world

2020 Democrats' new litmus test: Abolish Electoral College

115 Comments
By NICHOLAS RICCARDI

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

115 Comments
Login to comment

Let's be honest here... If it weren't for the electoral college, gerrymandering, and voter suppression efforts, the GOP would have went the way of the Whigs decades ago.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

But defenders say the current system almost always lines up with the popular vote and is part of the way the country's founders wanted to check popular passions and encourages attention to small states that may otherwise get passed over.

Agreed.

the second Republican in five presidential elections to win the presidency through the Electoral College while losing the popular vote.

And this is a problem.

It's probably too early for Democrats to try for this change, but maybe it's good to plant the seed. If another Republican wins again after losing the popular vote again I think this will start to get traction as people lose confidence in the system. I think I read somewhere that for the first time we had a President who lost the popular vote nominate a Supreme Court Justice and confirmed by a Senate whose party lost the popular vote overall as well.

The bigger danger to the country is the damage Republicans are willing to do in order to hold onto power as their base gets older and shrinks. Not only do they have gerrymandering and voter suppression, they're starting to mess with voted approved initiatives in several states. And McConnell all but exposed the GOP when he said he refused to make election day a national holiday because it would be a disaster for the GOP if more people started to show up to vote.

The Republicans I talk to rarely have any kind of response to this.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

If another Republican wins again after losing the popular vote again I think this will start to get traction as people lose confidence in the system. 

It's happened four times in our history, three times have benefitted republicans, which is why the like it so much.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

But defenders say the current system almost always lines up with the popular vote and is part of the way the country's founders wanted to check popular passions and encourages attention to small states that may otherwise get passed over.

That's what the senate is for. The electoral college should go.

"I'd much rather focus on things that can get done."

Sure, but it's not like this is the top issue for anyone of the candidates. But it should remain a goal, something that's discussed, even if the immediate prospects look daunting.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Well of course the Dems want abolish the Electoral College as they can't win it even with the biggest prize, California guaranteed to them at least in 2020.

Let's be honest here...

Yeah, let's be honest here, Crazy - you and the Dems have no respect for our Founding Fathers if you want the Electoral College abolished. Our Founding Fathers were wise indeed. Seems like they almost knew what would happen to California, which wasn't even a state yet, and New York, and gave us a system that would allow us to dodge a bullet as lethal as Hillary Clinton.

Former Education Secretary Bill Bennett says he's sticking with the founders over the wishes of Sen. Elizabeth Warren

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ9YQRHWWPk

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

They have poopy pants because they lost, that's all. The extra 3 mill votes came from California...hmmm...wonder why? Electoral vote only became an issue when the dems lost.

-6 ( +8 / -14 )

It will never happen.

-10 ( +5 / -15 )

hey have poopy pants because they lost, that's all. The extra 3 mill votes came from California...hmmm...wonder why? Electoral vote only became an issue when the dems lost.

See my initial post.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

They have poopy pants because they lost, that's all. The extra 3 mill votes came from California...hmmm...wonder why? Electoral vote only became an issue when the dems lost.

So, do you think the Republicans would be ok with it if they had won the popular vote but lost the presidency 40% of the past five elections? And if so, what specifically in the Republican mentality would be different from the Democratic mentality, where Republicans would be ok with losing the presidency even while winning the popular vote while Democrats aren't?

4 ( +8 / -4 )

How do Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, Maryland, Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, Montana, South and North Dakota feel about this plan to dilute their delegates?

OTOH, states have the right to determine their votes for President however they like. If they want to roll 34-sided dice, to choose, that's fine, legally, but why not just have their delegates vote in proportion to the popular vote inside their state? All or none seems terribly undemocratic.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Very simple, NY and LA can't have the power to decide for the rest of the country.

Chipstar,

On the fourth time it was Trump that won and they just can't swallow that.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

So, do you think the Republicans would be ok with it if they had won the popular vote but lost the presidency 40% of the past five elections? And if so, what specifically in the Republican mentality would be different from the Democratic mentality, where Republicans would be ok with losing the presidency even while winning the popular vote while Democrats aren't?

Trump himself would not concede and very likely he'd urge his supporters to take up arms. There are hypocrites on both sides but had Hillary won the EC but lost the pop. vote, the current defenders of this undemocratic system would be shrieking like 12 year old fangirls right now.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

why not just have their delegates vote in proportion to the popular vote inside their state?

Fu, that's the way the current system works. The problem is the disparity in electors to population. Japan has a similar problem with the Diet and rural vs urban areas.

The Electoral College was less about state's rights and more a response to the problems of communication in the 18th c. If no candidate was a clear winner, the electors, as representatives of their states, could - and sometimes did - meet to hash it out as they have authority to swing their support behind whomever the choose.

While modern communication has made the system anachronistic, abolishing the Electoral College is a fool's errand. The work-around is likely, though, and maybe inevitable.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Yeah, let's be honest here, Crazy - you and the Dems have no respect for our Founding Fathers if you want the Electoral College abolished. Our Founding Fathers were wise indeed. Seems like they almost knew what would happen to California, which wasn't even a state yet, and New York, and gave us a system that would allow us to dodge a bullet as lethal as Hillary Clinton.

So, you support slavery like the Founding Fathers. Got it.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

@serrano have no respect for our Founding Fathers if you want the Electoral College abolished.

The founding fathers had the foresight to allow for the Constitution to be changed. Anyone saying it can't be changed has no respect for the founding fathers.

