Boxer Introduces Bill To Abolish The Electoral College

[utah_rose]

Do you understand the purpose of the Electoral College and why it was implemented?

Note: I feel this is sour grapes from the Boxer and those here that want the popular vote to rule. Face it: Hillary lost even with the MSM, academia and the entertainment industry on her side.

I think it’s sour grapes too. And i don’t want my government based on what voters want in California or New York. I also doubt that there will be 3 or 4 parties either.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

The Electoral College exists for the same reason we have a bicameral Congress: to level the playing field and keep the bigger states from having all the power and to give the smaller states a greater voice in the lawmaking process.

When the Constitution was being formed, the bigger (more populous) states wanted representation based on population but the smaller states (less populous) wanted representation limited to an equal number of representatives regardless of population. So a compromise was formed and a two-part Congress was formed. A Senate where each state would have two and only two representatives (senators) and a House of Representatives which would have representatives proportional to state population. Both sides would have to approve a bill before it would sent to the President to be signed or vetoed. This spread the power around and kept it from being concentrated in any one group.

The Electoral College works much the same way. If you didn’t know this, each state is allocated a number of electoral votes equal to the number of congresspersons that state has in the House of Representatives plus two more for each of its senators. Basically, each state carries the same weight in the EC as it does in Congress.

New York, California, Illinois, Florida, and Texas are the five most populous states in the country. Taken together, these five have states have a greater population that all the other 45 states combined. If the president was chosen by a direct popular vote, then in theory these five states alone could decide a presidential election every time. The other states would never get any say-so.

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. And in the entire history of the United States, there have only been five times when a presidential candidate won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. This was in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. There is no need to change the system.

Footnote: After the third presidential debate, the Democrats got their feathers all ruffled when Donald Trump said he might not accept the results if he lost the election. Now who has their feathers ruffled?

 

[JW55]

The Electoral College exists for the same reason we have a bicameral Congress: to level the playing field and keep the bigger states from having all the power and to give the smaller states a greater voice in the lawmaking process.

When the Constitution was being formed, the bigger (more populous) states wanted representation based on population but the smaller states (less populous) wanted representation limited to an equal number of representatives regardless of population. So a compromise was formed and a two-part Congress was formed. A Senate where each state would have two and only two representatives (senators) and a House of Representatives which would have representatives proportional to state population. Both sides would have to approve a bill before it would sent to the President to be signed or vetoed. This spread the power around and kept it from being concentrated in any one group.

The Electoral College works much the same way. If you didn’t know this, each state is allocated a number of electoral votes equal to the number of congresspersons that state has in the House of Representatives plus two more for each of its senators. Basically, each state carries the same weight in the EC as it does in Congress.

New York, California, Illinois, Florida, and Texas are the five most populous states in the country. Taken together, these five have states have a greater population that all the other 45 states combined. If the president was chosen by a direct popular vote, then in theory these five states alone could decide a presidential election every time. The other states would never get any say-so.

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. And in the entire history of the United States, there have only been five times when a presidential candidate won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. This was in 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016. There is no need to change the system.

Footnote: After the third presidential debate, the Democrats got their feathers all ruffled when Donald Trump said he might not accept the results if he lost the election. Now who has their feathers ruffled?

This is an excellent summation of the process.

Even in these states, if you look at the geographical distribution of the vote during this election.in New York, Illinois, and California, the republican preference was clearly evident. Most of upstate New York had a republican majority and almost every county in Illinois had a republican majority except the areas around Chicago. Much the same for California.

These states can’t compete with the large metropolitan areas. The difference in attitude is so strong in California, there was a proposal not too long ago to divide the state into 6 different states to have a better representation of interests. Unfortunately, I think Texas is the only state that can legally divide into more than one state.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Even if were a bill in Congress it would not pass. Not when Republicans have won the popular vote of the American people exactly 1 whole time in the last quarter of a century.

That should tell you something.This entire election was a referendum on the liberal progressive Dems.The party is bought and paid for by those intent on fundamentally changing this country .The people have spoken not going to have any of that
God Bless America

 

[DeniseNY]

That should tell you something.This entire election was a referendum on the liberal progressive Dems.The party is bought and paid for by those intent on fundamentally changing this country .The people have spoken not going to have any of that
God Bless America

But, but Hillary won the popular vote!

 

[Jeanne_S]

But, but Hillary won the popular vote!

Yeah right!Why do I doubt that?

 

[YADA]

I do not believe we should change the Electoral College

…in Oregon most legislation and all of our electoral votes are determined by the PDX metro population …the Blue area of the state …rural eastern Oregon is very Red …which is why legislation was passed that imposed severe penalties upon eastern Oregon ranchers whose cattle might get into a stream and poop in the waterway but PDX could dump millions of gallons of sewage into the Willamette River regularly every winter and face zero consequences …

Both Presidential candidates would not canvas the country …they would focus on those metro centers of high population and seek to represent their interests …or at best …because currently thise metro centers are highly Blue …the Democrats would focus solely on increasing their turnout there which because of the concentrated areas have an easier task …while rural America is highly Red …the Republicans would have a 50 state task …a huge expense and time commitment …

I argue that the President should represent all of America …not just individual persons, but also individual States, rural areas and urban areas. The regionally diverse landscapes and economic diversity … All of which is reflected in winning the Electoral College but not reflected in the one person one vote …

If we did go to one person, one vote …then I believe your voter ID should be your finger print …that would insure one person, one vote …no funny business …and fraudulent activities would cease

 

[Gertabelle]

Yeah right!Why do I doubt that?

