Democrat introducing bill to abolish Electoral College

originally posted by: xuenchen
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.

Which is interesting because the left never want mob rule when dealing with minority issues.

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

I do not see any amendments getting through in the foreseeable future.

I think you would have a tough enough time trying to change each of the respective state's constitutions, let alone the United States'.

originally posted by: FauxMulder
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.

Yes. A "bill" doesn't cut it. The states have to agree. I believe it's more than a simple majority, too.

Yup. Two thirds of the legislature must approve, THEN 3/4 of the states.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
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.

It won't change anything. Clinton just campaigned in the wrong places for the Electoral vote. Trump even said if he wanted the popular vote he would have campaigned in different areas. They both knew it was the Electoral College that decides, and Hillary failed to campaign correctly to win it. So now we have yet another case of a sore loser wanting to change the rules.

Chances this will go through are pretty much non existent. Electoral College was done for a good reason.

It's Boxer for cripes sake. She's just pandering to her base.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: FauxMulder
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.

Yes. A "bill" doesn't cut it. The states have to agree. I believe it's more than a simple majority, too.

Yup. Two thirds of the legislature must approve, THEN 3/4 of the states.

38 of the 50 to be precise. Like I said to Faux Mulder, there are ways around it, (NPVIC) but that would still require an effort that the states wouldn't put forth at this point in the game. Maybe it's something to work out in the next 4 years.

If this happened then it would render the rural vote absolutely irrelevant - which was in large part what this election was about. It seems the dems have not learned their lesson. Or maybe they have and that is why they are now trying to silence the voices in this country that they do not agree with.

If not for the electoral college, the United States of America would have likely had democract presidents for the past 28 years now with a Hillary win in 2016. That doesn't sound like everyone getting a voice to me.

a reply to: Ohanka

New York, too, while we're at it. But... I'd have to move to a new state.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: xuenchen
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.

Which is interesting because the left never want mob rule when dealing with minority issues.

that's an interesting point too, you would think they wouldn't want to cut off their nose to pite their face.

a reply to: xuenchen

Nailed that one on the head.

And in the case of the US, ending the Electoral College would amount to the Californication of the entire US. For the Dems its would be brilliant solution; they keep their sanctuary cities/counties and the border entirely open and the US would be a one-party, (Democrat) state entirely at the disposal of the Globalist elites. They could do anything they wanted to.

What I wonder about is..........what would this do to the "States", to "States Rights", to whatever degree of "State Sovereignty the States still enjoy?

Of course.......I'd expect that Boxer and her California Democrats would just as soon see the states be dissolved.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: FauxMulder
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.

Yes. A "bill" doesn't cut it. The states have to agree. I believe it's more than a simple majority, too.

Yup. Two thirds of the legislature must approve, THEN 3/4 of the states.

38 of the 50 to be precise. Like I said to Faux Mulder, there are ways around it, (NPVIC) but that would still require an effort that the states wouldn't put forth at this point in the game. Maybe it's something to work out in the next 4 years.

How's about we leave it as is? I don't care for mob rule.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: alphabetaone
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.

It won't change anything. Clinton just campaigned in the wrong places for the Electoral vote. Trump even said if he wanted the popular vote he would have campaigned in different areas. They both knew it was the Electoral College that decides, and Hillary failed to campaign correctly to win it. So now we have yet another case of a sore loser wanting to change the rules.

Chances this will go through are pretty much non existent. Electoral College was done for a good reason.

No, it wont change a thing. And even more likely, like someone else said, its just posturing for their base. But even that is a dumb move, considering the world at large is going to see them as not having learned from their mistakes. Also not trying to ram down the constituencies throats something not everyone is on board with.

a reply to: alphabetaone

The senator from the big state of Californian with 55 electoral votes wants California to dictate elections, that means that the states have to be abolished that also means that the Republic have to be abolished, sorry but is not going to happen any time soon, neither while the old senator hag is still alive.

And tothetenthpower, you said that is old and it should have been abolished 50 years ago? actually it still serve the purposed the electoral college was appointed for.

Only when a side loses because they still believe that in our Republic is such thing as popular vote is when you see the losers wanting to dismantle the Republic.

No is not going to happen.

It will need a nationwide referendum.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Oh, they're still mad about Gore/Bush, but that one was even closer, spawned innumerable recounts of Florida (all of which Bush still won), and was finally sent to the SCOTUS.

So this is a compound event, but Hillary isn't as close to Trump as Gore was to Bush. Their outrage was more justified then.

Of course, Boxer is just throwing red meat to her rampaging constituents in Cali. Does anyone really think this will fly through both houses of Congress as they are Republican controlled?

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: FauxMulder
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.

Yes. A "bill" doesn't cut it. The states have to agree. I believe it's more than a simple majority, too.

Yup. Two thirds of the legislature must approve, THEN 3/4 of the states.

38 of the 50 to be precise. Like I said to Faux Mulder, there are ways around it, (NPVIC) but that would still require an effort that the states wouldn't put forth at this point in the game. Maybe it's something to work out in the next 4 years.

How's about we leave it as is?

I don't care for mob rule.

I'm not complaining about the electoral college....did you somehow get that impression? I agree...leave it precisely as it is.

originally posted by: Khaleesi

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 serious plan to get us to consent to the abolition of the Electoral College would take many years to implement.

But it would be a cause those who pull the strings would be dedicated to.

Next election...expect Democrats to win the electoral college and Republicans to win the popular vote.

They'll have their 3/4 states within the seven years required. They are going to trick us to consent to it with election manipulation.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

They lost their chance this time. This was their golden opportunity. Globalist Hillary winning a narrow EC squeaker with Donald getting the popular vote. I was seriously thinking that was how it would be. With his declarations that this was a rigged election, too?

Yeah, they missed a golden opportunity.

Then you have the appearance of bipartisan election reform to push the amendment through to the states and enough are angry enough to do it.

Wow! We dodged a big bullet there.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: alphabetaone

The senator from the big state of Californian with 55 electoral votes wants California to dictate elections, that means that the states have to be abolished that also means that the Republic have to be abolished, sorry but is not going to happen any time soon, neither while the old senator hag is still alive.

And tothetenthpower, you said that is old and it should have been abolished 50 years ago? actually it still serve the purposed the electoral college was appointed for.

Only when a side loses because they still believe that in our Republic is such thing as popular vote is when you see the losers wanting to dismantle the Republic.

No is not going to happen.

It will need a nationwide referendum.

Marg, I'm not so much worried about it happening. Not ever, in fact even those people who think they see a shred of hope about it happening, I disagree with them too.

I think my position on this is simply of the irony. For a couple reasons...but most importantly, instead of the so-called responsible adults whom are elected representatives of the people, they are (lets not kid ourselves here about the intent) fanning the flames of anarchy.

Why not totally overhaul our voting system to a more european voting system with a proportional voting system. First past the post is ancient and outdated.
This is how we know this is just politics. Complaining about the electoral college and not complaining about ballot access to 3rd parties and in general how the system spits out a 2 party only system.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Well, we have a republican President, house and senate, so I'm not sure how this is going to get passed before the next election... I mean, why would republicans vote for this, seeing as it helped their party so much this election?