Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday November 17 2016, @07:33PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-is-your-vote-worth? dept.

Senator Boxer Introduces Bill to Eliminate Electoral College

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Senator-Boxer-to-Introduce-Bill-to-Eliminate-Electoral-College--401314945.html

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 "The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately.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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:14PM

    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:14PM (#428477)

    They managed fine for almost a couple centuries. NJ was not nicknamed the Garden State for nothing.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:53PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday November 17 2016, @11:53PM (#428502) Homepage Journal

    Yeah, there was a time it was possible. Urban expansion over the last century put the last nail in that coffin very, very thoroughly though.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday November 18 2016, @12:48AM

      by Geotti (1146) on Friday November 18 2016, @12:48AM (#428530) Journal

      With advances in vertical farming, aeroponics, & co. you could probably build a few skyscraper-farms and be okay, probably; even if that'd be quite expensive at first.

      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @03:37AM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 18 2016, @03:37AM (#428621) Homepage Journal

        Interesting idea. Not currently economically viable I wouldn't think but in the hypothetically split union it might be. The few blue states certainly wouldn't be getting good prices from the red for simple supply and demand reasons.

        California? It'd empty very quickly. One word: water. The price for a gallon of potable water would be through the roof because of the demand and the lack of regulations keeping the price down. See, California does have a lot of farmland but what happens to it when the crops can't be watered, or can be but at a much higher cost? Food prices go through the roof as well. Food and water prices going through the roof increases the minimum monthly income necessary to even survive in California. Now poor people can't afford to live there and either leave or demand more money from their employers, so labor costs go way up. Now businesses have to deal with drastically increased labor costs as well as resource costs and start looking for greener pastures. California would lose half its population and much of its economic base inside four years.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @10:38AM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday November 18 2016, @10:38AM (#428778) Journal

          That's true under the current system of water supply. I'm pretty sure California could figure out mass desalinization quickly if their feet were held to the fire.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @11:21AM

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Friday November 18 2016, @11:21AM (#428791) Homepage Journal

            Quickly enough and cheaply enough? I'm fairly dubious.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @02:58PM

              by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday November 18 2016, @02:58PM (#428849) Journal

              When the alternative is dying of thirst, the "cheap enough" calculus changes quite a bit. Also, since dying of thirst only takes 3 days, "quickly enough" would have a good deal of pressure behind it.

              So, bye-bye Mono Lake, hello massive chain of nuclear power plants powering desalinization plants.

              I do think if it had proper motivation, California could figure it out since they do have enough economic power and enough of a brain trust in Silicon Valley.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Saturday November 19 2016, @01:56AM

          by Reziac (2489) on Saturday November 19 2016, @01:56AM (#429230) Homepage

          True about CA in the present political climate. But more than enough rain and snow fall on the Sierras to supply the state -- if only it was stored, rather than allowed to flow into the ocean. Of course, they'd have to construct a lot more dams.

          --
          And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.