SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Senator Boxer Introduces Bill to Eliminate Electoral College
"This is the only office in the land where you can get more votes and still lose the presidency," Boxer said in a statement. "The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately.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."
[...] "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," Boxer said.
Trump will be the fifth president in U.S. history to win the election despite losing the popular vote. George W. Bush won the most recent such election, in 2000.
Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz-LgrM
(Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:49PM
I mostly agree, though I hold out hope it might be possible to eliminate the Electoral College at some point in the near future.
This is absolutely not the time for it. We went into this election with a set of rules; it's inappropriate and juvenile to try and change them at this time. Any changes are only possible moving forward.
What we need is proportional voting or multiplicity voting, where we all either have about 3 votes to cast or we can rank the top 3-5 candidates with each receiving some weight. Our election system is fundamentally broken - not because of the Electoral College - but because of one-vote system creates and perpetuates a two-party duopoly.
Breaking that down will require eliminating the Electoral College, and is a noble goal. I don't see any actual nobility from people screaming about it right now, though.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:04PM
What we need is proportional voting or multiplicity voting,
Actually we don't need that either.
This constant railing against first past the post is nothing but an intellectual exercise that has taken on a life of its own among a group of dissatisfied math nerds.
Is solves nothing, is no less likely to be gamed, and is far less likely to be trusted by the voters.
Its the perfect storm of making elections more contested and more challenged and less final while making it impossible for the voter to know how his vote was actually applied.
Why is it you discount the possibility of removing the electoral college but then substitute something even less trustworth.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:07PM
Ranked-choice and approval voting are superior and require no elimination of the Electoral College since they produce a single winner. They do however favor third parties and will be forever opposed by the two party establishment.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by krishnoid on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:04PM
Would this have helped Hilary if third-party voters ranked her below their primary choices, but above Trump?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:24PM
Yeah, that is one application of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:37PM
The constant railing against first past the post is due to it causing people to vote for the 'lesser evil' instead of candidates they actually like and mostly agree with. That's not truly democratic, and until that is fixed our status as a representative republic will remain in question. We're not electing representatives, but evil politicians who we believe will do less damage than their opponent.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:33PM
This is absolutely not the time for it. We went into this election with a set of rules; it's inappropriate and juvenile to try and change them at this time. Any changes are only possible moving forward.
Strawman. Nobody is trying to retroactively eliminate the electoral college here. Don't do that.
Some people are calling for electors to "vote their conscience" which isn't likely to happen, but it does raise the question why even have electors if they are just going to rubberstamp the popular vote in their state? Why not just make it automatic without involving actual people? Presumably we put people in there for them to exercise good judgement. Why is it legit to have an electoral college but then deliberately hamstring them? Sounds like having their cake and eating too.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:16PM
> Presumably we put people in there for them to exercise good judgement. Why is it legit to have an electoral college but then deliberately hamstring them?
Fair point. I think if there was ever a test of that part of the system, this is it. I wonder how much that added layer of apparently futile administration costs. I bet those electors don't elect for free. Where are the "small government" folk when you need them?
> Sounds like having their cake and eating too.
Sounds more to me like not having your cake and not eating it either.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:55PM
So you say, the cake is a lie?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.