See Article 5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

6 ( +9 / -3 )

On the fourth time it was Trump that won and they just can't swallow that.

So they just swallowed the Buah II win? It has little to do with who wins and a lot to do with that they win in this matter.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Very simple, NY and LA can't have the power to decide for the rest of the country.

Then neither can the flyover states.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

The founding fathers had the foresight to allow for the Constitution to be changed. Anyone saying it can't be changed has no respect for the founding fathers.

Yes, but it won’t be changed, not that it can’t be changed, we all know that it can be, but it won’t.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Yes, but it won’t be changed, not that it can’t be changed, we all know that it can be, but it won’t.

Yeah, it's not like it's already been changed 33 times or something.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Very simple, NY and LA can't have the power to decide for the rest of the country. 

Well, that is correct. Without the EC the larger states or in this case in particular California would always vote Democrat, we would then have a one-sided authoritarian rule. So I’m glad and thankful we have the EC and that especially protects the flyover States.

On the fourth time it was Trump that won and they just can't swallow that.

Bingo!

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Yeah, it's not like it's already been changed 33 times or something.

Not the Electoral College though.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/14/politics/electoral-college/index.html

The Electoral College is established in the Constitution -- right there in Article II -- and that means that to abolish or alter it in any way requires 1) a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate 2) three-quarters of the states to ratify the change within a seven-year window.

Again, it will never happen.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Republicans will of course support the electoral college because they have lost 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections on the popular vote.

It isn’t much more complicated than that.

Trump himself, who won the election with fewer votes than Clinton, trash tweeted about the travesty which is electoral college after being misinformed that Romney won the popular vote in 2012.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

The Electoral College is established in the Constitution -- right there in Article II -- and that means that to abolish or alter it in any way requires 1) a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate 2) three-quarters of the states to ratify the change within a seven-year window.

Again, it will never happen.

This is what people said about slavery.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

And Democrats don’t support it because they can’t win it fair and square so they need to change the rules, either pack the Supreme Courts, change the EC or lower the age to 16 years. They can never win on their disastrous socialist policies, so the only other recourse would be to change the rules.

Trump himself, who won the election with fewer votes than Clinton, trash tweeted about the travesty which is electoral college after being misinformed that Romney won the popular vote in 2012.

Yes, and he also said, he now understands how important the EC is, we can all evolve and change our minds. Hillary used to be for border security and now wants open borders, we all can change.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Not happening to change the Electoral College. So Dems gonna have to figure out how to get votes outside of New York, Chicago and California.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

SerranoToday  10:51 am JST

Yeah, let's be honest here, Crazy - you and the Dems have no respect for our Founding Fathers if you want the Electoral College abolished. Our Founding Fathers were wise indeed.

Let's all just forget that the Founding Fathers didn't stipulate that the winner of the popular vote for a State should get all its EC votes, or that the EC delegates had to vote along party lines. There's no need to abolish the Electoral College, it would work fine if the votes were allocated according to each candidate's share of the popular vote, as is actually the case in some States.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Yes, and he also said, he now understands how important the EC is

Did he say this before or after he got well beaten on the popular vote?

Did he say this before or after he stopped lying about millions of illegal votes and that he actually won the popular vote?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I'm for not changing the Electorial College law, mainly because that only addresses the symptom, not the fundamental problem.

The fundamental problem in 2016 was that Russia waged a comprehensive information warfare campaign to the benefit of one candidate. I happen to think that there is also ample evidence that shows this candidate colluded with Russia to enhance his chances of winning.

That is the problem we need to address, and as we've seen, this "winning candidate" from 2016 has made no effort to hold Russia accountable for this blatant attack. In fact, he's cozied up to Putin and sided with him over his own intelligence professionals on attribution for the attack - an almost treasonous act.

And don't let the pious statements of the Trumpers here fool you - as has been shown by their voter suppression efforts, outright fraud (in Georgia), and other attempts to restrict the vote, Repubs care nothing about the Constitution - as they have told us time and time again, it's all about "winning"....

4 ( +5 / -1 )

And Ukraine waged a comprehensive information warfare campaign for the other side. But we don’t wanna talk about that right?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Voter suppression? Sure! Illegal aliens and non citizens are suppressed, 16 year olds are suppressed, people in jail and convicted felons too.

there is no one else who wanted to vote who couldn’t. You thought all your backdoor tricks you used on Bernie would work again. Why was she not 50 points ahead!?

Not our fault Hillary didn’t go to Wisconsin.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Let's all just forget that the Founding Fathers didn't stipulate that the winner of the popular vote for a State should get all its EC votes, or that the EC delegates had to vote along party lines. There's no need to abolish the Electoral College, it would work fine if the votes were allocated according to each candidate's share of the popular vote, as is actually the case in some States

Simon, it won’t change, no matter how many hairs you try and split it.

And don't let the pious statements of the Trumpers here fool you - as has been shown by their voter suppression efforts, outright fraud (in Georgia),

Sorry, if there WERE such a thing as voter suppression, Obama would never have made it to the Presidency....twice. If there were real voter suppression then the Democrats would have lost the midterms.

and other attempts to restrict the vote, Repubs care nothing about the Constitution - as they have told us time and time again, it's all about "winning"....

Ahhh, now I see why Democrats want 16 year olds to vote, convicted felons to vote, abolish the EC and appoint more SC justices. If you can’t win, change the rules.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Gillibrand wants to give illegals Social Security eligibility. It worries me that if these people will say all these crazy policies publicly what else do they plan to do if elected that they are hiding?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

More hypocrisy - you guys change the rules when you refused to vet Merrik Garland.

