Democratic senator introduces bill to eliminate Electoral College

Posted by | November 15, 2016 15:58 | Filed under: Good News Politics

California Senator Barbara Boxer has taken the first step.

In her statement announcing the bill, Boxer said the following:

“In my lifetime, I have seen two elections where the winner of the general election did not win the popular vote,” said Senator Boxer. “When all the ballots are counted, Hillary Clinton will have won the popular vote by a margin that could exceed two million votes, and she is on track to have received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama. This is the only office in the land where you can get more votes and still lose the presidency. The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately. Every American should be guaranteed that their vote counts.”

“In 2012, Donald Trump tweeted, ‘The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy,’ ” Boxer added. “I couldn’t agree more. One person, one vote!”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 Liberaland
By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

28 responses to Democratic senator introduces bill to eliminate Electoral College

  1. bpollen November 15th, 2016 at 16:03

    The least populous states will become electoral non-entities. At least in the presidential elections. Goodbye Wyoming, Vermont, D.C., North & South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware.

    • Maxx44 November 15th, 2016 at 16:20

      Such a ridiculous argument. States should not elect presidents, people should. I live in Georgia where my blue vote is meaningless. One man, one vote (that actually counts.)

      • StoneyCurtisll November 15th, 2016 at 17:48

        I feel the same way here in Missouri, 114 counties and only four of them, in the major population areas, KCMO/STL voted blue this election..

      • Jack E Raynbeau November 15th, 2016 at 20:12

        Been voting in Utah since 1976. My vote has not counted in that entire time.

      • Lyndia November 15th, 2016 at 23:57

        Common sense, one man, one vote, winner takes all.

    • Larry Schmitt November 15th, 2016 at 16:31

      On the other hand, each person in Wyoming will have the same impact as Bill Gates. Or Donald trump, for that matter.

      • Larry Schmitt November 15th, 2016 at 16:36

        That’s assuming trump can figure out where he’s supposed to vote. A couple of elections ago, he couldn’t.

        • StoneyCurtisll November 15th, 2016 at 17:46

          Took him three times to find the right place~!

          • Larry Schmitt November 15th, 2016 at 17:54

            And it turned out he wasn’t registered. They let him use a provisional ballot, and he thought he had voted. He proved, on camera, how ignorant of the process he is. He also proved that money don’t make ya smart.

            • StoneyCurtisll November 15th, 2016 at 17:54


            • StoneyCurtisll November 15th, 2016 at 17:56

              Oh come on Larry…
              You know Trump usually have people that do this sort of thing for him….(vote)..;)

              • Larry Schmitt November 15th, 2016 at 18:12

                It was obvious from his lack of familiarity with the system that he hadn’t voted recently.

    • Jack E Raynbeau November 15th, 2016 at 20:09

      They will still be fully represented by congress. Their individual vote shouldn’t have more clout.

    • Glen November 16th, 2016 at 00:50

      That would be true, if the larger states all voted uniformly.

      They don’t.

      What’s more, all of the ones you listed were pretty much ignored, anyway, because under the current system, with those states (and DC) being incredibly one-sided in their make-up (Wyoming, Dakotas, and Alaska being very Republican, Vermont, DC and Delaware being very Democrat), anyone who votes the other way in those states don’t really matter – as such, candidates spend little time in those areas.

      The current system encourages all of the time being spent in “swing states”, and the result is that only a handful of states seriously decide the presidency.

      If it went to a popular vote, then a Democrat getting another 10,000 votes in Wyoming, or a Republican getting another 10,000 votes in DC (doubling their number from this election), gets just as much benefit as if they get the 10,000 votes in Pennsylvania.

      Your first instinct is to go “but those small states have too small a population to justify time for a popular vote”… but what you don’t realise is, those states have been ignored for a long time, and as such, if getting a modest increase in the vote from those states actually benefited your total, actually campaigning there could have a big impact on your result – if Clinton could get, say, another 50,000 votes from Wyoming, that would be worth a trip there, even though it wouldn’t be enough to “win” Wyoming.

      In short, switching to the popular vote would actually advantage those states.

      But even if that weren’t true, a solution would be to have a “scaled-popular” vote, where the value of a vote in the small-population states would be higher than in the large-population states. Suddenly, getting another 50,000 votes from Wyoming could be comparable to getting about 120,000 from Pennsylvania.

  2. crc3 November 15th, 2016 at 17:05

    Does anyone here actually believe the Electoral College will be eliminated (abolished)? I don’t…

    • Larry Schmitt November 15th, 2016 at 17:10

      Wouldn’t it require a constitutional amendment?

      • arc99 November 15th, 2016 at 17:27

        Strictly speaking yes you are correct.

        However there is a workaround called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The Constitution does not dictate how electors are chosen or to what extent their votes are controlled. It is up to the states.

        With enough states passing legislation to buy into this plan, the EC could be required to follow the popular vote. The caveat would be that since it is legislation and not a Constitutional mandate, it can be reversed or repealed when new leadership is elected at the state level

        The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2][3]
        As of 2016, it has been adopted by ten states and the District of Columbia, whose 165 combined electoral votes represent 30.7% of the total Electoral College vote, and 61.1% of the 270 votes needed for it to have legal force. All of them have been Democratic states, although the Compact passed in 2016 in Republican-controlled chambers in Arizona and New York. Swing states have shown less willingness to join the Compact, although it has passed chambers in states such as Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico.

        • Larry Schmitt November 15th, 2016 at 17:43

          Ya know, this whole thing wouldn’t matter if Americans would get off their lazy asses and just vote. It all boils down to that.

          • Jack E Raynbeau November 15th, 2016 at 20:08

            Hillary voters were lulled to sleep by the polls.

        • Jack E Raynbeau November 15th, 2016 at 20:10

          That’s going to be the easiest way to do it. Even Utah is onboard.

        • Glen November 16th, 2016 at 01:15

          They need to push to get the very-Republican states on board – since 1980, the following states have been solidly Republican: Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.

          Leaving out Texas, as it’s such a big state in terms of EC votes that it still gets attention (same way California and New York do), you’re looking at 64 more EC votes. That gets the combined total to 229, leaving just 51 still needed.

          Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and New Mexico would get you to 50 (and thus 269), and it shouldn’t be hard to get Delaware on board from that point – in fact, I’d imagine that the rest of the states would just go ahead and do it, if you got to 269.

    • StoneyCurtisll November 15th, 2016 at 17:45

      Hell no…
      And trump wouldn’t sign it if it passed.

    • robert November 15th, 2016 at 22:47

      Not with a gop senate,congress and house

  3. William November 15th, 2016 at 21:41

    So lets see what the Mandarin moron thought of the electoral college when just four short years ago he thought Romney actually won the popular vote, *snicker* (he actually believed that).

    • Bunya November 16th, 2016 at 13:55

      Yes but that was BEFORE the election. Now that he won, he’s okay with it.

  4. dewired4u November 15th, 2016 at 21:53

    All through the election tump was telling us the election was rigged…..he knew he was right.

  5. dogsRgoodpeople November 15th, 2016 at 23:33

    hey look , a Democrat senator is saying something. that’s real nice Barbara.

Leave a Reply