Democrat introducing bill to abolish Electoral College

originally posted by: F4guy
A newly naturalized immigrant would know the answer to this question by virtue of having to read the US Constitution Atricle 5 has the answer. A bill would start the process to have Congress propose an amendment, which would then have to be ratified by the states (2/3). A convention is when the states start the process.

If you are going to goof on people for not knowing something make sure you also know it:

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). The actual facts

a reply to: F4guy

No...ratification of an amendment ALWAYS requires a 75% vote of the states. It requires a two thirds vote in both houses to approve a bill to amend the Constitution.

originally posted by: LevelHeaded
How about a hybrid system of each district's popular vote gives the winning candidate one electoral vote and the two extra electoral votes go to the winner of the state's popular vote. Basically do away with the winner takes all in each state. Win more districts and win the race.

This is how Maine and Nebraska currently do things.
Trump would have won in a huge landslide if that system was across all 50 states.

No, what liberals want is for highly populated pockets of the country that live low income dependent lives to decide elections. It's much easier to manipulate and retain power that way and leads to the kind of dictatorship that the Progressive ideology demands.

a reply to: Khaleesi

Someones more than likely pointed this out but ill do so any way, Thing alot of people who say this kinda forget is the fact that with your electoral colleague removed people who now have their votes basically nullified by being in a red or blue state will actually have votes that count, A republican living in California will actually have a vote that counts, unlike now and vice versa for dems in Republican States.

It also means you will get ALOT more people actually voting since they wont just sit their and go no point in me voting sicne even if i do vote my states just gonna be Red or Blue anyway.

America has to ditch that stupid electoral system and get on the same page as the rest of us, hell with the Electoral colleague removed you might even take a few steps towards having a government able to form a coalition or parties instead of first past the post bollocks. ie you can have a government that actually represents the make up of its countries political ideologies with candidates who represent the opinions and views of everyone... heck get a few green party reps in who can then actually try and put some bills forward as an example because they'll have enough people voting for them to actually get a member of their party into the system, and that goes for any minor party... unlike now where they have no power to affect change for those who vote for them.

Hell the entire American political system and make up really needs to change, hell get rid of states entirely in my opinion (good luck getting that to fly though) and have a system similar to parliament instead of a senate... then you will have a government that actually represents the people and what they all believe in. But that brings up the specters of the war of independence and cant have the USA emulating an old Enemy in the long distant past, and Americans do so love to cling tightly to stuff like that as if it actually makes them who they really are.

a reply to: schuyler

Only if you ignore the 19th century. You might also recall that Hillary won the popular vote vs. Obama, who won the nomination in the Democratic primaries 8 years ago.

That's really glossing over the mess that was the 2008 primaries. Without counting any votes from Florida or Michigan, Obama won the most votes. Including Florida, he still won the most votes. The only way he didn't win the most votes is if you count the Florida and Michigan and don't count the uncommitted votes from Michigan.

Here's the rub.

Obama wasn't on the ballots in Michigan, nor were any candidates except Clinton. So should she have gotten those votes and all of the uncommitted votes just vanished? Giving Obama just a likely percentage of the uncommitted vote (and ignoring that had his name been on the ballot, some of the Clinton votes might have gone to Obama), Obama did in fact win the most votes.

Just clearing that up. The primary system is a total mess and needs to be overhauled too btw.

The electoral college isn't even serving it's ostensible purpose and in fact, quite the opposite. It's simply changing the focus of attention to a group of swing states. That translates to greater influence fromswing states when it comes to governance. It also makes it possible in a close rate for a "native son" from a third party to run in a single state and change the outcome of the election. Then there's the fact that it makes a tie far more likely which gives a slight statistical advantage to the party with the most Representatives.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: LevelHeaded
How about a hybrid system of each district's popular vote gives the winning candidate one electoral vote and the two extra electoral votes go to the winner of the state's popular vote. Basically do away with the winner takes all in each state. Win more districts and win the race.

This is how Maine and Nebraska currently do things.
Trump would have won in a huge landslide if that system was across all 50 states.

No, what liberals want is for highly populated pockets of the country that live low income dependent lives to decide elections. It's much easier to manipulate and retain power that way and leads to the kind of dictatorship that the Progressive ideology demands.

The only thing about this that makes zero sense to me (not that YOU made zero sense, but for them to employ this logic makes no sense) is, what is the point of becoming power-hungry over a population that are too poor to remain relevant on the world stage? Because I can tell you for sure, if they wanted THIS type of despotism, the overall population that DOESNT want it, would simply stop paying their taxes to subsidize it. Then what are they gonna do? Who they gonna send in to fight it? The people who they just took away their firearms from?

a reply to: alphabetaone

Whether Trump won or lost there has always been an issue with the EC and something needs to be done about it, yet nothing changes.

www.archives.gov...