Which the President had the absolute and constitutional right to do. Remember, that gem Harry Reid said, they wouldn’t hold hearings on any Bush nominee, messed up, but he had the right to say that.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Merrick Garland not being seated is not changing US constitution. Not even close to the same thing.

Adding an additional 9 justices requires no changes to the constitution. And it's exactly what the Democrats should do.

After all, you seem to be saying that it's ok to change the rules as long as it doesn't require a change to the constitution.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Sure if we need 9 more justices let’s do it now, why wait?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The US constitution isn’t a “rule” or a congressional procedure for your side to get outplayed on. It’s the foundation of our entire country and government. Not some “rule”, that’s where you are going sideways.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Blacklabel: "The US constitution isn’t a “rule” or a congressional procedure for your side to get outplayed on. It’s the foundation of our entire country and government. Not some “rule”, that’s where you are going sideways."

I love how you guys site the Constitution out of convenience and then choose to defecate on and rip it up when Trump goes against it every day. You guys don't support the Constitution, and you've proven that time and again. Can't wait to hear you guys cry when the Democratic president in 2020 cites the fact that guns are a national emergency issue and decides to issue a declaration to start taking them away.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Getting Medicare for all and the Green New Deal are more important than the EC tbh.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Um, the president was the one who nominated Garland, not the one to change the rules.

And he has the right to change his mind and congress has the right to hold or deny hearings on that nominee and why would a President choose a nominee of his political rival that has a history of going against his political beliefs? If it were the opposite and a Republican President choose a conservative nominee for a liberal or socialist President, they would never say, we will proceed with the hearings. It just wouldn’t happen.

Once again, you show your inability to follow the thread of a conversation beyond a single post.

No, you just don’t like that, on this issue Democrats have absolutely No ground to stand on and to be honest, it really doesn’t need to be a lengthy diatribe. The EC won’t be changed and every President can decide which person they want or think represents their best political interests and Garland didn’t fit that mold.

As I said, it exposes your hypocrisy.

Yeah, when it falls to the side, the Washington Democrats would say that. Sticks and stones.

They should stack the supreme court with like an additional 9 democratic judges

Yeah, and Atlantis will surface from the deep.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

OTOH, states have the right to determine their votes for President however they like. If they want to roll 34-sided dice, to choose, that's fine, legally, but why not just have their delegates vote in proportion to the popular vote inside their state? All or none seems terribly undemocratic.

I agree totally. Electoral votes should be awarded proportionally. All or none is unfair.

Then again, wouldn't that amount to the same as simply a popular vote?

I'm a little tired of the same swing states deciding the presidential election: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Iowa, Michigan, etc.. With the current system there is almost no reason for candidates to campaign in safely red or blue states. And the votes of Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California are practically worthless.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Plastic, I appreciate your sentiment, but this is a trap Republicans have set: They'd love blue states like California to adopt such a rule but have no intention of allowing red states like Texas to follow. This would simply exacerbate the situation. The beauty of this new run-around is it doesn't take effect until a majority of states which control electors - 270 - is secured. This would ensure the victory of the popular vote winner while thwarting GOP trickery.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

So, you support slavery like the Founding Fathers. Got it.

Let's simplify that logic:

A agrees with B on something.

Therefore A must agree with everything B says. LOL

Getting Medicare for all and the Green New Deal are more important than the EC

Yes! We must let government run our healthcare and our lives and put us $94 trillion in debt!

With the current system there is almost no reason for candidates to campaign in safely red or blue states. And the votes of Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California are practically worthless.

This be true enough in California, but all the Dems need in Texas are a couple hundred thousand more illegals to flip the state blue. Would have had enough by now if it weren't for those existing pesky fences that Beto wants torn down.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Let's simplify that logic:

A agrees with B on something.

Therefore A must agree with everything B says. LOL

Had your writing been more concise and I not familiar with your posts, there wouldn't have been a misunderstanding.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I appreciate your sentiment, but this is a trap Republicans have set: They'd love blue states like California to adopt such a rule but have no intention of allowing red states like Texas to follow. 

I'm not sure I'd characterize it as a trap, but as a cynical move. They know the reality, that a majority of land area and congressional districts represent a minority of the total population. And that the wealthy donors with the most influence tend to go GOP. That's the way the GOP likes it. At this point, it is the backbone of the party.

It's minority rule. I don't believe in populism or mob rule either, but this phenomenon in American politics is truly unhealthy. Something has got to change in the system.

As you say, I was being sentimental, and idealistic. But I think the first step is to start an honest, vigorous discussion about this. It'll take a while, but it has to start somewhere.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I'm a little tired of the same swing states deciding the presidential election: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Iowa, Michigan, etc.

I am tired of California and New York with the largest amount of liberals getting all the votes as the two largest liberal states. All the more reason to uphold the electoral college.

The beauty of this new run-around is it doesn't take effect until a majority of states which control electors - 270 - is secured. This would ensure the victory of the popular vote winner while thwarting GOP trickery.

