Democrat introducing bill to abolish Electoral College

Now, who didn't see this coming

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will introduce legislation on Tuesday to get rid of the Electoral College, after Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election despite leading in the popular vote.

"In my lifetime, I have seen two elections where the winner of the general election did not win the popular vote," Boxer said in a statement. "In 2012, Donald Trump tweeted, 'The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy. I couldn't agree more. One person, one vote!"

Link to Source

I'm a bit on the fence myself as to the efficacy of the Electoral College, it does have benefits and works pretty well as it has for quite some time.

I just find it ironic that now, everyone is all up in arms about the popular vote.


But according to Pew

Clinton would be the fifth person to win the popular vote, but lose the election.

Where was the outrage the other 4 times?

Where was the almost knee-jerk Bill legislature then?

If only our elected representatives would act so quickly to get our REAL day to day issues worked out, perhaps an initiative like the Trump Ideology could hever have gathered steam.


ETA: Editing my original post here because I think some people get the impression I'm pro-abolition of the Electoral College...in fact nothing could be further from the truth...it's simply the irony and timing of this "Bill", which is tantamount to nothing more than posturing to appease her base.

a reply to: alphabetaone

I just want to know how many dems were for this prior to the election. The only reference to the ec was the maps shown that had Hillary winning by a landslide. "The map shows no path for trump". God how many time was that typed here?

Sore losers that want to change the rules while the game is still being played.

a reply to: alphabetaone

This isn't a left or right issue, the electoral college is ancient and should have been replaced 50 years ago.

Trump also has this as part of his first 100 days mantra.

So, it's bipartisan.

~Tenth

Wouldn't this require a constitutional convention not a bill? Of course the senator from California would want to go with the popular vote seeing as it has a huge (democratic) population.

Fine.

If this passes, kick California out of the Union for balance.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: alphabetaone

This isn't a left or right issue, the electoral college is ancient and should have been replaced 50 years ago.

Trump also has this as part of his first 100 days mantra.

So, it's bipartisan.

~Tenth

I have no idea what youre driving at...what does that have to do with it?

originally posted by: FauxMulder
Wouldn't this require a constitutional convention not a bill?

It would require a bill first and then 3/4ths of the states to ratify it within seven years to amend the Constitution.

a reply to: alphabetaone

I was replying to the outrage comment. It didn't come up in the past because the establishment got their pick of candidates.

Now they see the electoral college isn't as controllable as once thought, so now there's a big push to move it towards just a popular vote.

Considering what we know about facebook and social media news in general, it's much easier to convince people at large of nonsense.

~Tenth

Where were they 8 years ago when Hillary recieved more electoral votes than Obama and by a larger margin?

Popular vote Obama 47.3% 17,584,69 Clinton 48% 17,857,501

en.m.wikipedia.org...

By their current logic, Obama's win was illegitimate because he did not win the popular vote.

What a bunch of crybabay hypocrites.

Looks like they want mob rule democracy as opposed to a stable federal republic.

Yet mob rule democracy rules in some states because states elect senators by majority vote instead of state legislature appointment.

a reply to: FauxMulder


Not entirely.

The Constitution declares that “each state shall appoint” in electors “in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct”; if the state directs the appointment of electors through the NPVIC, the Constitution doesn’t stand in its way. Opponents argue that the Compact Clause of the Constitution requires congressional consent of the NPVIC before it could take effect. But that clause only requires congressional approval of interstate compacts that encroach on federal supremacy or the sovereignty of other states. The NPVIC does neither, because states that don’t sign on can still “appoint” electors however they so choose, and it doesn’t infringe on Congress’ sphere of election regulation.

a reply to: alphabetaone

I can't say I agree. Can it be improved? Well, maybe not that anything comes to mind right now.

So, will everyone be happy with NY and CA deciding every Presidential election from now on? The rest of the country will never have their voices heard again. Candidates won't even bother to campaign anywhere else. Trump even said as much. He said if It was based on popular vote, he would have campaigned constantly in NY, CA and maybe FL. That's it.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: alphabetaone

I was replying to the outrage comment. It didn't come up in the past because the establishment got their pick of candidates.

Now they see the electoral college isn't as controllable as once thought, so now there's a big push to move it towards just a popular vote.

Considering what we know about facebook and social media news in general, it's much easier to convince people at large of nonsense.

~Tenth

Ok I gotcha. I wasn't sure where you were going, but yes, absolutely.

originally posted by: Khaleesi
So, will everyone be happy with NY and CA deciding every Presidential election from now on? The rest of the country will never have their voices heard again. Candidates won't even bother to campaign anywhere else. Trump even said as much. He said if It was based on popular vote, he would have campaigned constantly in NY, CA and maybe FL. That's it.

Which was why the Electoral College was implemented in the first place. On the one hand I do believe in majority rules, no matter where the majority is living. But, on the other hand, often states are at varying odds simply because the means and ways of living conditions and culture tends to be diametrically opposed.

They should get rid of caucases/primaries to, along with superdelagates.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


"It would require a bill first and then 3/4ths of the states to ratify it within seven years to amend the Constitution."

This is exactly why this is all for show by the Senator from California. I find it hard to believe that 3/4 of the states would ever back a constitutional amendment which mainly benefits 5 or so of the largest states. So, no matter how many bills are introduced, the electoral college will never be abolished because most of the 50 states actually will want to keep it.

I remember taking Constitutional Law and the first thing my professor told us was that the most important thing to understand about the US Constitution is that it is designed as an ANTI-majoritarian document. You don't need a constitution for simply majority rules. You need a Constitution to protect against the perils of majority-rule.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: FauxMulder
Wouldn't this require a constitutional convention not a bill?

It would require a bill first and then 3/4ths of the states to ratify it within seven years to amend the Constitution.

Yeah, I'd be shocked if that ever happened. They MIGHT get the bill passed but 3/4 of the states? Nah.

a reply to: Khaleesi

And oddly that seems to be what he wanted, since he was railing against the College in 2012.