. The one area that's problematic is that lifetime appointment (for all judges). That's just plain crazy.
That might require an amendment to fix.
TexasDem69
(2,317 posts)And I’d 100% oppose such an effort. Lifetime appointments are one of the great ideas of the Founders. And of course we need a Supreme Court.
SlimJimmy
(3,251 posts)https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text
Buckeyeblue
(6,349 posts)Unlike the other two branches of government, the SC has no checks on it. I'm not sure how the other 2 branches could determine what cases the SC hears but it seems like they shouldn't be able to cherry pick their own cases.
Takket
(23,702 posts)I agree with the goals but I don't see how he's getting en EC abolishion amendment out of Congress, and I don't see how he's getting a court expansion past Biden's desk.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,107 posts)But nice to know we agree.
cabotnn22
(152 posts)If the EC is eliminated, candidates will just campaign in large cities. The midwest (save Chicago) would be ignored, as would states like North Dakota. I like the EC - it can be frustrating when a candidate wins the popular vote but loses the EC, but it isn't a horrible system.
Nasruddin
(1,242 posts)I have the impression this geometry is fractal / self similar at any scale
JustAnotherGen
(38,037 posts)I'm in NJ - we are very late in the Primary and are a sure thing . . . so we don't get bug campaign stops here.
slightlv
(7,782 posts)and unless we travel to KCMO or STLMO, we never see anybody! So, AFAIC, what you're suggesting as a "bad thing" for other people, I've been living with forever!
SqueakyWheel.363
(29 posts)the electoral college is the scene of the crime, why blame the house for the burglars? the real problem remains winner take all laws that have undermined the elector system from day one. Combined with gerrymandered false majorities they are the real problem. Doing away with he elector system requires a constitutional amendment and we know how easy that is. Winner take all is unconstitutional and needs to be found so in court. then we stand a chance in having fair elections. That popular vote is so subject to bias that I'm not sure it's any better that the current situation.
If you want to push through constitutional amendment, how about publicly funded, open book level playing field elections and the return of lobby to bribery? That will do more to make sure that government is responsive to voters.
MichMan
(17,112 posts)Some states already have.
SqueakyWheel.363
(29 posts)but gerrymandering runs state houses as well. IN NC the state senate is disempowering the state supreme court from changing a;; kinds of things. But removing winner take all won't undo false majorities. You need to do both and the best way is to sue to find them unconstitutional. James Madison, I believe, began drafting a constitutional amendment to do away with them. But it was never completed.
whopis01
(3,919 posts)I don’t like it, but I fail to see how it is unconstitutional.
According to the Constitution,
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress”
If the state legislature chooses “winner take all”, then that is the manner they direct.
Captain Zero
(8,882 posts)Under this kind of plan for the EC.
SqueakyWheel.363
(29 posts)And pardon me for not recalling which one specifically, they explain that the elector system as envisioned was meant to provide oversight on the population election to ensure that valid political candidates became president. Winner take all was viewed by Madison and Jefferson, himself a victim of winner take all in his first bid for the presidency, as a violation of the spirit of Article II. Electors were intended to be persons of seniority and wisdom in the needs of the people outside of the political system. Hence the no senators, congress men, presidents or those who profit from government were allowed to be electors.
While states were supposed to chose by their own methods, winner take all was never envisioned by the founders in the drafting of the constitution. Partisan politics created the idea buy the second or third election. Our system is flawed, no doubt, and reform has been proposed, but doing away with it requires an amendment, and they are notoriously difficult to push through. Personally I don't always trust Americans to vote with their brains, the popular vote gave us Nixon, Reagan and two Bushes (with a little help).
whopis01
(3,919 posts)I believe you are referring to No. 68. It really focuses on the desired behavior of the members of the electoral college rather than the method used to select them. Granted, among other ideas, it suggests that they should not be particularly loyal or beholden to the current President. Their vision, as I understand it, was that a group of well informed individuals would be the ones to debate and choose the President and Vice President.
However, the overall concern expressed in that paper was that this should not be a decision left to the general population. It was an argument for the electoral college system as being superior and more resilient to foreign and corrupt influence than a popular election.
I think the better argument was made in the Anti Federalist Response (no 72). It argues against the electoral college, pointing out how it removes the power from the people. It goes as far as to describe a situation where a president could, via a “few artful and dependent emissaries”, seize greater power and even “perpetuate his own personal administration but also make it hereditary”.