Trickery? Let’s talk about the Democrat deception and trickery and con games for a moment. A bit sneaky wanting to stack the courts with liberal justices, allowing illegals to vote, as well as convicts, wanting 16 year olds to vote, wanting to get rid of the EC. The funny thing is liberals can never get their policies through legislation, so they need the courts and now that the courts are swinging more conservative they need to do something Tom at the cat went under disastrous policies alone, they never could have it now as crazy as these Democrats are wanting socialism to override everything and be the rule of the land, they will stop at nothing The funny thing is liberals can never get their policies through legislation, so they need the courts now that the courts are swinging more conservative they need to do something, the cat went under disastrous policies alone call it they never could have it now as crazy as these Democrats are wanting socialism to override everything and be the rule of the land, they will stop at nothing to cheat their way one way or another to get back in power and the only way to do that is to change the system.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

US guys at the office say that the original purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent someone like Trump from being elected president. It obviously failed, so it might as well be abolished.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

US guys at the office say that the original purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent someone like Trump from being elected president. It obviously failed, so it might as well be abolished.

And some people look at it in the opposite way, some people think that it’s a godsend which helped Trump to get elected, you can look at it from that point of you as well.

two-thirds majority in the House and Senate 2) three-quarters of the states to ratify the change within a seven-year window.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

And some people look at it in the opposite way, some people think that it’s a godsend which helped Trump to get elected, you can look at it from that point of you as well.

That's objectively unhealthy.

two-thirds majority in the House and Senate 2) three-quarters of the states to ratify the change within a seven-year window.

Irrelevant.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

That's objectively unhealthy.

Not for me and millions of Americans. AOC and her income redistribution ideologues on the other hand are unhealthy, very unhealthily.

Irrelevant.

Oh, It is, given the fact that despite all the scheming the Democrats are so desperately trying, they will never get rid of the EC. But I understand and support their right to dream.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Not for me and millions of Americans. AOC and her income redistribution ideologues on the other hand are unhealthy, very unhealthily.

Look at you going off the rails far enough to get an attack in on AOC. Can I get an Obama? A Hillary?

Oh, It is, given the fact that despite all the scheming the Democrats are so desperately trying, they will never get rid of the EC. But I understand and support their right to dream.

Goin off the rails on a crazy train.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

If the Democrats would quit focusing on NYC and LA, and consider the needs of the tens of millions of Americans living between those two cities this would be a non-issue.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

We're talking about the E.C. from the past, when the popular vote and the E.C. matched up. But if we have another election, the 3rd out of the last 6, go the opposite way of the majority vote, then I think we'll see a push for a change.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I am tired of California and New York with the largest amount of liberals getting all the votes as the two largest liberal states.

You missed my point entirely.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Goin off the rails on a crazy train

Liberals fell off of it a pretty long time ago.

If the Democrats would quit focusing on NYC and LA, and consider the needs of the tens of millions of Americans living between those two cities this would be a non-issue.

They can’t and why would they? California is a Goldmine for illegals and easy for them to keep the borders open and to get them to vote, that’s why that State is a Sanctuary State, it’s the Democrats meal ticket.

We're talking about the E.C. from the past, when the popular vote and the E.C. matched up. But if we have another election, the 3rd out of the last 6, go the opposite way of the majority vote, then I think we'll see a push for a change.

It'll probably likely happen when Hillary is sworn into office.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Fu, that's the way the current system works. The problem is the disparity in electors to population.

Actually, no, it isn't. Most states decided the candidates weren't spending enough time in their state, so they converted to an all-or-none EC vote. https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote explains how to win the a presidential election with just 23% of the popular vote.

In most states, a candidate wins electoral votes by winning the most voters.

So. Win a state by just one vote, and you win all of its electoral votes (unless you live in Nebraska or Maine, which divvy up their votes a little differently).

1 ( +2 / -1 )

US guys at the office say that the original purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent someone like Trump from being elected president. It obviously failed, so it might as well be abolished.

Nah, the original purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent someone like Hillary Clinton from being elected president. It obviously was a success, so we should keep it. I mean, so far, after 2 years and 2 months, we got no new wars, we're on our way out of the Middle East, economy is booming, unemployment is low, a million fewer people on food stamps, we're energy independent for the first time in 70 years...

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

US guys at the office say that the original purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent someone like Trump from being elected president. It obviously failed, so it might as well be abolished.

There were multiple reasons. At the time, they weren't worried about idiot Presidents. They were more worried that someone would gain power and refuse to leave.

Larger states like Virginia had most of the population.

The tiny states like Rhode Island, Delaware, and Connecticut had relatively little populations.

Slave states got the 3/5ths compromise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise to count each slave as 3/5ths of a man for all population counts, effectively giving southern agriculture states more say.

Lastly, the logistics of counting votes and getting those counts to Washington could take months. Travel was dangerous and took weeks from some locations, so the EC was created to vote based on what they believed their populations, or more likely, the legislature members, back home wanted.

The slave and logistics reasons no longer exist.

There wasn't any single reason.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

If the Republican party continues on its path to one dominated by a (predominantly) white evangelical right wing voter base plus (the overlapping) nativist base, then it will eventually go the way of the Wigs.

But eventually can be a long time, and imprecise as well. 10 years? 20 years?

Moreover, this we know: our system will allow the declining white vote by 2% every year four years (http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics) to maintain power for quite some time. Not in the Electoral College, and certainly not in the House, but in the Senate.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Nah, the original purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent someone like Hillary Clinton from being elected president.

And once again a Trumper provides us evidence that like his President, they have the understanding of a fifth or sixth grader...

