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 "The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately.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: 5, Informative) by GlennC on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:29PM
The problem that Senator Boxer and many others have is that they don't seem to understand the relationship between the People, the States, and the Federal Government.
As I understand it, the original intent was that the People would have more influence at the local and State levels, and that the States would be represented by the Federal Government. This is borne out by the original wording of the first sentences of Sections 2 and 3 of Article 1 of the Constitution:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript [archives.gov]
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."
Given the reach of national media, it's easy to imagine a Presidential race as a single national contest. I don't think that was ever the intent. It seems to me that the intent was always that the Presidential vote be held at the State level with the Electors given to each State by the same number of Senators and Representative the State has in Congress. Given that, any alteration in the Electoral College would have to be consistent with the intent of keeping the winner the one who won the popular vote in the majority of the States. This would help ensure that future Presidential candidates consider ALL of the citizens, and not just those living in the major metropolitan areas.
Think 50 State races, not 1 National vote.
Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @08:55PM
Times have changed. We were never so united as we are now.
Nothing wrong with changing the system to keep up.
The electoral college was reformed once before after two similar elections back in the 1800s.
Senators aren't chosen by the state legislatures any more either.
BTW, the real reason we have the electoral college is because of slavery.
The whole thing about slaves counting as 3/5ths of a person was to boost up census counts so southern states could have more electoral votes than they deserved seeing as how slaves could not actually vote. All this other stuff about state-level representation was just a smoke-screen for slavers rights. That's as good an argument as any for getting rid of the electoral college.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Arik on Friday November 18 2016, @12:01AM
Forgot your <sarcasm> tags?
"Nothing wrong with changing the system to keep up."
Well, except for this:
"The electoral college was reformed once before after two similar elections back in the 1800s."
And each time it was made worse, not better.
"Senators aren't chosen by the state legislatures any more either."
So let's start by repealing the 17th Amendment. It's better to pull the failed bandages back off and get a good look at the underlying wound, then do whatever bandaging needs to be done right, rather than just to pile bandage on top of bandage and hope for the best.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @01:33AM
> Times have changed.
Times may have changed, but the Constitution hasn't. There are ways to change it but you know very well the effort won't get far. The Founding Founders were on to you and your ilk.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by tfried on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:02PM
You know, that idea makes a whole lot of sense where it is actually possible to represent each region/state. The basic insight is that states are different, they have different needs and interests, and each should be heard. Thus, for Senate and Congress, you want to make sure that any given location (i.e. state / district) is at least represented, regardless of population (esp. in Senate, also "at least one Represenatative" rule). Those are exactly the sections you quote from the constitution.
However that whole idea falls flat on its face when the task is to elect one person for president. You are not going to represent each state, much less each district. You have to go with a single majority. And exactly why should that be a majority of "area" rather than people? The presidential election is one national vote, because the outcome is one national elect, not 50 state elects. To me, the only reason diverging from "one man one vote" on this one is historic practicability.
(Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Friday November 18 2016, @05:49AM
You're mostly right about the distribution of power in general, but not really about the Presidential election method.
Given the reach of national media, it's easy to imagine a Presidential race as a single national contest. I don't think that was ever the intent. It seems to me that the intent was always that the Presidential vote be held at the State level with the Electors given to each State by the same number of Senators and Representative the State has in Congress. Given that, any alteration in the Electoral College would have to be consistent with the intent of keeping the winner the one who won the popular vote in the majority of the States.
In fact, one would not need a majority of states even under the current system where (in 48 states) the electors are chosen as one bloc and all vote for the same candidate; today, the eleven most populous states would suffice. (Conversely, the 39 least populous states would not be enough.)
But the original intent was not that each state's electors should necessarily go for one candidate. Read Federalist 68. [congress.gov] (Or my journal entry, focusing more on which ideas/arguments apply today, than on the original intent, but I do quote the whole thing.)
The intent was that the electors were to be true representatives, not mere proxies as they are today. They were to be chosen for their wisdom and integrity, then sent to the state capital to consider the candidates and vote. To win, one would not need a majority of the states, just a majority of the electors without regard to which states they're from -- in other words, it was to be a single national contest, just one judged by the electors, not by the voters at home.
There were several reasons for using electors as representatives, rather than direct votes. One was to balance the power of states with small and large populations -- not because this is necessarily fair, but because it was the compromise that the states could agree on.
Another was to allow for poor propagation of information -- voters out in the boonies would likely be more well-informed about respectable statesmen in their own state, who would serve as electors, than about the Presidential candidates themselves. But when the electors gathered in the state capital, they would have access to better information. (Obviously, this one doesn't apply anymore.)
Yet another was to encourage deliberation over rashness, both by numbers (few as opposed to the entire populus) and by circumstances (convened within the state, thus separated from the national capital and the other states' electors). (This was made ineffective by the party system, where the electors are reduced to mindless proxies.)