Boxer Introduces Bill To Abolish The Electoral College

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Padres1969 said:
Or you could look at it as the majority of Americans deciding who will be president. 🤷
Click to expand...
The founding fathers knew what they were doing.
The EC prevents two wolves and a lamb from taking a vote to decide what’s for dinner.
 
I hope trump gets term limits passed. Then its bye bye boxer, pelosi, etc…
 
Actually California is not necessarily penalized compared with the small states. While the per capita impact is less, the fact that Cal does a “winner takes all” system means Cal has extra weight as a whole, though no one knows how to measure that. It’s like you get more bang for your buck if you can bundle your money, than buying little by little.

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.

A big state like Cal would not implement this, as it would dilute the state’s overall clout.

If a popular vote system were implemented, it might have a runoff provision: if the winner does not get a majority, there is another vote between the top 2. The problem is that our presidential campaigns are so ridiculously long as it is.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Look what could happen with a popular vote.

washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/15/should-the-u-s-keep-or-get-rid-of-the-electoral-college/

You could get a scenario where one candidate wins and they could get 30% of the overall popular vote and still win. How is that more fair than the current electoral college system?

I don’t think this bill will get far in Congress.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it has a chance because it would require ratification by 38 states and many of them would lose some of the representation they have in the electoral college system. People in flyover territory are not that dumb, no matter what the gentle lady from California thinks.

Look for some fine print in the bill that says it only applies in cases where Senator Boxer’s party would benefit.
 
LiamQ said:
Very well said.

By the way, all of these people who are furious that Mrs. Clinton got more of the popular vote than Donald Trump? I wonder what they were saying back in 2008 when she beat Obama by 272,000 votes but yet wasn’t able to secure sufficient delegates to be the Democratic nominee.

Anyone who even hints that Trump is not a legitimate president because of this popular vote red herring is, by proxy, making a similar argument against Obama.

According to the very same logic, Obama should have never even been the nominee of the Democratic party.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Given that the last constitutional amendment took 200 years to pass, I’d not starting rewriting civics lesson plans just yet.

ICXC NIKA
 
Good and informative video suggestion po18guy.

When I watched the video you suggested, I came across another informative video too by PragerU.

The Popular Vote vs. the Electoral College
m.youtube.com/watch?v=LXnjGD7j2B0

This video was also quite informative.

Thanks for the good suggestion.

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
Not seeing 3/4s of the states ceding their influence on choosing the President to the benefit of the half dozen or so most populace states. Elections would devolve into choosing who promises the most to New York, California, Texas, and Florida, to be paid for by everyone else.
 
Ok boxer, let’s just have each state with equal representation in the union. Trump wins 28-22
 
I’m not very knowledgeable in the subject, but I know Australia had a similar issue at one point in our history, the concern was that the most populated states would get the greatest say, and states such as Western Australia wouldn’t get any say at all, they could essentially be shunned. And I think they were right in those concerns, I’m not 100% sure how it works here, but we have some other system in place like you guys have the electoral college so that all States have a voice.

That way a politician can’t promise everything to a select few populated states, and than rob another state blind, while still getting elected by majority vote.

Otherwise candidates would simply campaign up and down the East and West coast of the USA and the so called ‘fly over states’ would be shunned.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
GEddie said:
Sadly, you are right. The time for that was back in 1787.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
In 1787 no wanted to stay in Congress forever. Many of the founding fathers who pledged their “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” lost their fortunes while serving their country. Washington had real swamps that needed draining and they could not fly home to their families in a few hours. No one got rich serving in Congress or from retiring to lobby for special interests. Many men turned down the chance to serve on the Supreme Court, which had little to do.

At least the swamps are still there, figuratively.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top