It obviously was a success, so we should keep it. I mean, so far, after 2 years and 2 months, we got no new wars,

Until Bolton and Trump start the next one with Iran...

we're on our way out of the Middle East

See above...

economy is booming, unemployment is low, a million fewer people on food stamps, we're energy independent for the first time in 70 years...

Thank you President Obama...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Thank you President Obama.

Yeah, no thank you.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/01/obama-wins-the-gold-for-worst-economic-recovery-ever/#7a0a93483ca2

Nah, the original purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent someone like Hillary Clinton from being elected president. It obviously was a success, so we should keep it. I mean, so far, after 2 years and 2 months, we got no new wars, we're on our way out of the Middle East, economy is booming, unemployment is low, a million fewer people on food stamps, we're energy independent for the first time in 70 years...

Bingo.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Thank you President Obama.

Yeah, no thank you.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2012/08/01/obama-wins-the-gold-for-worst-economic-recovery-ever/#7a0a93483ca2

And thank you Repubs for crashing the economy in 2007 with your buds on Wall Street...

Nah, the original purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent someone like Hillary Clinton from being elected president. It obviously was a success, so we should keep it. I mean, so far, after 2 years and 2 months, we got no new wars, we're on our way out of the Middle East, economy is booming, unemployment is low, a million fewer people on food stamps, we're energy independent for the first time in 70 years...

Bingo.

Trump World far right fairly tale - Boingo...

1 ( +3 / -2 )

In the current system, at least 2/3 of all votes are pointless, because as a voter, your candidate will either definitely win or definitely lose in your state regardless of whether you vote or not. It's a disincentive to vote at all, which is clearly not good. If every vote counted nationwide, however, there would be a great incentive to vote which should lead to a higher turnout and a stronger feeling of participation in democracy. There is no upside to the EC system, and plenty of downside.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Strangerland

The constitution has been amended 27 times, not 33. There have been 33 amendments approved by congress but only 27 have been ratified by the states.

@Bass

As far as I can tell, there is not a requirement per the constitution for ratification to happen within seven years. The most recent amendment was approved by congress in 1789 but not ratified by enough states to come into effect until 1992.

However, most modern amendment pushes do include a deadline for ratification. That's a decision made by congress at the time of writing and approval, but not a constitutional requirement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am not sure about her, from what I can judge on Japanese media about her is how can Warren be trusted? she lied to get into Harvard, she lied about being American Indian, pandering to gain supporters..

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

As far as I can tell, there is not a requirement per the constitution for ratification to happen within seven years. The most recent amendment was approved by congress in 1789 but not ratified by enough states to come into effect until 1992.

However, most modern amendment pushes do include a deadline for ratification. That's a decision made by congress at the time of writing and approval, but not a constitutional requirement.

I understand, you’re right, but for the Democrats to suggest that the EC will in some way be abolished, it might be an interesting idea to entertain, but to actually amend it, can’t see it happening in our lifetime.

And thank you Repubs for crashing the economy in 2007 with your buds on Wall Street...

Yes, all of those scoundrel Democrats that love making money, but tell the rest of us, we need to give ours up....lol

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Amazing how Hillary Clinton was fine with the Electoral College until she lost it 304 - 227.

If the Electoral College should be abolished how come Hillary and Obama didn't say anything in 2016?

Beto O'Rourke said there was "a lot of wisdom" in abolishing the Electoral College.

Beto's likely campaign slogan: "Let's get stoned."

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

How soon liberals forget that Barack Obama lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton in their primary.

No one was screaming about popular vote mattering then.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Didn't bother to fact check yourself again Serrano. Hillary Clinton on November 10, 2000:

"We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago," Clinton said. "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president."

Link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-calls-for-end-to-electoral-college/

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Yikes - you're right, Blacklabel - Obama got 47.4% of the popular vote and Hillary got 48.1%!

No wonder she is pissed - she won the popular vote twice, yet lost the Dem delegate count and the EC count!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Yes, all of those scoundrel Democrats that love making money, but tell the rest of us, we need to give ours up....lol

Admitting conservatives tanked the economy is another step forward in your recovery.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If the Electoral College should be abolished how come Hillary and Obama didn't say anything in 2016?

Same reason immigration want a crisis in 2013 when you guys killed two bi-partisan bullls for reform. Oh my . . . Tee Hee! HAR!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Not like she was married to the guy who was President for 8 years at the time she said that.

Don’t you think her husband could have pushed that as part of his agenda if it was really desired?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

But he lost the popular vote to Hillary and should have been ineligible. Per your own rules. Or is there a different way to keep score that allowed him to be the winner without getting the most votes from people?

hmmmm....

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Facts matter

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

BlacklabelToday  10:56 pm JST

But he lost the popular vote to Hillary and should have been ineligible.

If you're complaining about Barack Obama losing a popular vote to Hillary Clinton, how can you accept Donald Trump's election victory in 2016?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Electoral College is outdated. There is no further use for it. The people chose Hillary, yet they got somebody else. Unjust.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

NYC and L.A. (and most other major cities) are largely Democratic.

They elect politicians who promise them all kinds of goodies and programs so they don't have to get off their rear ends and work. They are takers and not producers.

The producers of society must have an equal say in who their leaders will be, thus we have the Electoral College.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

For all the people who fell asleep in civics class...

1: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 2,626 of them. Clinton won 487.

2: There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.

3: Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

4: In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

5: These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

6: When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.

And this children, is WHY you have a Electoral College. It's a safety net so that EVERYONES vote counts.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

3: Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

False: She won by a little over 3 million votes.

