Democrat introducing bill to abolish Electoral College

a reply to: Teikiatsu

And so is Trump if he still agrees.

He doesn't. That was actually my entire point. It flipped. People favor the electoral college when it works in their favor, and say things like it's a "disaster" when it doesn't.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: alphabetaone
Everyone hates the electoral college when it doesn't work for them, and love it when it does.

EDIT to add:

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Teikiatsu

And so is Trump if he still agrees.

He doesn't. That was actually my entire point. It flipped. People favor the electoral college when it works in their favor, and say things like it's a "disaster" when it doesn't.

No one likes losing. That doesn't mean we hate the Electoral College.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Think about this for a second....

Isn't the electoral college something similar to affirmative action? Giving people an equal voice or chance that they otherwise wouldn't have but on the state level?

What people at asking for is a majority rules right? Otherwise known as mob rule...riggghhht....

Could we also say that republicans are unfairly at a disadvantage because they don't have big cities like New York?

My point is, democrats by and large are always screaming about fairness and giving the minority a voice.... Rigghhht?

Is there no parallel here?

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Everyone hates the electoral college when it doesn't work for them, and love it when it does.

Including Trump!

It would be dogmatic and stupid, if not impossible, to retain one's beliefs once they've been altered by new information. Learning is not hypocrisy.

It does not have a snowball's chance in hell of passing.

She would do better proposing a Constitutional amendment granting the States the right to secede from the USA and the right to subdivide into separate states by state referendum.

What happens if we get rid of the electoral college and go to the popular vote and sometime in the future we have three candidates running and the popular vote winner gets 35% ? Does that mean the other 65% of the population just has to go with it? Even if some states voted very high percentages for one of the other candidates they would mean nothing.

a reply to: 1Angrylightbulb

I think then there would be a run off, which is stupid. The EC is fine.

How about only landowners vote?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

No one likes losing.

That is my point!

I said both sides would be prone to this. Which is to say, complain about the popular vote or the electoral vote depending on how their party faired.

Democracts are complaining about the electoral college now. If the vote had been the inverse it would be Republicans complaining about the electoral college (no doubt using the word "rigged" and "corrupt" as they have been).

My other observation, was that some members here were insinuating the democrats flip their position as if that were exclusively a democrat thing to do! Then, justifiably, I pointed out that even Trump did this. By calling the electoral college a disaster to democracy less than a handful of years before we won via electoral vote and then praised the electoral college.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
Democracts are complaining about the electoral college now. If the vote had been the inverse it would be Republicans complaining about the electoral college (no doubt using the word "rigged" and "corrupt" as they have been).

I'm sure there would be some. I do not think there would be nearly as many as Liberals and Democrats. Case in point: 2012. There was a lot more rumbling for secession from the conservatives though, I will admit.

My other observation, was that some members here were insinuating the democrats flip their position as if that were exclusively a democrat thing to do! Then, justifiably, I pointed out that even Trump did this. By calling the electoral college a disaster to democracy less than a handful of years before we won via electoral vote and then praised the electoral college.

My observation is that in the past I have usually seen more grumbling about abolishing the EC *before* the election, not after. Different trend this year.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We are both making assumptions.

We have no way of knowing if his shift was through a genuine process of learning or if he was simply being hypocritical. Just as we don't know with certainty if others here have arrived at their position through the process of learning or if they are merely expressing extreme partisanship.

Honestly, if the inverse were true. If Hillary won the electoral this election. Later it's posted by a member that Hillary tweeted just years prior that the electoral college is a disaster for democracy, but just the other day she praises its genius; you're telling me you would, and republicans on ATS would, rush to her defense and argue she dropped her core beliefs because it was altered by new information?. I seriously doubt you and others would. We wouldn't know if her shift was genuine or something much more superficial and biased.

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

We are both making assumptions.

We have no way of knowing if his shift was through a genuine process of learning or if he was simply being hypocritical. Just as we don't know with certainty if others here have arrived at their position through the process of learning or if they are merely expressing extreme partisanship.

Honestly, if the inverse were true. If Hillary won the electoral this election. Later it's posted by a member that Hillary tweeted just years prior that the electoral college is a disaster for democracy, but just the other day she praises its genius; you're telling me you would, and republicans on ATS would, rush to her defense and argue she dropped her core beliefs because it was altered by new information?. I seriously doubt you and others would. We wouldn't know if her shift was genuine or something much more superficial and biased.

Considering Hillary was a lawyer and politician before this election cycle and Trump was not, I think it's fair to say Clinton's hypothetical flip flop would be a lot more convenient than Trump's.

I will also begrudgingly admit that Hillary has not complained about the Electoral College at all, nor to my knowledge made any overtones about abolishing it.

Will Senator Boxer propose abolishing the bicameral legislature as well?

originally posted by: Djarums
Will Senator Boxer propose abolishing the bicameral legislature as well?

Considering I have some serious doubts about her ability to process integers greater than 2, one could assume not BUT, it wouldn't be the first time that a Senator has tried to take a stance on something they have no real working knowledge of

Never happen.. It would be foolish to allow the raging left wing population centers in this nation call the shots. Never pass and trying is a giant joke.

a reply to: BigfootNZ

So a parliament, House of Lords and monarchy because the US needs the trappings of peerage and such?

Maybe look into the how and why the US became a country.

a reply to: Djarums

A House of Representatives elected by the people and a Senate elected by the people rather than appointed by and representing the States themselves...sounds like we haven't been bicameral in quite a while now.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

No, I do not know Trump's motives behind his tweets, nor do I care. But I do know that it as a conceit to think that once you have assumed the lowest motive for an action, you have identified the correct one. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt is far less tyrannical than not.

Her bill will never make it out of the Senate. Even if the Democrats controlled Congress, states other than California and New York (and possibly Illinois) would like to have a say in deciding the president. You can only find so many people willing to shoot themselves in the head.

As for that alternative idea, of putting together a coalition of states that all pledge to vote for the winner of the popular vote: that will last only until one of the states is forced to go against its own people's vote. Let's say Trump does a good job, and wins re-election in 2020, this time securing the popular vote as well. But now, California is forced to award it's electors to him, despite Trump losing that state. You could count the time until that pledge fell apart in days, if not hours.

Personally, I think the "Maine/Nebraska" system is a better alternative. End the winner-take-all system, and award each congressional district separately. The winner of the state as a whole takes the 2 senate votes. We could also make provisions to split the senate votes if the vote in that state is close. Say, if the winning percentage is between 45-55%, then each of the top two candidates in that state gets one of the senate votes, in addition to whichever districts he won.

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.

Are you kidding me? Is this all you do? one or two line drive bys?

You are so upset that the Dems want "mob rule" by removing the electoral college. Trump wanted it gone and said so publicly. Now...oh my how amazing....he won and talks about the "genius' of the EC. Your own hero wanted it gone

were you ok with it back then?