November 10, 2000
By Curt Anderson
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.azstarnet.com/vote2000/#11

WASHINGTON - There were new calls yesterday to abolish the Electoral College.

"The people would decide. A majority would rule," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "The point we're trying to make is that this is no way to run a country."

Durbin is co-sponsor of a proposed amendment to the Constitution that would require direct election of presidents, ending the two-centuries-old system of state-based electors. More than 700 attempts to overhaul the system over the decades have failed.

Durbin made his comments as Florida continued its recount.

"The awkwardness comes in that the principle of one man, one vote, is not precisely reflected," said Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa.

Apart from the inherent difficulty of amending the Constitution, turning to a nationwide popular vote to pick a president has long faced extreme difficulties. People from smaller states, already struggling for attention in most presidential races, worry about being ignored altogether by candidates who choose to campaign exclusively in the populous regions.

"I happen to think it may help the smaller states," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said about the Electoral College. "South Dakota isn't the biggest state in the country, and we're going to look at those three electoral votes with some degree of concern if we lose it."

The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College in 1787 as a buffer between the citizens and election of the president. It was to protect the nation from mob rule and ensure power for less-populous states.

In a presidential election, voters select 538 electors, rather than voting directly for the president and his vice presidential candidate. The electors, distributed according to each state's House and Senate members, meet in December to officially complete the state-by-state electoral process.

States use a winner-take-all system, except Nebraska and Maine. They allocate one elector to the winner of each congressional district and two electors for the winner of the state overall. The two states, taken together, account for nine electoral votes.

Sen. Robert Torricelli, a Democrat from populous New Jersey, said the Constitution's framers meant to make the presidential election a vote of the people in each state, not a vote of the country as a whole.

"This is not the federal republic of America," Torricelli said. "It is the United States of America. Our sense of union, and everyone's inclusion, has now been based on this Electoral College."

There may be hearings and debate in the coming months on Capitol Hill on the proposed amendment, but backers realize the difficulty of pushing it through. To amend the Constitution, both the House and Senate must pass the amendment with two-thirds majorities. Then at least 38 of the 50 states must ratify it.

"Before we change it, I think we need to look at it and think about it pretty hard," said Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss. "But we should not put it outside the realm of possibility."

Dozens of constitutional amendments are introduced in Congress every year. Only 27 have been added to the nation's cornerstone document.