In my opinion, the Anti Federalists absolutely nailed this one and we are living with the consequences of the decision to go with the concept put forth by the federalists.
When the Constitution was written, the power to choose the President was purposely removed from the people, in part based on the arguments of the Federalist Papers. Their concept of a small group of people will know better than people leans heavily towards a legislatively selected board of delegates.
Those early electors were mostly selected by the state legislatures. It wasn’t till the rise of Jacksonian Democracy in the mid 1820s that most states used popular elections to select delegates.
The Federalists argued for concentrating the power to pick a President into the hands of a few. They said little to nothing about how those few should be selected. They had an idealistic vision that they would all be well educated, well informed men with little or no affiliation or personal interest in any of the candidates. Unfortunately they offered little suggestion as to how we arrive at that group of people.
SqueakyWheel.363
(29 posts)let's remember that at the time the majority of Americans opposed parting from Britain, and once that happened wanted George Washington to be President for life, ie King. As to the Anti-Federalist papers, they were authored primarily by southerners alarmed at the essentially egalitarian and abolitionist tone of the proposed constitution, they had no problem with its elitist aspects despite what they wrote, consider the 3/5ths compromise. When you consider that the majority of Americans have Never participated in the democratic process in this country, that Drumpf got more votes than Obama in either of his elections, and that the no president I'm aware of has ever won an actual majority of eligible voters, the founders concerns for the popular vote begins to make sense.
We are living with the consequence of Winner take all laws in reference to the slating of electors. Jefferson decried those laws in 1820 when he lost the electoral vote after winning the popular vote, but took a "if you can't beat them join them" attitude when it became clear that he and Madison were not going to get a constitutional amendment passed banning the practice. The founders left many things unstated in the constitution for many reasons, not limited to the need to get the constitution ratified. They make no mention of whether or how voters should organize and many disliked and even hated political parties. That they make little mention as to the selection of electors until the 12th amendment is not surprising.
Given the interaction of gerrymandered false majority and winner take all, electoral reform is needed, but for my money, given the difficulty of passing constitutional amendment, I'd rather look to ending corporate control of our system with publicly funded, open book, level playing field elections and the elimination of lobby. But I'm an anarchist, what do I know.
UTUSN
(77,701 posts)PortTack
(35,820 posts)SqueakyWheel.363
(29 posts)of state legislatures. That's how the Repukes gained power.
sabbat hunter
(7,110 posts)of the filibuster is pretty easy, and straightforward. To get rid of the EC will require a constitutional amendment. As a result that is likely to not happen in the near future.
ColinC
(11,098 posts)Which is more than half way tot he EVs needed
sabbat hunter
(7,110 posts)not a congressional/senate action. Not to mention the interstate pact probably will be taken to the SCOTUS if it is implemented.
ColinC
(11,098 posts)But then you have a large majority of justices oriented on “states rights” who will have to explain not giving states the right to determine how their electoral votes are allocated. I’m sure they’ll find some mental gymnastics to explain it, but at least if it gets that far, they will have to deal with that.
SlimJimmy
(3,251 posts)https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text
RandomNumbers
(19,149 posts)(getting to enough EV's), then National Popular Vote is constitutional and becomes effective.
Right?
Response to RandomNumbers (Reply #64)
SlimJimmy This message was self-deleted by its author.
SlimJimmy
(3,251 posts)But with the filibuster intact, will never pass. Now, before you say "get rid of the filibuster" be careful what you wish for. It can come back to bite hard when the Republicans are in power.
SlimJimmy
(3,251 posts)The USSC will decide.
ColinC
(11,098 posts)As to how states are allowed to allocate their EVs.
SlimJimmy
(3,251 posts)agreement of Congress. That is also in the constitution. I guess it will take the USSC to determine which takes precedence.
ColinC
(11,098 posts)With states allocating their electoral votes however they want and in ageement that those who get the most electoral votes will win. That is the constitutional requirement. It isn’t any different if a majority of states decide to allocate their votes a different way (as they have already done many times in the past)
tritsofme
(19,886 posts)If not legally binding, states may just back out if the compact goes against them. It would be a chimera.
