Boxer Introduces Bill To Abolish The Electoral College

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Wouldn’t it make sense for the California state government to change how they allocate their electors from ‘winner take all’ to an allocation method similar to what Nebraska and Maine do so their state becomes relavent to national campaigns again rather than introducing legislation that doesn’t run contrary to the US Constitution?
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
Wouldn’t it make sense for the California state government to change how they allocate their electors from ‘winner take all’ to an allocation method similar to what Nebraska and Maine do so their state becomes relavent to national campaigns again rather than introducing legislation that doesn’t run contrary to the US Constitution?
Click to expand...
That would decrease the clout the majority carries, Democrats control that state and would not profit from such a change.
 
JW55 said:
Unfortunately, I think Texas is the only state that can legally divide into more than one state.
Click to expand...
I believe that was true at the time Texas was annexed after the Mexican War. But I also recall reading something about this becoming null and void after Texas was readmitted to the Union after the Civil War.

I’ll have to research this further. 🙂
 
Gertabelle said:
And I’m not sure why so many Trump supporters are making such a stink about this. Seriously, Trump is the president elect, so why the sour grapes about losing the popular vote? 🤷
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure why so many Clinton supports are making such a stink about it. Popular vote does not win the election, yet they keep crowing about it as though it somehow makes Trump’s win illegitimate or not really a victory. 🤷
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
Wouldn’t it make sense for the California state government to change how they allocate their electors from ‘winner take all’ to an allocation method similar to what Nebraska and Maine do so their state becomes relavent to national campaigns again rather than introducing legislation that doesn’t run contrary to the US Constitution?
Click to expand...
Each state is free to do that.

But it would be just duplicating its votes for Representatives minus the at-large two votes.

OTOH, you could award fractional EV based on the percentage of votes cast, so you take districts (and gerrymandering) out of the equation.
 
Of course Boxer wants this, she wants California to have all the power along with New York and Chicago.

HRC outpolled Trump by 1.6m votes so far. But … and a big but here, she outpolled him by 2.5m votes in California, 870k votes in Illinois and 1.7m in New York, for a combined total of about 5m votes in just those 3 states. So the question is, do we want just those three states to run the whole shebang?

Regarding fraudulent voting, there was an affidavit filed in Florida Broward County regarding a secret office where local election personnel were seen filling out absentee ballots behind a locked door. That story was spiked on arrival and never got any play. The affidavit was put out there on the web so it definitely exists. How many other places did this happen at? We don’t know because the agencies in charge are run by the party that benefits from the cheating and hence act fast to shut down any public discussion of what they’re doing. Which is why we see so little news about it that the topic gets dismissed as the realm of crackpots.
 
DeniseNY said:
I’m not so sure why so many Clinton supports are making such a stink about it. Popular vote does not win the election, yet they keep crowing about it as though it somehow makes Trump’s win illegitimate or not really a victory. 🤷
Click to expand...
The popular vote does not win the election. But it does say something about the divide in this country and therefore lack of a decisive mandate when more Americans voted for Clinton rather than the President-elect.
 
Sy_Noe said:
The popular vote does not win the election. But it does say something about the divide in this country and therefore lack of a decisive mandate when more Americans voted for Clinton rather than the President-elect.
Click to expand...
The republican party overall clearly has a mandate.
 
The electoral college argument being put forth by the far-left is disingenuous. Everyone knows they thought they were going to win and they lost much bigger than expected up and down the ballot.

These folks are trying to game the system by making it easier for CA and NY to elect presidents.

However, in typical linear thinking, they fail to see the long-term consequences.

Suppose they did get their way and regressive leftists kept winning. As their policies failed over and over and as prosperity (ie i-phones and Facebook accounts) become a luxury, more and more folks who would normally vote Democrat would either not vote or become Republican.

How would the Democratic Party survive if it lost NY and CA?
 
SuperLuigi said:
The republican party overall clearly has a mandate.
Click to expand...
Not as clearly as you might think since they actually lost seats and the party’s Presidential nominee received less votes than the Democratic nominee. And FYI New Yorkers and Californians and New Englanders and voters in MD and VA and Minnesota and IL and NM and NV and OR and WA, all who played a role in America’s popular vote, are every bit as American as those voters in TX and FL and WV and PA and OH and MI and WI.
 
SuperLuigi said:
The electoral college argument being put forth by the far-left is disingenuous. Everyone knows they thought they were going to win and they lost much bigger than expected up and down the ballot.

These folks are trying to game the system by making it easier for CA and NY to elect presidents.

However, in typical linear thinking, they fail to see the long-term consequences.

Suppose they did get their way and regressive leftists kept winning. As their policies failed over and over and as prosperity (ie i-phones and Facebook accounts) become a luxury, more and more folks who would normally vote Democrat would either not vote or become Republican.

How would the Democratic Party survive if it lost NY and CA?
Click to expand...
👍
 
DeniseNY said:
I’m not so sure why so many Clinton supports are making such a stink about it.
Click to expand...
They are just being crybabies because Hillary lost, and therefore something must be “wrong” with the system. That’s all.
 
Sy_Noe said:
The popular vote does not win the election. But it does say something about the divide in this country and therefore lack of a decisive mandate when more Americans voted for Clinton rather than the President-elect.
Click to expand...
You keep telling yourself that.:rolleyes:Trump had a decisive mandate.If you look at the profile of this country,outside of a few coastal states,it is red,red,red.👍
 
Sy_Noe said:
And FYI New Yorkers and Californians and New Englanders and voters in MD and VA and Minnesota and IL and NM and NV and OR and WA, all who played a role in America’s popular vote, are every bit as American as those voters in TX and FL and WV and PA and OH and MI and WI.
Click to expand...
True, but they obviously have no understanding of how the rest of the country lives or thinks. We are tired of identity politics and assuming anyone who does not agree with them are racists and all the other ists the liberals want to tag us with.
 
t
mary_bobo said:
True, but they obviously have no understanding of how the rest of the country lives or thinks. We are tired of identity politics and assuming anyone who does not agree with them are racists and all the other ists the liberals want to tag us with.
Click to expand...
Yup. Clearly, if you don’t agree with the liberals there must be something wrong with you.:rolleyes:

They are spitting nails because for at least the next couple of years, they are not calling the shots.
 
SuperLuigi said:
The republican party overall clearly has a mandate.
Click to expand...
Clearly? Last I checked Clinton has almost a 1.7 million lead in the popular count. That number would fill the LA Coliseum 18 times. That’s HUGE!!! And the House is out of proportion too. How do you tell them all they shouldn’t have bothered to stand in long lines and vote? If people can’t express themselves by voting, what would be a better suggestion?
 
ProVobis said:
Clearly? Last I checked Clinton has almost a 1.7 million lead in the popular count. That number would fill the LA Coliseum 18 times. That’s HUGE!!! And the House is out of proportion too. How do you tell them all they shouldn’t have bothered to stand in long lines and vote? If people can’t express themselves by voting, what would be a better suggestion?
Click to expand...
So … would you have 18 LA Coliseums-full of people control the entire United States.
 
ProVobis said:
Clearly? Last I checked Clinton has almost a 1.7 million lead in the popular count. That number would fill the LA Coliseum 18 times. That’s HUGE!!! And the House is out of proportion too. How do you tell them all they shouldn’t have bothered to stand in long lines and vote? If people can’t express themselves by voting, what would be a better suggestion?
Click to expand...
I wonder what that number would be if people weren’t aborted…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top