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 "The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:29PM
We have a method for changing the rules. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev [cornell.edu]
Passing a law does nothing and should get you a 0-9 from the supreme court. If it passed at all.
Anyone who thinks getting rid of the current system and just putting first past the post is a good idea has not considered it well enough. Pretty much the top 20 cities in the united states would be pandered to and the remaining cities would just be ignored. There other better systems to put in place. But the only one people want is first past the post. I would only say that is a good idea if say someone can manage 75% of the popular vote.
50/50 votes (what we usually have) is basically dont know dont care. We could literally pick two people, flip a coin 101 times and whoever comes out ahead wins and we get the same result.
The bigger story is the 80 million people who did not vote at all and are the actual majority this time around. THEY speak louder than those who did. They voted 'none of the above'. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXEglx-or6k [youtube.com]
Trump spent the whole time telling everyone it was rigged and that he was going to win. Both statements are true. Both parties have failed but they only failed because we the people let them do whatever the hell they wanted. It honestly should not matter which of the two wins. We should be picking someone that is worth having there. Both parties have slanted their process for the candidates picked. One party even tries to slant what the other party did by using the media. Operation pied piper they called it. This is not the will of the people. It is mob rule and propaganda to fuck us over.
Perhaps if both sides would stop flipping each other off and acting the fools we could find some middle ground.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:44PM
Don't forget that one party solicited aid from foreign entities to swing the results their way.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:35PM
Pretty much the top 20 cities in the united states would be pandered to and the remaining cities would just be ignored.
The voters don't rely on going in-person to hear candidates talk anymore. We have these little things called the Internet, and newspapers, and radio, and TV, etc., etc. that means that political candidates can reach out to most of the entire country in a single speech. This isn't the 1800s anymore.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday November 18 2016, @01:15AM
I love this election! You guys have learned nothing!
The voters don't rely on going in-person to hear candidates talk anymore.
You say this days after Trump just got through winning by doing exactly that, filling every arena in the swing states to capacity multiple times. Overflow crowds everywhere he went of people wanting to be part of the moment, to be able to tell their kids that they were there.
We have these little things called the Internet, and newspapers, and radio, and TV, etc., etc. that means that political candidates can reach out to most of the entire country in a single speech.
The losing candidate spent about three times as much as the winner on traditional advertising. All this talk we endured for decades about elections being all about who raised more money to dump into TV ads was apparently a myth. As for the Internet, the paid ads didn't seem to do nearly as much as a few weaponized autistic folks on [48]chanand r/the_donald creating memes the rest of us could mercilessly shitpost into twitter and trigger the delicate snowflakes. YouTube putting warning labels on the Trump campaign's official ads just added to the lulz, and confirmed us in our hatred of the rigged system.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 18 2016, @02:51PM
You say this days after Trump just got through winning by doing exactly that, filling every arena in the swing states to capacity multiple times. Overflow crowds everywhere he went of people wanting to be part of the moment, to be able to tell their kids that they were there.
Ah, but did most of them go to the rally to find out about Trump, or did they go to the rally because they already knew about Trump and agreed with him and just wanted to be in the choir, so to speak?
And people can always do their own research on the candidates. They have websites with their platforms on them.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:11AM
From your link:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution [...]
She's proposing an amendment in the Senate. In the unlikely event that 2/3 of both houses of congress approve it, it would then be up to the states to ratify it, or not.