First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply Sen. Barbara Boxer introduces bill to end electoral college
18686 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 17 days ago

Emtro wrote:


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


The partially counted popular vote...


the "votes" that are still being "counted"
590 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / The Ivory Tower
Offline
Posted 17 days ago
Yeah, I'd side with redokami here, actually. Democracy is bad, and if you don't understand why you are ill-informed. The electoral college is in fact good. If only we went back to the system where the electors could actually decide for themselves who they were voting for, instead of being bound to candidates or whatever they do now. This is why we have electors - so they themselves can choose who they think ought to run the country. This thing where the electors just do what the popular vote of their state says is too democratic.
18483 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 17 days ago
The electoral college give all states an equal voice. A few states with big populations DO NOT represent all states equally. PERIOD.
lawdog 
40433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 17 days ago , edited 17 days ago


Chances? The chances are slim and none, and Slim just left town.

You need a 2/3rds majority in both houses, and then you need 3/4ths of the states to ratify within 7 years. You think any candidate is going to visit New Hampshire anymore? Give a rat's butt about Iowa? Essentially the 29 single digit states, especially those with only 3 or 4 electors, would be voting against their own self-interests, first by their representatives and Senators in Congress, and then their legislatures. Heck even those states with 10 or slightly more, especially with states with declining populations, would be hard-pressed to see that it's in their self interests either.

Of course, what so many forget is that this election was run and campaigned on, by both parties, based upon the current set of rules. Trump spent no money in California or New York, or other solid blue states. He never went to California or many other solid Blue states.

Which means, that if the popular vote mattered, he'd have run his campaign in a very different way, and still would have had a significant possibility of victory. Even if Hillary wins California or New York, if he cuts into her vote there, if he's spending TV and radio money there, it's easily conceivable that he'd win the popular vote. Last I checked, on the counted vote, she's roughly 700,000 votes ahead. Months of campaign ads in heavily blue states, most notably California, Illinois, New York and New Jersey, even Massachusetts, and all he'd need to do is switch some 350,000 plus votes to have the popular vote. This is very doable, when you consider how those states were virtual blue bubbles, undisturbed, save for the occasional national ad, by any Trump campaigning.

Now, have you considered the obvious implication of all this? If you think money in politics is bad now, imagine the money that would be needed for a popular vote election.

This is DOA. But, Boxer knows this isn't going to happen. My guess? An attempt to Soothe Sulking, Stupid, Special Snowflakes.
6151 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 17 days ago
If we went strictly by popular vote, the most effective method of campaigning would be to campaign in the most highly populated areas. These areas typically lean Blue. Good luck getting this through the Republican controlled House, Senate, and White House. Also good luck getting it through the State legislature as most of those are controlled by Republican governors.

Also I really wish people would get over Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote. It really doesn't mean anything when you think about it. People went into the election assuming it would be decided by electoral college. The candidates campaigned as if it was going to be decided by electoral college. We have no idea what would of happened if it was stated to be decided by popular vote at the start of the process. It is not as if there aren't people out there that don't vote because they feel their vote doesn't matter since they live in a deep blue or red state. Those same people might of voted third party as well knowing under the electoral college it had no impact on the overall election. You can't conclude anything about the results except that Clinton got more vote under the current system. This however doesn't mean she would of won if the election would of been decided by popular vote from the start (if I had to make an educated guess I would guess she would win, but in the end that is a guess and not actually a fact.)

Really though, if we really wanted it to be about the "will of the People," it should probably be decided by majority vote not popular vote. Though in that was the case, if we had the results we had last Tuesday, nobody would be President Elect and we'd probably have to vote again.
19572 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / missouri
Offline
Posted 17 days ago , edited 17 days ago
In my opinion, the electoral college shouldn't be an all or nothing vote, but rather split by percentage by the state. Illinois actually has a very distinct north and south. The north being considerably more populated and majority democrat. While the south has a much lower population density and majority republican. With the current system any vote by the north denies the vote by the south. Should half the state be denied it's say because they are outnumbered. It's The same justification for the electoral college itself. If a select few large population centers shouldn't decide how our country votes, the same is true for states. A select few large population centers shouldn't decide how a state votes either.