What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College system?

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous” and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

a reply to: UKTruth

You're absolutely correct. So by doing away with winner take all, it would force all parties to reevaluate their strategy and message. They would need to focus on all of America instead of the larger population centers. Maybe it would help reduce partisan bickering as a side note.

I did not vote for Trump.

I did not vote for Hillary either, but I can't say I'm particularly pleased that Trump won.

Having said that, the EC works. It's the only reason less populated states have a voice.

Trump is now beholden to the rust belt to make good on his promises to create manufacturing jobs. That would not be the case if he'd spent all his time campaigning in New York and Los Angeles.

As far as the one person, one vote nonsense -- that's how it works now, at the state level.

This is ridiculous sour grapes nonsense with no regard for the good of the country.

The people that are complaining about the electoral college should maybe be careful. All it takes is one powerful global pandemic to ravage their voting numbers. Since pandemics almost always hit densely populated urban areas far harder, if one were to take place they more than likely would lose any majority for perhaps 2 generations. Be careful what you wish for

a reply to: Swills

Why though? Why does something need to be done about it? Unless of course, you favor only your issues be the ones that are ever addressed?


Before my old man died, he would always vote what I termed as "locally"...no matter what he was voting on, it was because it would affect those things that mattered to him on a local scale, and it would bug the crap outta me. It still does and hearing things like this, makes me re-live why it was that it bugged me, because I think people in general ONLY ever vote what matters to them locally without the benefit of long-term vision.

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
The people that are complaining about the electoral college should maybe be careful. All it takes is one powerful global pandemic to ravage their voting numbers. Since pandemics almost always hit densely populated urban areas far harder, if one were to take place they more than likely would lose any majority for perhaps 2 generations. Be careful what you wish for

I think with the way the CDC jumps on potential pandemic issues, that's not really a huge concern like it once was.

a reply to: alphabetaone

People wanting it changed is nothing new, that's as old as the country itself. Read the link I posted, it keeping out 3rd parties from being a serious contender strikes a cord with me considering I can't stand the Dems or Repubs. If this got repelled tomorrow Clinton wouldn't magically be president because Trump already won that, if that's what you're worried about.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: alphabetaone

People wanting it changed is nothing new, that's as old as the country itself. Read the link I posted, it keeping out 3rd parties from being a serious contender strikes a cord with me considering I can't stand the Dems or Repubs. If this got repelled tomorrow Clinton wouldn't magically be president because Trump already won that, if that's what you're worried about.

I do think we perhaps need to reconsider the "270 to win" thing. Just make it so whoever gets the most EC votes takes the whitehouse, whether they reach 270 or not.

There's plenty of evidence to support the idea that if a particularly virulent strain of influenza were to hit that also was airborne and rapidly mutating, CDC would be in a bind

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: alphabetaone

People wanting it changed is nothing new, that's as old as the country itself. Read the link I posted, it keeping out 3rd parties from being a serious contender strikes a cord with me considering I can't stand the Dems or Repubs. If this got repelled tomorrow Clinton wouldn't magically be president because Trump already won that, if that's what you're worried about.

On this point I totally agree with you.....all parties running should have equal representation in debates and the media.

a reply to: Swills

No no, I'm not worried about any such thing, as ive noted before in this thread.


I do, fundamentally agree that a two party system is extremely limiting, but establishing popular voting election rules wont miraculously create better candidates either. All you'll get with that, is a mish-mosh of candidates whose views are allowed to be extremely restricted to the only constituency that they themselves represent, meanwhile the issues now from 40 other demographics are horribly unrepresented in the White House for 4 years.


At least with our setup currently as it is, we somewhat force 2 candidates to be aware of and address a multitude of issues and as such, they have to become knowledgeable about them. With 40 parties hands in the jar? That becomes significantly less manageable.

a reply to: alphabetaone

They should abolish the popular vote. The only reason the would wish to abolish, due to feelings and inclinations, something that has always worked up until now, is because they are ideologues.

There's two solutions. Direct popular vote or proportional distribution of districts with 2 bonus votes for each Senate seat that is given to the winner of that states popular vote. Pretty simple solution actually and it avoids a lot of extra paperwork.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Ruling out 3rd parties is not American and the EC isn't helping at all and neither are the two parties we are stuck with who are straggling the nation! It's time for a change and it won't end with the EC being updated or axed, but it's a good start.