• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Barbara Boxer Launching Senate Bill To Abolish Electoral College

Status
Not open for further replies.

thecouncil

Member
Jan 26, 2008
10,494
1
945
Deadline:
Barbara Boxer is retiring at the end of the current term, but that isn’t stopping her from introducing one last big bill. California’s junior U.S. senator will introduce long-shot legislation today to abolish the Electoral College, which would leave the choosing of a president to the popular vote.

Boxer’s legislation would require a 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution — the first since 1992, the year before she took office. Three-fourths of the states would need to ratify the bill within seven years after its passage in Congress.
good luck with that.
 

thecouncil

Member
Jan 26, 2008
10,494
1
945
Even if it succeeded the damage is already done.

...for next time.

Wouldn't that need a constitutional amendment?

yes. from the article:
Boxer’s legislation would require a 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution — the first since 1992, the year before she took office. Three-fourths of the states would need to ratify the bill within seven years after its passage in Congress.
 
The worst part of the legislation is that it wouldn't replace the EC with preferential ranked ballot, but would just choose popular vote.

There are better ways of holding the L while trying to change the system, but as an outgoing senator, this just looks like pure salt.
 

Azure Dream

Member
Oct 30, 2004
18,051
0
0
40
This is a waste of time.

Getting rid of the Electoral College after it fucked things over this badly is not a waste of time. Even if the idea behind it was well-meaning, and necessary for the era it was crafted in, it has long-since failed whatever remaining purpose it may have.
 

FeenixRising

Banned
May 30, 2014
9,842
0
330
EC ain't going nowhere anytime soon, but I see more states adopting the Maryland approach. Just award their EC votes to the nationwide popular vote winner regardless to who won the state.
 

Glass Shark

Banned
Feb 24, 2013
9,967
24
525
It will obviously fail, but I applaud the effort. I'm sure tons of people don't even realize that the electoral college is a thing, and most of those that do know it exists don't know how it works. We need to make it common knowledge.
 

Aurongel

Member
Sep 27, 2011
9,629
2
510
Yeah, 3/4 of our majority Republican states are toooootally going to abolish something that historically puts Democrats at a disadvantage.

Naww son.
 

Ac30

Member
Jul 11, 2014
3,284
0
0
EC ain't going nowhere anytime soon, but I see more states adopting the Maryland approach. Just award their EC votes to the nationwide popular vote winner regardless to who won the state.

The only states I see adopting this are solid blue anyways, so this'll ultimately never help. The republicans need the EC to win.
 

Wiz

Member
Dec 8, 2011
4,631
1
0
...for next time.



yes. from the article:

So even if it was up for the states to vote on, all the smaller states would reject it. No chance in hell of this happening.

I think a better way is to keep the EC, but change the winner take all formula into winner take most.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Why even bother? There's no chance at all this will ever get passed this way.
 

Amikami

Banned
Jun 27, 2012
13,246
0
0
LA, California
If it was to ever succeed, it would be a long hard fought battle, but few people realize that every good movement, or bad for that matter, has to start somewhere.
 

Barzul

Member
Jun 8, 2013
12,621
0
0
EC ain't going nowhere anytime soon, but I see more states adopting the Maryland approach. Just award their EC votes to the nationwide popular vote winner regardless to who won the state.

They do this? Then why was MD called for Clinton almost immediately on election day?
 

Penguin

Member
Jun 15, 2004
32,800
0
1,530
www.nerdsontherocks.com
It's not gonna pass with Rs in control. They've won 2 out of their last 3 presidencies winning the EC while losing the popular vote. I don't believe they'll risk being able to play that system.
 

TaterTots

Banned
Jun 14, 2015
4,199
0
325
Both sides have benefited too much for it to be abolished, especially when you have a majority of Republicans voting on it lol. It's just odd because Trump doesn't even like it and its how he won.
 

dextran

Member
May 21, 2005
1,031
4
1,295
Getting rid of the Electoral College after it fucked things over this badly is not a waste of time. Even if the idea behind it was well-meaning, and necessary for the era it was crafted in, it has long-since failed whatever remaining purpose it may have.

