Boxer Introduces Bill To Abolish The Electoral College

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Or you could look at it as the majority of Americans deciding who will be president.

Considering voter participation your idea of “majority” might be off.

Something has to protect the smaller states in the union or else it won’t be a union of states at all.

 

[lmachine]

A popular election could elect another Hitler or Stalin. Do you want that?

An electoral college could elect another Hitler or Stalin.

 

[GEddie]

Indeed. No governmental system, including monarchy, is tyranny-proof.

There are arguments for the EC, but tyranny is not logically one of them.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Rhubarb]

There’s arguments for both side of this debate, for sure. But I’m not so sure the Electoral College is helpful in this modern world. If anyone disagrees with my thoughts I’d love to hear it, because I’m honestly not sure how I ultimately come down on this matter. I just have a leaning.

The College itself was conceived to protect slavery from abolitionist voters in the north. That isn’t an issue anymore. Moving forward with the idea that the Electoral College gives each state a voice, I don’t think I agree that New York’s interests are different from Georgia’s interests, or from Texas’ interests, or Alaska’s interests. At least, not on a national level. We aren’t the loose association of states, or have that 18th and 19th century mentality anymore. We’re a world power. We’re global leaders in tech, industry, finance, and entertainment and culture. I lean towards the Electoral College as a throwback to our early nation’s sectionalist mindset - that New Englanders are fundamentally different from Southerners, who are fundamentally different from Westerners. In many ways our states are more heterogeneous than ever. Like, one of my favorite TV shows and several great tech firms work out of Georgia of all places.

I’m also not sure why state’s borders should matter for the vote. People say “well California and New York would decide the elections.” But if, say, Montana had 30 percent of the entire US population wouldn’t it stand to reason that those people would have 30 percent of the electoral power? Especially in a country whose government is derived “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Especially if say, 16 percent voted Democrat and 14 percent voted Republican. That 14 percent (under the Electoral College) ultimately has no electoral say in who holds the office of President.

And then I’ve heard that the Electoral College protects states from being ignored in the campaign process, and ensures that their voice matters. But does it? Nobody reported on how Wyoming went. Or spoke about issues facing Hawaii. Or put any real effort into California except for fundraising. In my lifetime, what the Electoral College does is shift the focus off the heavy population density states to the four or five swing states. And then they have all the real power. So it’s still a few states that the election hangs on. It’s just Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. and not California, Texas, and New York.

 

[didymus]

I see and have experienced both sides of this argument over the decades.

The electoral college is a “winner-take-all” at the state level.

A Constitutional change to using the popular vote would be a “winner-take-all” at the national level.

So do we keep the devil we know, or change to the devil we don’t know?

A short-term fix would be to award two electors by statewide vote and the rest allocated by congressional district.

The long-term solution is to increase the size of the House of Representatives using the Wyoming Rule. Currently, since the number of House seats is fixed at 435 the small states are over-represented. Fixing the House will pretty much fix the Electoral College as well.

 

[Xystus]

I see and have experienced both sides of this argument over the decades.

The electoral college is a “winner-take-all” at the state level.

A Constitutional change to using the popular vote would be a “winner-take-all” at the national level.

So do we keep the devil we know, or change to the devil we don’t know?

A short-term fix would be to award two electors by statewide vote and the rest allocated by congressional district.

The long-term solution is to increase the size of the House of Representatives using the Wyoming Rule. Currently, since the number of House seats is fixed at 435 the small states are over-represented. Fixing the House will pretty much fix the Electoral College as well.

The States get to decide how their Electoral Votes are applied, Yes most are winner-take-all but Nebraska and Maine allocate two Electoral Votes to the popular vote winner, and then one each to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district. Some States have passed legislation awarding their Electoral Votes to the winner of the national popular vote, but only comes into affect after a majority of states have done the same thing. I think its called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or some such similar thing.

 

[stevegravy]

Not a terrible idea*** AFTER*** they institute a federal photo ID card and purge the voter rolls of dead folks and duplicate entries. True up the vote. Currently examining the tally to remove felons and illegal and the dead vote to find out who really won the popular vote would be quite time consuming.

 

[Gertabelle]

The States get to decide how their Electoral Votes are applied, Yes most are winner-take-all but Nebraska and Maine allocate** two Electoral Votes to the popular vote winner, and then one each to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district.**

But even that assumes that each Congressional district contains citizens with the same issues.

In a more slightly-populated and more agrarian-based society, this might make sense.

But I highly doubt that the Congressional districts in the southern part of the Denver metro area (solidly red) had such different issues from the districts in the central and northern parts of the Denver metro (solidly blue).

 

[DeniseNY]

Not a terrible idea*** AFTER*** they institute a federal photo ID card and purge the voter rolls of dead folks and duplicate entries. True up the vote. Currently examining the tally to remove felons and illegal and the dead vote to find out who really won the popular vote would be quite time consuming.

If we do that, then what would be the point?

 

[stevegravy]

If we do that, then what would be the point?

Keep Boxer from whining.

