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 "The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately.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 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?"