So wrong. It gave voice to those outside the cities. That is what it is designed to do.
Don't blame the EC. Blame Hillary for not appealing to those citizens.
 

wesleyshark

Banned
Jun 7, 2014
15,217
0
0
Pittsburgh, PA
2016: *Dems lose electoral college* We must ban the electoral college.
2020: *Dems lose popular vote* We must ban the popular vote.
2024: The new President is decided by BronsonLee
 

Ryzaki009

Member
Jul 5, 2016
1,228
74
440
"Hitler destroyed our country, let's not try to make new laws to prevent this happening again"

Eh EC also let Bush win. He wasn't Hitler by a long shot. It's the other crap Trump's getting away with that's the issue.

That said yeah I get the whole let's fix this for the future thing. But there's no way it's passing without a Dem majority so I don't see the point right now.
 

RainForce

Banned
Sep 19, 2016
573
0
0
Really would have been nice to happen before the election, but if the country hasn't been obliterated in 4 years, I guess it's worth considering.
 

Appleman

Member
May 18, 2011
2,486
0
0
Toronto, Ontario
I'd prefer if on a state-by-state basis they'd just award the state's EC votes in proportion to the STATE's popular vote. The winner-take-all system right now is absurd.

This would still preserve the almost 3-1 voting power differential between states like Wyoming and California, which I think is what most rural states are worried about
 

Adaren

Member
Jan 3, 2013
3,785
0
415
No chance of passing, but I hope to god that this stays in the national discourse. The EC does nothing good for this country and nothing good for the world.
 

BiggNife

Member
Aug 15, 2007
9,512
3
1,180
I don't understand why someone would do this when when this will almost definitely do nothing.

A still unlikely but at least viable alternative is The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which Stumpokapow has mentioned in previous threads. It's basically a loophole - The EC would still exist but every state would vote for the winner of the popular vote. So far it has 60% of the 270 electoral votes it would need to go into effect.

Again, it's unlikely, but still a thousand times more plausible than an amendment to overturn the EC.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 8, 2006
50,641
0
0
This would never happen unless Democrats had a supermajority in Congress, and a supermajority in 75 percent of state legislatures (so it will literally never happen). If it weren't for the Electoral College, Republicans would have been shut out of the presidency for the last 24 years, so the GOP has absolutely zero incentive to get rid of it.
 

gutter_trash

Banned
Feb 4, 2005
43,885
1
0
Clinton beat Trump by +0.7% Popular Vote
But Trump wins the allocation of the Electoral College by +13.6%

if you are too keep the EC, at least re-adjust their allocation to be more proportional.

winning the pop vote by 0.7% shouldn't mean you lose the EC by +13%

it's a rigged system folks
 
Sep 23, 2011
13,112
1
0
Can someone explain why this is a better idea than just retooling or adjusting the EC system? I live in a big state and loath the election results, but wouldn't completely eliminating EC make smaller or more rural votes not matter?
 

BiggNife

Member
Aug 15, 2007
9,512
3
1,180
Can someone explain why this is a better idea than just retooling or adjusting the EC system? I live in a big state and loath the election results, but wouldn't completely eliminating EC make smaller or more rural votes not matter?

It would mean one person means one vote, which is a core tenet of democracy. A vote from a rural state would matter just as much as a vote in a populated state. It would probably increase the amount of voting by a pretty significant margin because the "why should I vote when my state is going to pick [candidate] anyway" argument would be a non-starter.
 

Lenardo

Banned
Jun 11, 2009
695
0
0
Biggest issue with just going popular vote...

new york city
LA
chicago


those 3 CITIES combined, -as of 2013 had 15 million people in it.
take out 25% for under 18's 11.25 million 60% of them vote 6+ million voting... say 70% vote for one candidate

5million votes is higher population than the lowest (population wise) 5 STATES combined.

also there is the urban vs rural vote, urban areas overwhelmingly vote liberal/democratic

rural areas overwhelmingly vote conservative/republican.

even blood red republican areas, the urban areas IN those red states vote overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

if implemented ONLY a liberal democrat (as constituted right now) would ever get elected president- it would be virtually impossible for them to lose the election.(hillary got slightly more votes than trump, however, trump was not a good candidate for repubs and hillary imo was not a good candidate for democrats,, besides being a woman)

look at the make up of the democratic party in the house of reps,,, about 1/3rd of all democrats there are either from MA, CA or NY, democrats have major issues besides just the presidential race.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.