First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Sen. Barbara Boxer introduces bill to end electoral college
21714 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F
Offline
Posted 11/15/16 , edited 11/16/16
14720 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 11/15/16 , edited 11/16/16
...good? I mean, this wont change anything for the current election cycle but it makes your vote actually count if you live in a non-swing state in the future.
21517 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Offline
Posted 11/15/16 , edited 11/15/16
I don't see it passing it not on;y has to get pass congress but 3/4th of the states
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/15/16 , edited 11/15/16
Has to have 3/4th of states, which will never happen and for good reason. It will die, and be revived again next election cycle when something similar happens. Until states get their rights back electoral colleges are a necessary thing.
Posted 11/15/16 , edited 11/15/16
They tried the same thing back in 2004, I think. They are desperate to get those illegal votes to actually mean something.
39155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 11/15/16
Now, their fool-proof plan to steal the election, will really work, next time! Well, she's as left a liberal progressive as they come. I don't think the Republican controlled House and Senate will go along with it.
42349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
suffering
Offline
Posted 11/15/16 , edited 11/15/16
Like it or not, it is an outdated and less democratic system than popular vote.
4837 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/15/16 , edited 11/15/16
39738 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Georgia, USA
Offline
Posted 11/15/16

animegirl2222 wrote:

Like it or not, it is an outdated and less democratic system than popular vote.


Good thing we're a republic then

7606 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Online
Posted 11/15/16 , edited 11/15/16
Ejanss 
16423 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/15/16 , edited 11/15/16

redokami wrote:welp. looks like it has chances of happening


It has chances of being broken down and compromised into something more REASONABLE and less 100% immediate knee-jerk "Fix the bad thing that happened by making it go away" tantrum.

Eliminating it? Hardly--Cooler heads during the election coverage reminded us why it was important, and cooler heads are going to emerge on the floor debates.
Changing it? Definitely--There's been talk of the "break-up" rule of letting states determine whether they give all their votes or split by percentage as they do at the party conventions, but it's been covered under the territory of individual state voting rules, so making it a national policy would be a change step.
22244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 11/15/16 , edited 11/15/16
I don't really see the reasoning for Cate's answer as to why we need it. It appears to give more power to the smaller populated states vs more homogenous and more populated states, but unless i misunderstand something, my reaction is an underwhelming "Who cares about a 50/50 Ratio?" Trump won both the popular the and electoral vote, despite numerous attempts to assassinate his campaign, and most of the highly populated areas are democratic.


Though forgive me, I am extremely ignorant on this issue.
1695 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 11/15/16
"Hurrah, we've finally ended the republic!"

Well, it's time for all states to start succession. After all, if they aren't going to be represented..
59941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 11/15/16 , edited 11/15/16


"We have a federal system, and if you want to lead it, you have to appeal to more than just one segment of the population- or a handful of states with a high population."

Except that's exactly what the Electoral College causes. If you want to be president, your only chance of winning is by pandering to people in a handful of states. Some of those states are even small, meaning rather than the majority of the country choosing the president, a handful of individuals choose the president for us. Florida and Pennsylvania are the only two big swing states. I know that a lot of people think New York, California, and Texas shouldn't have a monopoly on the Electoral College, but how is that worse than what we have now with 5 or 6 smaller states determining who gets to rule over the hundreds of millions of people who live in other states?

Besides, NY, CA, and TX will almost never be on the same page so this fear that all someone needs to do to win is take all 3 and the next few largest is nonsense. If a candidate is able to appeal to both deep red and deep blue states, chances are they're already going to win most other states anyways. We haven't had a landslide like that since Reagan and even that was a rare phenomenon. The political climate today is significantly different than it was 200 years ago. The Electoral College today is outdated and only gives a few states almost all the power despite most of the country's population living elsewhere.


PeripheralVisionary wrote:
Trump won both the popular the and electoral vote, despite numerous attempts to assassinate his campaign, and most of the highly populated areas are democratic.


Actually, Hillary won the popular vote by less than a million.
1695 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 11/15/16 , edited 11/15/16

PhantomGundam wrote:
Actually, Hillary won the popular vote by less than a million.


The partially counted popular vote...
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.