And this children, is WHY you have a Electoral College. It's a safety net so that EVERYONES (sic) vote counts.

Not even close to being true.

Here is a measure that is already in the works to render the Electoral College obsolete and would be an actual "safety net so that everyone's vote counts." Look this up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Here is a measure that is already in the works to render the Electoral College obsolete and would be an actual "safety net so that everyone's vote counts." Look this up:

two-thirds majority in the House and Senate 2) three-quarters of the states to ratify the change within a seven-year window.

It just will never happen, Dems have a bigger chance stacking the courts (although extremely hard) than they have at abolishing the 2nd amendment.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Electoral College is outdated. There is no further use for it. The people chose Hillary, yet they got somebody else. Unjust.

Doesnt matter, California doesn’t dictate to the rest of the 49 States who gets to be President.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

two-thirds majority in the House and Senate 2) three-quarters of the states to ratify the change within a seven-year window.

Irrelevant since the laws in this case are made at the State level--the House and Senate are not in play here.

Doesnt matter, California doesn’t dictate to the rest of the 49 States who gets to be President.

Actually, it does matter since a minority of the States don't get to decide who should be President either.

Votes shouldn't matter on geography. The voice of the people should be heard--no matter where they live. Democracy should not be determined by demographics.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Irrelevant since the laws in this case are made at the State level--the House and Senate are not in play here.

It’s not irrelevant because most of the flyover and Southern States would never go for it, so right there off the starting gate it would be defeated.

Actually, it does matter since a minority of the States don't get to decide who should be President either.

Exactly! Therefore, the EC wouldn’t have a chance of being eliminated for that exact reason you and I both said.

Votes shouldn't matter on geography.

But they do and it has worked so far in our history, without the EC Bill Clinton would have never made it to the Presidency.

The voice of the people should be heard--no matter where they live. Democracy should not be determined by demographics.

Yes and that includes all States, even Wyoming, this is why each State regardless of size has 2 Senators.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It’s not irrelevant because most of the flyover and Southern States would never go for it, so right there off the starting gate it would be defeated.

Again, you are either not understanding the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or you are somehow confusing it with a Constitutional change. The Compact is a work around the Constitution since it allows individual States to determine how their Electoral College votes get tallied, so "flyover and Southern States" don't matter if the number of other States that adopt this measure outnumber them--and right now, the current measure only needs a few more States (64 more Electoral College votes) to surpass the current 270 needed to win. Go back and read the Compact this time before you comment.

Exactly! Therefore, the EC wouldn’t have a chance of being eliminated for that exact reason you and I both said.

Wrong. The Compact clearly defines why it would render the EC irrelevant with this work around.

But they do and it has worked so far in our history, without the EC Bill Clinton would have never made it to the Presidency.

What are you talking about here? In 1992, Bill Clinton won 370 EC votes to Bush's paltry 168. In 1996, he won 379 votes to Dole's anemic 159.

Yes and that includes all States, even Wyoming, this is why each State regardless of size has 2 Senators.

This comment has nothing to do with the proposed EC work around. There are only a few more states which need to adopt this proposal, and the EC will be rendered moot.

Try again.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

But they do and it has worked so far in our history, without the EC Bill Clinton would have never made it to the Presidency.

Oh, and I forgot to add that Bill Clinton won the popular vote BOTH times, so I have no idea why you would stated that he needed the EC to win.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Again, you are either not understanding the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or you are somehow confusing it with a Constitutional change. The Compact is a work around the Constitution since it allows individual States to determine how their Electoral College votes get tallied, so "flyover and Southern States" don't matter if the number of other States that adopt this measure outnumber them--and right now, the current measure only needs a few more States (64 more Electoral College votes) to surpass the current 270 needed to win. Go back and read the Compact this time before you comment.

I understand it, but you won’t get that many, you’ll never get the Southern States or any of the flyovers to go with it, will never happen.

Wrong. The Compact clearly defines why it would render the EC irrelevant with this work around

But the chances of that happening are as much as Hillary’s chances of winning the Presidency.

What are you talking about here? In 1992, Bill Clinton won 370 EC votes to Bush's paltry 168. In 1996, he won 379 votes to Dole's anemic 159.

And thanks to the EC Bush won.

This comment has nothing to do with the proposed EC work around. There are only a few more states which need to adopt this proposal, and the EC will be rendered moot.

Well, none of the flyover States will participate, so it’ll be D.O.A.

https://youtu.be/yHCPaJNW4eg

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I understand it, but you won’t get that many, you’ll never get the Southern States or any of the flyovers to go with it, will never happen.

Clearly you do not since this measure is NOT dependent on Southern states or flyovers. As of right now,  this measure has already been adopted by twelve states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 181 electoral votes, which is 33.6% of the Electoral College and 67.0% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force. They only need a few more states to get this in place--and there are plenty of others outside of your "Southern States and flyovers" to get this to happen.

What are you talking about here? In 1992, Bill Clinton won 370 EC votes to Bush's paltry 168. In 1996, he won 379 votes to Dole's anemic 159.

And thanks to the EC Bush won.

Please explain to us how Bill Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996 are somehow related to Bush 2's EC victory in 2000. Also, please explain why because of his EC "victory" (decided by the Supreme Court) in 2000, we got one of the worst Presidents in history (only surpassed by the current EC victory President).

The current EC system is broken and should be replaced.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

They only need a few more states to get this in place--and there are plenty of others outside of your "Southern States and flyovers" to get this to happen.

