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 "The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately.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, Insightful) by edIII on Friday November 18 2016, @12:08AM
TMB, TMB, TMB, no I get my information directly from the Republican Party. It's the platform chosen by Republicans, just like the Democratic Platform was rewritten this year by Progressives taking over the party. Are you saying the news outlets directly misrepresented the exact words of the platform in question? I agree that the sources of information and their accuracy are extremely important, and I'm no sheep, nor have I ever been one. What caricatures do you speak of? The Republican Party voted on their platform of hate, and this is the result [gop.com]. Direct from their mouths, so how do I have misinformation, or how have been mislead as a sheep?
There are no teams. Just Americans all in this together. It's not that my "team" lost, which was never my "team", but simply embraced enough of the well principled goals that I can understand, agree with, and passionately get behind. Make no mistake, I'm a team of one person, and a culture of one person. Would the Republican Party have had much of the same goals, and have hate removed from it (The religious bullshit and anti-LGBTQ), I would be a Republican in that I would have supported the goals between us that were aligned.
The Red states simply voted out of fear and hatred. Fear of the American worker losing even more than we've lost in that last 40 years, and the hatred directly stoked by Trump against immigrants and the "theys" that are responsible for the fetid hell that is the existence of the American worker. Never before has there been as much hate.
No, I cannot see well principled goals, as directly promulgated by the Republican Party. Which is why I asked to have them explained, especially with regards to how they can possibly be well principled goals and not just acts of hate and avarice in America.
There is nothing moral about the Republican Party at the moment, and nearly every part of the platform I deeply feel would have offended Jesus Christ, who the Republicans just love so gosh darned much. I'm not a Christian, but damn, the goals that have been promoted are anything but spiritually aligned. All of the other goals are transparent money grabs for further privatization, which has only turned out to be bad for the American worker.
Again, I don't see principles in action right now, but just fear, hate, and the avarice of those manipulating the angry unwashed masses in the Red states, that are just as equally fucked as the Blue states, but cannot see those that are truly responsible for it.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @12:37AM
All I can think then is that you're suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias; only seeing what you want to see and flat out ignoring anything that doesn't fit. This saddens me to see in any of the SN community.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @02:30AM
Actually, I'm one of those conservative evangelical Christians that Republicans are supposedly trying to court and I largely agree with ed, particularly on this point:
Plus, we should point out the obvious: their candidate for President this election cycle is a travesty (and the VP pick is not much better). It pains me no end to consider that somewhere around 80% of evangelicals actually voted for Trump, a man who has openly sneered at just about everything I hold dear as a Christian; he shares nothing of my values. It actually makes me ill to think the people I sit next to in church most likely voted for him. A woman at church had been talking prior to this election about "God's people voting for God's principles". Excuse me?!? God's principles? Where are you seeing that on your ballot? Because I am sure not seeing it on mine! Certainly not on the Republican ticket! Right now I feel I need a new religious label because the old "evangelical" label has been hijacked by a bunch of jack-booted thugs. I just wonder how long it will take my spiritual brethren to notice too.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @03:18AM
There wasn't much of a choice for them this time around. Either the most corrupt and outright criminal person to ever run for the office or Trump with all his baggage. They did what they felt they had to do.
This all has nothing whatsoever to do with the EC though, so I'm going to drop myself from the discussion.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday November 18 2016, @06:00PM
A woman at church had been talking prior to this election about "God's people voting for God's principles". Excuse me?!? God's principles? Where are you seeing that on your ballot? Because I am sure not seeing it on mine!
And did you point this out to her, publicly?
This is why Christians are such horrible people. It's like cops who refuse to take a stand against the bad cops. Christians are all represented by the very worst Christians, because they're the loud-mouths who push their morally repugnant values publicly, and the ones who disagree just stand silently, and continue to attend the same churches as them, in effect acting in solidarity.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Friday November 18 2016, @09:08PM
Christians who do this in churches get letters from the "higher ups" telling them to stop because it could jeopardize their 501c3 tax-exempt status. Not only have I heard about this practice from far-away reports, but a close personal friend of mine also was given just such a letter. This is no reason to stop calling out political lies in churches, but it is definitely an inhibition. Sadly, most humans, Christian or otherwise, are not legendary heroes in waiting.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday November 18 2016, @09:26PM
I'm not arguing with you, but how does calling out political lies jeopardize their tax-exempt status, but the person making political lies to begin with isn't also jeopardizing them?
I agree about most humans not being heroes in waiting, but Christians are always claiming that they have moral superiority, that they have some calling to be better, etc. But instead, they're at least as bad as everyone else, and in fact, they're usually much worse, with a very few gems hidden in with all the turds. So why bother with the whole charade? It seems to me that, most of the time, church-going is really for people who actually need someone threatening divine consequences if they don't act right, and can't seem to figure out how to act decent on their own. Apparently that whole "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is just too complicated for many people and needs to be drilled into their head every week. The problem, of course, is that most churches don't teach this at all, and instead teach a bunch of right-wing BS about how God loves rich people more or that taxes are evil or something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @09:51PM
Agreed, both cases are in the same bucket.
I'm of the firm belief [soylentnews.org] that "taxation" is a criminal act in a free country, and that services requested and provided are the only cases where payment can be demanded. If you harken back to the days of landline phones and/or cable TV, "bundling" is kinda-sorta the same problem: there's one small service you wanted, but to get that one thing you also need to accept a ton of junk you don't want - except government agents tend to kill you if you try to "cut the cable" with them or try to "make your own TV show".