 

[Trader]

Keep Boxer from whining.

I am betting our republic will outlast one particular senator who wants to win at any cost. If there are a lot more like her, the odds will change for the worse.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Not a terrible idea*** AFTER*** they institute a federal photo ID card and purge the voter rolls of dead folks and duplicate entries. True up the vote. Currently examining the tally to remove felons and illegal and the dead vote to find out who really won the popular vote would be quite time consuming.

Yes,that would be a good idea:thumbsup:

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Not a terrible idea*** AFTER*** they institute a federal photo ID card and purge the voter rolls of dead folks and duplicate entries. True up the vote. Currently examining the tally to remove felons and illegal and the dead vote to find out who really won the popular vote would be quite time consuming.

And what is American about shifting the power of the popular states to control the smaller ones? It’s asking for secession and war.

 

[GEddie]

These voting issues have always existed and, except for a few egregious fraud instances, never amount to very much.

Nor will they ever go away. It’s been pointed out that early voting means that there will always be a number of people who vote early, but are deceased by Election Day, hence dead people voting.

And these issues don’t matter with or without the EC. As matters stand now, such sources of error have a larger effect in swing states.

ICXC NIKA

 

[7_Sorrows]

These voting issues have always existed and, except for a few egregious fraud instances, never amount to very much.

Nor will they ever go away. It’s been pointed out that early voting means that there will always be a number of people who vote early, but are deceased by Election Day, hence dead people voting.

And these issues don’t matter with or without the EC. As matters stand now, such sources of error have a larger effect in swing states.

ICXC NIKA

I and many of my friends have voted early for many years and not one of us is deceased yet!!

I think dead people voting means they were already dead when their vote was cast.

 

[ProVobis]

One possible compromise would be for states to adopt what only 2 states so far do: let each congressional district vote for itself, then allot the 2 remaining votes to the statewide winner; or else allocate proportionally their electoral votes. This would be much simpler to implement legally and politically, states can do it as they choose right now.

That would be just duplicating the Representative vote. As if one wants to bring in gerrymandering into the mix?

How about we keep the winner-take-all except the electoral votes would depend on voter turnout in that state? If only 50% of the voters turn out in Illinois, for example, then they should get no more than 10 of its allotted 20 ECs. Seems like that should bring out more voters. If no candidate gets 270 votes, then it goes to the House as required.

 

[stinkcat_14]

That would be just duplicating the Representative vote. As if one wants to bring in gerrymandering into the mix?

How about we keep the winner-take-all except the electoral votes would depend on voter turnout in that state? If only 50% of the voters turn out in Illinois, for example, then they should get no more than 10 of its allotted 20 ECs. Seems like that should bring out more voters. If no candidate gets 270 votes, then it goes to the House as required.

Actually, I kind of like this idea.

 

[ProVobis]

Ok boxer, let’s just have each state with equal representation in the union. Trump wins 28-22

Then California splits into ten.

 

[styrgwillidar]

First off, as a Californian-- my apologies for the national embarrassments we choose to be our elected representatives. Particularly Boxer. Glad she’s retiring, but Harris will probably be just as bad.

However, instead of trying something that’s been proposed about 700 times before and shot down every time, how about something different?

I think we’d all agree that neither Trump nor Hillary was a good candidate. Very few enthusiastic voters of each hence NEITHER won a majority of the vote. Both are at pluralities with whoever got more (might be Trump after everything’s counted- and figure the illegal vote and who got it) still below 50%. Neither was supported by a majority of Americans. A lot of folks held their nose and voted.

How about- putting a ‘none of the above’ on the ballot where folks could participate and vote specifically showing their disillusionment with what the party system is producing.
And a requirement that a candidate must receive 50% +1 in the popular vote. If no candidate is selected, new candidates must be chosen and another election held. We’d have to hold the actual election earlier to give time for the redo (could also shorten the election season if the first election produces a winner which isn’t necessarily a bad thing).

 

[7_Sorrows]

First off, as a Californian-- my apologies for the national embarrassments we choose to be our elected representatives. Particularly Boxer. Glad she’s retiring, but Harris will probably be just as bad.

However, instead of trying something that’s been proposed about 700 times before and shot down every time, how about something different?

I think we’d all agree that neither Trump nor Hillary was a good candidate. Very few enthusiastic voters of each hence NEITHER won a majority of the vote. Both are at pluralities with whoever got more (might be Trump after everything’s counted- and figure the illegal vote and who got it) still below 50%. Neither was supported by a majority of Americans. A lot of folks held their nose and voted.

How about- putting a ‘none of the above’ on the ballot where folks could participate and vote specifically showing their disillusionment with what the party system is producing.
And a requirement that a candidate must receive 50% +1 in the popular vote. If no candidate is selected, new candidates must be chosen and another election held. We’d have to hold the actual election earlier to give time for the redo (could also shorten the election season if the first election produces a winner which isn’t necessarily a bad thing).

there is way too much money spent on one election - let alone two!

bad idea! sorry.