FYI. There have actually been petitions for Illinois to split into north and south but the US constitution makes no provisions for such a split. The only state currently allowed to do so Is Texas which as I understand it can split into 5 separate states or rightfully sussed from the union, and become it's own nation if it so chooses.)
Emtro 
1541 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 17 days ago , edited 17 days ago

jujitsu213 wrote:

In my opinion, the electoral college shouldn't be an all or nothing vote, but rather split by percentage by the state. Illinois actually has a very distinct north and south. The north being considerably more populated and majority democrat. While the south has a much lower population density and majority republican. With the current system any vote by the north denies the vote by the south. Should half the state be denied it's say because they are outnumbered. It's The same justification for the electoral college itself. If a select few large population centers shouldn't decide how our country votes, the same is true for states. A select few large population centers shouldn't decide how a state votes either.

FYI. There have actually been petitions for Illinois to split into north and south but the US constitution makes no provisions for such a split. The only state currently allowed to do so Is Texas which as I understand it can split into 5 separate states or rightfully sussed from the union, and become it's own nation if it so chooses.)


The various electoral votes per state and the non-voters without representation are the reason the electoral college is the way it is. To tell everyone "If you don't vote you don't deserve representation" is not good enough. This is a republic. If people choose to trust their neighbors with the vote they should be allowed to do so without ridicule.

Make no mistake. If a bill like this passes, it will be civil war once again. Of course, that has clearly been the goal of the communist... ehem, democratic party anyways.
47860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 17 days ago
In addition to the points already given:

Popular vote gives power to the most populous regions.
Electoral vote gives power to the most ideologically diverse regions.

Candidates in popular election win when their campaigns more closely reflect the interests of people in large population centers.
Candidates in electoral election win when their campaigns more closely reflect the interests of people in many types of regions.

Clinton lost because she ignored and berated entire sections of the country. And I say that as a Gary Johnson voter who has huge disagreements with both major candidates. Whether you agree or disagree with the electoral college, it seems to be working as intended.
973 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Somewhere Drinking
Offline
Posted 17 days ago
Nope not going to fucking happen because the smaller and least populated states will be getting the short end of the stick.
14916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 17 days ago
I agree with lawdog, though I must tell you that you're wrong regarding Trump not paying a visit to California during the campaign. He went to the Hyatt right by the San Francisco International Airport, and traffic surrounding the area along with the usual protestors, were blocked off from the area.

This bill is basically an attempt to cater to the protestors who feel that Trump isn't their president. Yeah, I felt the way about Obama, but you didn't see me demanding that my state secede. I'm really looking forward to all those Day 1 executive order repeals.
56 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Lucasville Ohio
Offline
Posted 17 days ago
I don't know that is an great idea to end electoral college!!! Electoral College is pretty damn good to elect the president of the US! I hope congress keeps that going!
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 17 days ago

theYchromosome wrote:

In addition to the points already given:

Popular vote gives power to the most populous regions.
Electoral vote gives power to the most ideologically diverse regions.

Candidates in popular election win when their campaigns more closely reflect the interests of people in large population centers.
Candidates in electoral election win when their campaigns more closely reflect the interests of people in many types of regions.

Clinton lost because she ignored and berated entire sections of the country. And I say that as a Gary Johnson voter who has huge disagreements with both major candidates. Whether you agree or disagree with the electoral college, it seems to be working as intended.


This guy has it again.

59230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 17 days ago


If by chance of happening you mean 'close to zero', yes.

Interesting thing - electors aren't necessarily bound by state laws to vote for the candidate that won the electoral vote. There have been approximately 170 cases of 'rogue' electors in US history. For many states, the failure to vote as expected can carry a fine of about $1000 or so.

For the folks that wanted Mr. Trump, well now you have him. Just remember that if things go south. Wanting is not the same as having, and having may not be what you thought it would be.

For the folks who wanted Ms. Clinton, it's over with. Winning the popular vote is nice, but not if you don't take the electoral college as well.
lawdog 
40433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 17 days ago

Akage-chan wrote:

I agree with lawdog, though I must tell you that you're wrong regarding Trump not paying a visit to California during the campaign. He went to the Hyatt right by the San Francisco International Airport, and traffic surrounding the area along with the usual protestors, were blocked off from the area.

This bill is basically an attempt to cater to the protestors who feel that Trump isn't their president. Yeah, I felt the way about Obama, but you didn't see me demanding that my state secede. I'm really looking forward to all those Day 1 executive order repeals.


I stand corrected. But I see you agree with my premise. This never gets out of committee, if it isn't killed procedurally before then.
33051 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 17 days ago
I keep thinking that says Santa Barbra and then I think of Psych
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.