The only two offices where the person with the most votes can lose are President of the United States and Johnson County Soil and Water Commissioner. And that's just not defensible in the modern world.
This isn't really an end-around on the Constitution--that document allows states to choose electors however they want. That said, I'd still rather do it by amending the Constitution, because I'd really like our highest law to say "the person with the most votes wins." What's partisan about that?
I don't get why this is breaking out on partisan lines (my suspicion is it's Republicans reflexively defending the Bush 2000 "win.") The Republican rhetoric of calling this the "Iowa Voter Irrelevance Act" ignores that it doesn't take effect until 270 electoral votes worth of states approve it. It isn't unilateral disarmament. Conversely, if the large states want it, we'll have it whether we want it or not.
There's a difference between the right to get the time off and the ability. That three hours' pay might be too much to give up, or the boss might have a way of letting you know better than to ask. Still, it's a good step forward.
All 50 Republican Senators voted against the Clinton plan in 1993. Of these 50, 11 are still United States Senators. 10 of these 11 voted against Obama’s economic recovery package. Here are the 10 big winners:
Shelby (D-AL, note: Shelby was supposedly a Democrat at the time. He switched parties shortly thereafter.)
These people have literally been fighting for the same failed economic theories for more than 16 years.
Scoop: Burris will also be sending, directly or indirectly (maybe this is it) two messages: he will not resign in the wake of the controversy surrounding his appointment by the ousted Gov. Blagojevich and he will not run for the seat in 2010. Burris has finally realized that not seeking election next year is the least price he will pay.