ColinC
(11,098 posts)Since the EC and rules for changing how votes are allocated have already been established by the constitution
tritsofme
(19,886 posts)Let’s say California joins the compact, and surprisingly a Republican wins the popular vote but would have lost the traditional electoral college vote if not for that state.
If California votes nearly 70% for the Democratic candidate, does anyone really think they would send the deciding electoral votes to the Republican and make him president?
It will completely fall apart the first time it is activated. In the end, it’s a silly idea, we need a constitutional amendment if the EC is to really be ended.
ColinC
(11,098 posts)We’ll see though
tritsofme
(19,886 posts)If they could simply back out of the “compact” and let Biden win under traditional rules?
It just isn’t realistic
ColinC
(11,098 posts)EV rules are as good as any other state laws. They cannot be changed on a whim because the results aren’t satisfactory
tritsofme
(19,886 posts)ColinC
(11,098 posts)In fact, if I remember correctly some tried with no success
tritsofme
(19,886 posts)If California could exit the pact, dissolving it, and prevent another Trump presidency….why wouldn’t they?
The so called compact is a joke that would dissolve whenever it was tested.
ColinC
(11,098 posts)Pennsylvania legislators tried to do that in 2020. Trump tried to pressure state governments to change their laws and go against their processes and may go to prison for it.
Regardless, a legislature cannot change the law to retroactively repeal a previous law that an event had already taken place under. What you are suggesting is basically science fiction.
whopis01
(3,919 posts)Moore v Harper in 2023 established that state legislatures have to follow state law and state constitutional requirements with regards to elections.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution prevents states from making ex post facto laws (laws that are retroactive).
The election would be subject to the state laws and state constitution that was in place at the time of the election. The state legislature could not change how it handled the results after the election.
ColinC
(11,098 posts)I like!
montanacowboy
(6,712 posts)we are finished as a democracy. Good for him, about damn time someone says it.
chowder66
(12,218 posts)Even if it’s unrealistic it gets people talking about solutions.
Bayard
(29,578 posts)The EC is in the same category as the Second Amendment---seemed like a good idea at the time, but now outdated and dangerous.
Bluethroughu
(7,215 posts)This country needs to be led by "promoting the general welfare" of the Majority, not the 1%. Ending the Filibuster and Electoral College can give us a chance of an equitably more perfect union.
Talitha
(7,953 posts)
Mountainguy
(2,145 posts)would have given republicans and Trump unrestrained power for 2 years.
Not sure why anyone thinks that it's a good idea to let a party control everything with a simple majority when we have seen what kind of candidates one of the two major parties in the US is willing to put out there.
SlimJimmy
(3,251 posts)Some folks just can't seem to see past the end of their nose sometimes.
Blue Owl
(59,014 posts) brooklynite
(96,882 posts)FBaggins
(28,705 posts)We’re obviously concerned that we won’t control the white house a bit over a year from now… and there are several senate seats endangered this cycle.
If the worst actually occurs - my prediction is that new senator Schiff will become the biggest champion of the filibuster (as will most on DU).
Bettie
(19,662 posts)amending the constitution to remove the EC won't happen in the world we live in now.
ETA: Look how long it took to get the ERA through all the states and as far as I know, it still hasn't been passed.
ananda
(35,079 posts)Wow
former9thward
(33,424 posts)how many, now denouncing the filibuster, will change their minds?
Paper Roses
(7,630 posts)republianmushroom
(22,297 posts)Magoo48
(6,720 posts)bucolic_frolic
(55,039 posts)in frequency, duration, and it should be real not procedural.
mahina
(20,634 posts)Glad I'm not in California or I would have to choose. Good luck you folks. Lucky you have these two excellent candidates.
LudwigPastorius
(14,680 posts)...and having a Constitutional convention throws open the doors to all kinds of whack job changes.
BannonsLiver
(20,550 posts)Everyone here, and their descendants, will be dead and gone before this happens. This country will never be rid of the EC as the GOP knows it’s the only tool they have left to cling to power. They haven’t won the popular vote in 20 years.
sellitman
(11,745 posts)It doesn't belong in modern times. Doing away with it would neuter the gerrymander too.
jaxexpat
(7,794 posts)Rafi
(280 posts)to get rid of the Electoral College, But, there have been changes proposed short of that could make a big difference in the power of the EC.
FlyingPiggy
(3,748 posts)And he needs us to back him up.