Taxing churches was an insidious way to silence them politically, and I say this as a willing slave of Jesus Christ who is disgusted with the state of Christian churches in the USA.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 18 2016, @06:42AM
That doesn't fit part would be justice, prosperity for the working class, evidence of decreasing income inequality, etc. If I'm suffering that, then there are millions of us curiously suffering in the same way, with the same narratives, the same observations.
Particularly good evidence would've been strong Wall Street reforms and people brought to justice, but that never happened. How many instances of injustice need to occur before it's not confirmation bias? Is Dupont seriously not going to be brought to justice for knowingly poisoning a family across generations? It would help when things like this happen, and we hear of the corruption, that it would be accompanied by the justice.
All it would take is for some things to be getting better, but they've only been getting objectively worse for a long damn time. There have been smatterings of progress, but still a one step forward, three steps back game.
I'll take it all back if things get substantively better for the American worker, we don't lose any of our rights (no stop-and-frisks), we don't create the internment camps, and corporations don't abuse the shit out of us when unchained. Which is highly unlikely given the fact they treat the American worker slightly above dirt.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @11:32AM
We're talking what voters are voting for here, not what they're getting. Unless you think what Democrat politicians do actually has some relation to their platform? Did you vote to live in a surveillance state, outright ignoring the 4th amendment? For prosecuting and persecuting more whistleblowers than all other administrations combined? For the President be able to use the IRS against his political enemies? For drone strikes on American citizens with no due process?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, yo. You really need to get to know some Republicans. They're some of the nicest, most generous people you'll ever meet when you're not calling them assholes.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @03:42PM
please reply to the questions; I have the same ones for people that voted out of principal and voted in the Republican establishment.
The democrats became what I despised of the republicans -- and the republicans haven't changed. Your wine sipping comment makes me think of the Koch brothers -- not some 'liberal elite', whatever that means. That is how deeply entrenched the big business connation with wealth and the republican part your comment conjures in me.
I recognize that many of the IT businesses are now the modern day oil barons and railroad tycoons. One could say those industries were not pro-union, and thus, not really fostering from management any tendencies to vote for less conservative ideals, like workplace safety and pollution controls.
Yet conservatives seem to indicate they embrace religion--the whole stewards of the earth thing is something I never have heard them embrace, but the profit motive has always been there.
Please tell us the principals you DO support -- besides the elimination of your perceived SJWs. Quieting their voices does nothing to eliminate their concerns; I expect you have a greater plan to allow them to seek liberty and justice without offending your own sensibilities?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @04:55PM
Why, precisely should I? I'm not a Republican. I've neither the need nor the desire to educate you on their views. Get out of your safe space and go meet a few.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by driven on Friday November 18 2016, @01:18AM
Alternative theory: the people you've just described gave Trump enough votes to win, but they don't make up the majority of the votes for Republican. If someone created a pie chart with people's motives for voting for Trump I'm certain there would be a variety of factors, not just the fear and hatred you described. There will be some who voted for Trump while holding their nose, just so Hillary wouldn't [insert anti-Hillary slogan].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @04:28PM
I hate to say it, but this is exactly why I voted Trump. It was all about gun control. Hillary ran on an anti-2nd amendment platform, and until the Democrats leave the "common sense gun laws" bullshit alone i won't vote for them.
I suspect that there are just as many out there who will only vote for a candidate who supports open borders, or free access to birth control, etc.
As a person I think Trump is reprehensible, a product of the old money oligarchy that he professes to combat. A branch can't jump from the tree and call it unholy.
But I seriously doubt that Trump is going to be as terrible for this country as the left says, he's the most centrist candidate the right has run in forever, and now that he's been elected we're already starting to see the Hardliner bullshit crumble. The wall has suddenly become "more like a fence", the deportations are only for criminals, he "doesn't want to hurt them(Clintons)" so no special prosecutor, etc.
I honestly think that the greater threat will be all of the true hardliners filling up his cabinet, the ones that he made deals with to win. Those guys are the real problem and I hope that they are kept on a tight leash. I suspect that when Republicans loose in the midterms Trump's cabinet will be replaced with more moderate people.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @11:16AM
Then how do you explain Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, ed? Did the Democrats lose those states because they didn't "craft the right message for white workers?" Or did they lose them because they knew Hillary was going to instantly "pivot" and pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and thus finish off whatever manufacturing remains in America? Is it possible they were less than enchanted by a vision of a future where all agricultural, ranching, and resource extraction jobs were done by illegal immigrants; where trucking and distribution was done by illegal immigrants; where no manufacturing remains and even those minimum-wage, food-bank ready jobs at Walmart are hard to come by; where high tech jobs are either outsourced to China or insourced to Indian H1B's; and then everything else is lost to automation. What then do Americans do, from the high-school graduate to the over-educated, over-skilled, to earn a living? Can they sell each other derivatives or REITs all day long and live large on the fat deltas? Maybe they can all work for the federal government and run back and forth putting out fires in each other's neighborhoods or arresting each other, or hey, maybe they can all get jobs processing paperwork for all the hordes of immigrants flooding into the country?
No, ed, people voted on their pocketbooks the way democrats are always chiding them to.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:14PM
Lol no, Ohioan's voted Trump because half our population is a bunch of tobacco chewing, camo wearing, idiots that barely graduated high school. They saw Larry the Cable Guy and thought that was someone to aspire to be. Trust me, they don't call my home town "Spring-Tucky" for nothing.
P.S. Sorry to those who live in Kentucky, I know that not all of you are backwards hicks and hillbillies.