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 "The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately.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: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:58PM
What "principles"? These principles change every election cycle, remarkably and coincidentally they jibe with whatever the "crisis" that the Republican National Committee says is going on. And that "principle" term gets pasted onto EVERYTHING. Most normal and rational people have principles that are things like "honesty" and "modesty". Did you know there are basic fundamental principles for such things as "illegal immigration", "lower taxes", "non-unionization"? I had no ideas these were fundamental, core principles. Somehow I have a hard time finding "Thou shall not unionize" in the Bible.
The majority of those who vote in the red states vote the way they do because they are told that voting otherwise would violate their principles. If only they were wise enough to actually reflect upon what their true principles were , they wouldn't be taken in by all the horseshit they're fed and they might actually get some real representation in Congress. Or, if they want to keep sticking to whatever they're claiming are their principles this year, at least be consistent. Don't cry about your "small government" principles for cutting social programs while at the same time pitching a fit if anyone has the temerity to touch your farm subsidies. They're not subsidies or handouts when they are given to YOU, but they are godless socialism when given to ME.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:44PM
If you don't know, how do you justify voting against them?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @03:20AM
Wonderful response, very informative. From what I know of those "principles" you want to promote jobs (the only decent principle) and take away the rights of other human beings. Short sighted selfish principles, very admiral.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @03:43AM
Then educate yourself, because you have no clue why Republicans believe what they believe. And stop saying "you". I'm not a Republican.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 18 2016, @06:13PM
From what I know of those "principles" you want to promote jobs (the only decent principle) and take away the rights of other human beings. Short sighted selfish principles, very admiral.
Doesn't sound like you know enough to be relevant to this conversation. I'm siding with TMB on this one.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday November 18 2016, @02:31AM
religion.
it grabs the red states by - well - by the pussy.
and those idiots ALWAYS fall for it. their church leaders (bought for by the red party) tell them how to vote and the stupid sheep just abide.
its JUST that simple.
and just that WRONG for the country.
religion runs the red group and it never should have been that way. but they were co-opted and too stupid to realize they were conned.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday November 18 2016, @03:09PM
In the old days in the Netherlands we had a Farmers' party [wikipedia.org] (socially very conservative, economically centre-right, "Party of the Strict Christians" so to speak) and a Liberal party (socially liberal, economically right, "Party of the Rich").
Using those two as basis vectors you can draw any point in the { conservative, right } quadrant of the political compass. A party for farmers and a different party for factory owners.
Now the Boerenpartij has been absorbed into the CDA (Christian Democrats).
Using only one basis vector, like "the Republicans" in the USA, all you can draw is a line. If I was a God-fearing hard-working farmer in a red state, I'd want to vote for the farmers' party, not for the bloody right-wing liberal city slickers. What have the Romans ever done for us? (Except aquaducts etc. etc.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @05:07PM
their church leaders (bought for by the red party) tell them how to vote and the stupid sheep just abide.
Wrong. In mainline Protestantism a Pastor who doesn't promulgate the points of view held by the majority of the super-contributors of the congregation does not last long as a Pastor in that pulpit. With very few exceptions, clergy serve at the pleasure of the congregation; Pastors almost never own the building and land where the church is. So the church leaders are actually telling the voters what they have already wanted to hear, if they get partisan at all (which is actually pretty rare as that can jeopardize the congregation's nonprofit status.)
Next time, know before you write.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @06:40PM
Almost, but not quite. As you say, pastors don't actually own the building or the land. (I believe a caveat should be added for many of the mega-churches run by the prosperity gospel types: while the pastor doesn't actually own the property, they typically do exercise an outsized amount of control.) Contrary to your assertion, pastors don't serve solely "at the pleasure of the congregation". That may be true in large part in more Congregational forms of church polity (e.g., Congregationalists, Methodists, Baptists, et al.). However, for other more hierarchical denominations it gets quite a bit more complicated (e.g., Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.) Of course, that doesn't mean that individual congregations in those hierarchical denominations are without recourse to bring concerns about their pastor to the attention of the Bishop (or the presbytery, etc.). And, yes, the Bishop (or the presbytery) will act when they are presented with problems more substantive than "I don't like that guy". On the other hand, the congregation can make life a living hell for an unpopular pastor, no matter what the denominational polity.
Next time, you should heed your own advice to "know before you write".