Which won’t happen, so even the smaller States would never go for it, it will never happen.

The current EC system is broken and should be replaced.

Worked so far for the nation since the beginning and Dems never complained about it when benefited from it, now that they’re sore losers, we must change it. Too funny. How about winning on real issues instead of being radical to the core, then maybe they might actually get some legislation through, but they can’t and won’t, this is the reason why they want to abolish the EC, Stack the courts with more liberal justices, allow convicts to vote, lower the age to 16 and in some States allow illegals to vote, so in other words, if you can’t do it congressionally, change the rules entirely.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Which won’t happen, so even the smaller States would never go for it, it will never happen.

And you are sure of this because of what actual statistical data, or are you just speculating against the current trend?

Worked so far for the nation since the beginning and  Dems never complained about it when benefited from . . .

Nope, not true. Give us an example of how or when the "Dems benefited from it' since no Democratic president has ever won the EC while losing the popular vote.

How about winning on real issues instead of being radical to the core,

You mean like the most recent election where Democrats beat Republicans by a national total of 9 million votes? Where they won the House and took 40 seats? Where they held 7 governorships and won 7 more? Where they flipped 337 state legislative seats? Where they won 7 statehouses? Where they flipped three more states to control the governorship, the House, and the state Senate? "Too funny" indeed! As for the rest of your argument, it falls flat when compared to the actual facts.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

And you are sure of this because of what actual statistical data, or are you just speculating against the current trend?

I’ll bet my life on it.

Nope, not true. Give us an example of how or when the "Dems benefited from it' since no Democratic president has ever won the EC while losing the popular vote.

Every election where a Democrat won, not a single complaint, a Republican wins, we need to change the system.

You mean like the most recent election where Democrats beat Republicans by a national total of 9 million votes? Where they won the House and took 40 seats? Where they held 7 governorships and won 7 more? Where they flipped 337 state legislative seats? Where they won 7 statehouses? Where they flipped three more states to control the governorship, the House, and the state Senate? "Too funny" indeed! As for the rest of your argument, it falls flat when compared to the actual facts.

No, I’m talking about actual policies, policies where Democrats don’t need the SC to uphold or push them through. Even now, there is no way, the Senate will let some of these toxic policies get on the floor. Now if they can come up with some reasonable and practical policies for the country, it has a chance of making it through. But the Dems live for radical ideas.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

For all the people who fell asleep in civics class...

1: There are 3,141 counties in the United States. Trump won 2,626 of them. Clinton won 487.

2: There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.

3: Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

4: In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond) Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

5: These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.

6: When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of the country.

And this children, is WHY you have a Electoral College. It's a safety net so that EVERYONES vote counts.

This, i think is what matter in this debate. So, i dont see any reason not to support electoral collage. BUT, FOR EVERY OF YOU WHATEVER SUPPORTERIAL POSITION AND POLITICAL VIEWS YOU HOLD, I HAVE ONE URGE TO MAKE.

Can you please be so kind not to whine over this every time your candidate lost because of it. I mean, to be frank, Trump itself used to say that EC is a "disaster". Well i respect him changing his views now but what matters is the argument and debate about system, so please threw away all the bias and start be true to your own word.

And yes not only the libs but all the conservative supporter here, i hope you will not change your opinion now when the EC is disadvantaging you. i dont know whats your position pre-2016, but i hope it is all the same like now.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Every election where a Democrat won, not a single complaint, a Republican wins, we need to change the system

Every Democratic president has won both the popular vote (how a candidate gets a mandate) and the EC, so why would Dems complain when they won?

Three republicans have won the EC and lost the popular vote. We were calling for change when Bush II won the EC and lost the popular vote.

You should really try to get your facts straight.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

2020 Democrats' new litmus test: Abolish Electoral College AND Don’t Forget To Campaign In Wisconsin

Fixed

“Democrats to hold 2020 convention in Milwaukee”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democrats-to-hold-2020-convention-in-milwaukee/2019/03/11/aa4da4ae-440d-11e9-90f0-0ccfeec87a61_story.html?utm_term=.f084a5169fa1

Coincidence??? LOL

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Shinichi HamadaToday  01:20 am JST

And this children, is WHY you have a Electoral College. It's a safety net so that EVERYONES vote counts.

Except that it doesn't, really. What happens to your vote if you're a Republican living in New York or LA?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Every Democratic president has won both the popular vote (how a candidate gets a mandate) and the EC, so why would Dems complain when they won?

Exactly! You just made my point for me.

Three republicans have won the EC and lost the popular vote. We were calling for change when Bush II won the EC and lost the popular vote.

In other words when things didn’t go your way, you have a tantrum, yeah, I remember those days and the counting chads.

You should really try to get your facts straight.

They were, don’t worry.

Except that it doesn't, really. What happens to your vote if you're a Republican living in New York or LA?

Well, this...

https://youtu.be/yHCPaJNW4eg

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The US Constitution doesn't say anything about political parties. They expected people to elect a man on his merits, not party affiliation.

Political parties are a chief problem in the USA. Remove the party labels from all ballots and don't let parties have separate election primaries. Let's get the issues front and center and have the people running for office have to specifically say their stance on issues relevant to the office for which they run.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Political parties are a chief problem in the USA. Remove the party labels from all ballots and don't let parties have separate election primaries. Let's get the issues front and center and have the people running for office have to specifically say their stance on issues relevant to the office for which they run.