That is a good question. Why would you doubt that?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yeah right!Why do I doubt that?

You might just as well doubt that Trump won the electoral college.

 

[YADA]

the people that complain about the power of the swing states should do a couple of things …

1. Look at which states comprise “Swing states” …this is not static …they have changed over time and will again in the future.
2. A change to the popular vote is similar …those voters (in those states) who cast votes once a candidate is closing in on a majority have more ‘weight’ than the initial voters because no trend is established. And the person who casts their vote in the majority%+1 is the most powerful voter. Which is why a state becomes “swing” state …they just factor in putting someone over the top …the person still has to have won the other states as wee …if they don’t the race changes …

This is true even if you gave each state a vote …the most powerful “swing” state would the the 26th state to record a vote for a candidate …but it’s not in reality …because the candidate had to win the other votes as well.

In the Electoral College …all of the electoral votes count.

 

[ProVobis]

Both Presidential candidates would not canvas the country …they would focus on those metro centers of high population and seek to represent their interests …or at best …because currently thise metro centers are highly Blue …the Democrats would focus solely on increasing their turnout there which because of the concentrated areas have an easier task …while rural America is highly Red …the Republicans would have a 50 state task …a huge expense and time commitment …

The centers may be blue but the suburban areas tend to be red. That makes sense because immigrants tend towards the more urban areas before they assimilate themselves outside of those areas. At least from my observations.

But geographically I would say the rural areas occupy 98% (my guess) of the land.

 

[Jeanne_S]

That is a good question. Why would you doubt that?

Let it suffice to say the number of those voting illegally,are a big part of the dubious popular vote count n HC favor.Pretty confident none of them voted for Pres ElectvTrump

 

[Gertabelle]

Let it suffice to say the number of those voting illegally,are a big part of the dubious popular vote count n HC favor.Pretty confident none of them voted for Pres ElectvTrump

And why are you so sure that:

a) there **were **a significant number of illegal votes?
b) that none of these presumed illegal votes were for Trump?

In other words, what are your sources, and how do you determine the validity of those sources?

I have seen, most sadly, that many people in this election only seek out the sources they agree with – and those are called “reliable.”

Any source that dares to disagree with one’s well-reasoned and insightful opinion are called “unreliable” and a string of derogatory names – i.e., ad hominem attacks on authors or institutions.

Personally, I haven’t seen anything reliable that indicates HRC (for whom I absolutely did not vote!) didn’t win the popular vote.

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?

 

[Jeanne_S]

And why are you so sure that:

a) there **were **a significant number of illegal votes?
b) that none of these presumed illegal votes were for Trump?

In other words, what are your sources, and how do you determine the validity of those sources?

I have seen, most sadly, that many people in this election only seek out the sources they agree with – and those are called “reliable.”

Any source that dares to disagree with one’s well-reasoned and insightful opinion are called “unreliable” and a string of derogatory names – i.e., ad hominem attacks on authors or institutions.

Personally, I haven’t seen anything reliable that indicates HRC (for whom I absolutely did not vote!) didn’t win the popular vote.

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?

It was revealed in Orwgon some thirty thousand votes ineligible safe to assume that Orwgon wasn’t an exception

 

[ProVobis]

Let it suffice to say the number of those voting illegally,are a big part of the dubious popular vote count n HC favor.Pretty confident none of them voted for Pres ElectvTrump

The count to determine one’s state’s (+D.C.) electoral votes is the same count that is used to accumulate for the popular count. Anyone can do this on a spreadsheet if they want to check, after the final tally is made, of course. There are no more illegal votes for the national count than each state count, IOW.

 

[ProVobis]

It was revealed in Orwgon some thirty thousand votes ineligible safe to assume that Orwgon wasn’t an exception

Then it should be reported to the authorities and investigated. There are steep penalties for vote fraud and such. I would like to see justice served just as much as anyone else.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Then it should be reported to the authorities and investigated. There are steep penalties for vote fraud and such. I would like to see justice served just as much as anyone else.

I really believe that Under a Trump administration,we will see just that.The Kangaroo courts days are over!

 

[ProVobis]

Personally, I haven’t seen anything reliable that indicates HRC (for whom I absolutely did not vote!) didn’t win the popular vote.

Wiki uses over 300 sources for its information, currently showing Hillary in front by 1.3 million.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

But all it takes is for one Facebook article stating that the Pope was endorsing Trump to get a million likes (and believers). Later, the writer admitted it was a satire but very few wanted to accept that.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Then it should be reported to the authorities and investigated. There are steep penalties for vote fraud and such. I would like to see justice served just as much as anyone else.

Exactly how many people have actually been punished for vote fraud?

[Four?]

Nobody takes it seriously.

But if the laws started to be enforced, then perhaps some people would / might take it seriously.

And if George Soros is found to have financed vote fraud, then what happens to him?

Perhaps we just turn Mr. Soros over to the tender mercies of INTERPOL.

 

[pnewton]

Then it should be reported to the authorities and investigated. There are steep penalties for vote fraud and such. I would like to see justice served just as much as anyone else.

I am skeptical. There is very little evidence of voter fraud in numbers greater than one or two digits. I have never seen any credible evidence. There was a fraudulent news story about Oregon’s ballot omitting Trump though.

Never underestimate the gullibility of people to fake news when it says what they want to hear.