-
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.
Barbara Boxer Launching Senate Bill To Abolish Electoral College
- Thread starter thecouncil
- Start date
- Status
BronsonLee
Member
*Gundam slowly walking towards you*
*shoots pellet gun*
*shoots pellet gun*
thekonamicode
Member
This is a waste of time.
Why even bother, lol.
Living the Dream
Member
"Hitler destroyed our country, let's not try to make new laws to prevent this happening again"
User Name Here
Member
She's a bit late there.
thecouncil
Banned
JHoNNy1OoO
Member
It's about preventing future damage. Something like this should have happened back in 2000 after Bush v Gore. It's a completely different time.
jack_package_200
Banned
It does need to go. Thanks for the effort Barb.
When Dems get their shit together, we gotta abolish the electoral college.
When Dems get their shit together, we gotta abolish the electoral college.
Or maybe early?
Azure Dream
Member
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
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
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.
Astaleview
Banned
Thank you. Jesus.
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
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.
God Dayumm
Banned
A 4-year Trump presidency is absolutely nothing compared to a possible lifetime of alt-right leaders, the next worse than the previous
They do this? Then why was MD called for Clinton almost immediately on election day?
thecouncil
Banned
probably corruption. lol.
Because it's not true.
http://www.snopes.com/maryland-refusing-electoral-college/
AAAAHHHH, the Age of Misinformation.
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
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
2020: *Dems lose popular vote* We must ban the popular vote.
2024: The new President is decided by BronsonLee
Ryzaki009
Member
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.
FeenixRising
Banned
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Bleh, I thought it did go in effect. My bad. But still, I think more states should adopt it
The Interstate Compact is the way to go. Basically its an agreement between states equal to 270 electoral college votes that whoever wins the popular vote gets their 270 electoral college votes enmasse. It has 163 electoral votes worth of states so far. So its getting there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
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
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
wesleyshark
Banned
Honestly, Democrats need to be looking at ridding themselves of their super delegate problem first.
Soulscribe
Member
There's no chance for change if the effort isn't made. Good luck to her, I hope it somehow gets through.
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.
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.
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
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
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
ZombiePlatypus
Member
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?
TheUntamedLegend
Member
If Texas ever goes blue, maybe Republicans will agree.
excelsiorlef
Member
Because election day vote and EC vote are not the same thing.
excelsiorlef
Member
If Texas goes blue the GOP will never win the popular vote again.
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.
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.
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