Make everyone an independent. My initial thought is that I like it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Political parties are a chief problem in the USA. Remove the party labels from all ballots and don't let parties have separate election primaries. Let's get the issues front and center and have the people running for office have to specifically say their stance on issues relevant to the office for which they run.

Make everyone an independent. My initial thought is that I like it.

Parties need reforming not abolishment. What would improve elections tremendously IMO, setting aside more drastic steps mandatory voting or public financing, is open primaries in all 50 states plus a national primary or at least a few regional primaries.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Chip Star: Same reason immigration want a crisis 

Har!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Without the Electoral College, we would not have had George Bush II, or Trump.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The founding fathers had the foresight to allow for the Constitution to be changed. Anyone saying it can't be changed has no respect for the founding fathers.

exactly, they knew America would change and over 200yrs later AMerica is a very different country than when the FF wrote the constitution. many democratic countries around the world have changed their constitutions as times change, just some cant stop living in the past

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The founding fathers had the foresight to allow for the Constitution to be changed. Anyone saying it can't be changed has no respect for the founding fathers.

@bass Yes, but it won’t be changed, not that it can’t be changed, we all know that it can be, but it won’t.

Plant the seed!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

wtfjapanToday  01:03 pm JST

just some cant stop living in the past

I think they would catch up pretty quickly if a Democrat lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Regardless of EC or gerrymandering, how can it be that only a bunch of oligarchs can pretend to be president?

Kennedy family, Bush family, Clinton family, Trump billionaire and all the other families holding the senators positions.

Money and crappy network at its best.

That is not democracy at all!

Wake up USA!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Democrats are ensuring not only 4 more years of Trump but an additional 8 years for Republican replacement. Liberals don't realize they only comrise if 30% of the population, most of their Democrat voters are not this extreme and will be turned off by the hardcore Marxist level turn the democrats are making. The electoral college nonsense is an election killer. Most people fsll into two camps, those who can't understand it, this group will think it's unnecessary to worry about when it's worked fine and there are more important and relevant things to fix, the other group knows abolishing the electoral college amounts to one party rule, rule by 2 cities and devolving to old world parliamentary politics. The democrats have hitched their hopes to an impossible win, it's not going to be changed and best of all, presidents, are not involved in constitutional amendments, so it's even more of a pointless position for a President

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

6: When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

People vote, not land.

Those provisions that were established to curtail mob rule, i.e. the EC, the Senate and the SC, are functioning as intended. You want to change that? The constitution provides a way to change that. Too slow? That’s the purpose.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A better alternative, given the political and practical difficulties of getting rid of the EC is for Dems to focus on winning governorships and statehouses, and having those states with blue legislatures and governors pledge to give all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate that wins the popular vote in their state. We are currently only 4-5 states away from this becoming a reality, and giving progressives control of the presidency. Call it the tyrrany of the majority if you like - it still beats the tyrrany of the minority.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

expatToday  10:04 am JST

A better alternative, given the political and practical difficulties of getting rid of the EC is for Dems to focus on winning governorships and statehouses, and having those states with blue legislatures and governors pledge to give all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate that wins the popular vote in their state.

Isn't that what happens in most states at the moment?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Counting the Bill of Rights, there have been 27 amendments to the Constitution. It is time for number 28.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Andrew Yang, an entrepreneur running for the party's presidential nomination, tweeted: "The problem with deciding Presidential elections via popular vote is that candidates would naturally campaign in urban areas with big media markets and their policies would follow suit. Better to have proportional electoral college votes in each state so you campaign everywhere.

The population of the largest 20 cities IN THE U.S. total some 31,821,878 people. Eliminating the E.C. would allow Presidential candidates to skip many of the states, and concentrate their campaigns in the largest cities. AND eliminating/replacing the E.C. would have to be done voluntarily. Democrats fantasy that three-quarters of the states will voluntarily give up their state's right. Ain't gonna happen. Not now, not ever.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Simon Foston - I think they would catch up pretty quickly if a Democrat lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College.

If things were different, things would be different. However, regardless of which political party is in power in each state, the states are not going to give up their state's right to hold elections.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

arrestpaulToday  06:14 am JST

If things were different, things would be different. However, regardless of which political party is in power in each state, the states are not going to give up their state's right to hold elections.

I don't think states need to give up anything. However I see no justification for giving all the Electoral College votes to the winning candidate instead of allocating them according to the popular vote in each state, which can and does happen in a couple of them. Why not all of them?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The EC also helps to prevent the tyranny of the majority from overpowering the minority. Everyone should appreciate that, especially those in the protected classes and minorities.

Right now, Congress is protecting everyone from the Executive Branch. There have been times when the Executive Branch protected us from Congress.

The political parties caused this mess and are continuing to keep it alive, each with their echo chambers of hate towards anyone outside.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Simon Foston - I don't think states need to give up anything. However I see no justification for giving all the Electoral College votes to the winning candidate instead of allocating them according to the popular vote in each state, which can and does happen in a couple of them. Why not all of them?

That something that you will have to take up with all 50 states. Each state decides how their electoral votes are allocated. Them's the rules.

Some states have passed legislation that might allow them to re-allocate their electoral votes based on which Presidential candidate receives the most votes from a combination of all 50 states. While that certainly sounds interesting, none of them have actually survived a court challenge. You know that the potentially losing side will challenge these laws in court. What could be simpler that waiting for up to 50 states to decide if these new laws actually meet the constitutional requirements in whatever individual states chose to enact them?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites