How about every state has an equal point. 50 points total. Whom wins the most states, wins !

Let me first say that Boxer is a fool, and I remember thinking how senile she seemed when I saw her speak at this summer's Democratic Convention. She's only in Washington for two more months so this seems like such a stupid idea, I have no idea what she is thinking. I'd rather she use her waning power to fix California's methods of counting votes as they're always the last state in the country to count all their ballots.

That said, I think most people here recognize the electoral system is not a perfect system. We're the only country in the world that uses this type of system to elect an executive president. Some countries use something similar to elect a (non executive) head of state. Or some use it to elect members of their versions of Congress. But not many countries use it period - just Germany and Italy (which have a modified version), and then a few small countries.

Maybe we should have a system of electoral votes based on how many people actually vote (instead of how many people live in each state). California hasn't counted all its votes yet as I said already but I read the other day that as of right now Florida almost had the highest number of voters of any state last week but they only get barely half as many electoral votes as California (and 7 less than Texas even though they had like 1 1/2 million more voters).

I did think it was funny that Trump tweeted out the other day now he likes the electoral college system (although 4 years ago he too thought it needed to be replaced). He also said 'If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y., Florida and California, and won even bigger and more easily.' I guess he's saying he would have won more votes in those states and won the popular vote too, although I think he's wrong about New York and California and he should have said Texas instead (where his margin of victory slipped from 2008 and 2012).

(11-15-2016 07:46 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(11-15-2016 07:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  Barbara Boxer is perhaps the dumbest person in the Senate. I don't know how Feinstein can stand being lumped with her as California Senators.

It has been requested that posters refer to her as Senator Barbara Boxer.

Not Ma'am?

Boxer Shorts

(11-16-2016 06:21 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I wish it was changed to proportional electors. Puts more states in play and candidates will visit more. Maine and Nebraska do it. Dems visit Nebraska and Reps visit Maine.

I don't argue against this because Maine and Nebraska decided for themselves how to allocate their Electoral votes.

I don't understand why small States would voluntarily dilute their Constitutional protection when California will certainly not follow suit in diluting its power....but it is their sovereign choice and I respect it.

(11-15-2016 08:42 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  The dems in congress will be lucky to pass gas the next few years.

(11-16-2016 06:21 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I wish it was changed to proportional electors. Puts more states in play and candidates will visit more. Maine and Nebraska do it. Dems visit Nebraska and Reps visit Maine.

Nothing prevents states from doing that.... That's the beauty of federalism.

(11-16-2016 10:40 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 06:21 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I wish it was changed to proportional electors. Puts more states in play and candidates will visit more. Maine and Nebraska do it. Dems visit Nebraska and Reps visit Maine.

Nothing prevents states from doing that.... That's the beauty of federalism.

You are correct. The states can do that right now. The whining and crying from the Dems over losing this election is truly epic.

(11-16-2016 10:42 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 10:40 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 06:21 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I wish it was changed to proportional electors. Puts more states in play and candidates will visit more. Maine and Nebraska do it. Dems visit Nebraska and Reps visit Maine.

Nothing prevents states from doing that.... That's the beauty of federalism.

You are correct. The states can do that right now. The whining and crying from the Dems over losing this election is truly epic.

The problem is that the states which would benefit the most are so owned by one party... No way the democrats in CA or the Republicans in TX want to make it harder for their guy/gale

Well, to be fair, supporters of the Electoral College on this very board (me included) DID state that if the Democrats didn't like the EC, they should attempt to amend the Constitution.

And that's exactly what they're attempting.

So now we'll see what happens when the process plays out. When it gets defeated soundly, it will be very unlikely to every get challenged again. Which would be a good thing for our Republic.

(11-16-2016 09:33 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 06:21 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I wish it was changed to proportional electors. Puts more states in play and candidates will visit more. Maine and Nebraska do it. Dems visit Nebraska and Reps visit Maine.

I don't argue against this because Maine and Nebraska decided for themselves how to allocate their Electoral votes.

I don't understand why small States would voluntarily dilute their Constitutional protection when California will certainly not follow suit in diluting its power....but it is their sovereign choice and I respect it.

Initially it looks like they dilute their power but if it were winner take all, no Dem would stop in Nebraska and no Rep would stop in Maine. There were multiple campaign rallies on both sides for 1 electoral vote.

(11-16-2016 10:42 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 10:40 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 06:21 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I wish it was changed to proportional electors. Puts more states in play and candidates will visit more. Maine and Nebraska do it. Dems visit Nebraska and Reps visit Maine.

Nothing prevents states from doing that.... That's the beauty of federalism.

You are correct. The states can do that right now. The whining and crying from the Dems over losing this election is truly epic.

It's hard to have a serious discussion with you.

(11-16-2016 10:48 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 10:42 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 10:40 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 06:21 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I wish it was changed to proportional electors. Puts more states in play and candidates will visit more. Maine and Nebraska do it. Dems visit Nebraska and Reps visit Maine.

Nothing prevents states from doing that.... That's the beauty of federalism.

You are correct. The states can do that right now. The whining and crying from the Dems over losing this election is truly epic.

The problem is that the states which would benefit the most are so owned by one party... No way the democrats in CA or the Republicans in TX want to make it harder for their guy/gale

It's one of those "if you do it, then we'll do it" type things. Probably needs to come from a national level, so that each state can argue the benefits for/against the change.

Here's an idea. Let each Congressional District in the country decide if they want to allocate their own Electoral Vote by district election or have it allocated for them by Statewide election.

That way every district gets to decide for themselves...even in California and Illinois! Democracy!

I didn't think so.

(11-16-2016 11:15 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 10:48 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 10:42 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 10:40 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 06:21 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I wish it was changed to proportional electors. Puts more states in play and candidates will visit more. Maine and Nebraska do it. Dems visit Nebraska and Reps visit Maine.

Nothing prevents states from doing that.... That's the beauty of federalism.

You are correct. The states can do that right now. The whining and crying from the Dems over losing this election is truly epic.

The problem is that the states which would benefit the most are so owned by one party... No way the democrats in CA or the Republicans in TX want to make it harder for their guy/gale

It's one of those "if you do it, then we'll do it" type things. Probably needs to come from a national level, so that each state can argue the benefits for/against the change.

But you literally can't enforce it at the national level right now. I can't imagine how hard it would be to craft a bill to foist this on the states which passes constitutional muster.

Maybe what you need is reciprocity.... If you got two groups of one or more states with the same number of electors to each commit to do it

Blue - NY, MA, CT, RI - 51
Red - TX, OK, AR - 51

Some time ago people tried to get bills passed in the states which would make the states award proportionally. It would be triggered when enough EV's were in the pact to secure the election.

That's trying to swallow the elephant.

By limiting the scope to smaller groups of states, and by provisioning EV's like NE and ME (instead of purely proportionally) you could start to eat it a bite at a time.

(11-16-2016 07:05 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'd rather she use her waning power to fix California's methods of counting votes as they're always the last state in the country to count all their ballots.

Which only serves to create the problem they're complaining about.

by 530pm in Cali with the polls still open for many hours yet, we could already see that Trump had a REAL chance to win, which only motivated the people in LA and SF to vote.

Quote: But not many countries use it period - just Germany and Italy (which have a modified version), and then a few small countries.

Both of which were set up as Democracies AFTER we were and in many ways modeled after us.

Quote:Maybe we should have a system of electoral votes based on how many people actually vote (instead of how many people live in each state). California hasn't counted all its votes yet as I said already but I read the other day that as of right now Florida almost had the highest number of voters of any state last week but they only get barely half as many electoral votes as California (and 7 less than Texas even though they had like 1 1/2 million more voters).

Doesn't the Florida/Texas thing actually demonstrate that people often decide whether or not to vote based on whether or not they think their vote could impact the outcome? Fla is a 'swing' state, so people vote. Tx is not. Ca isn't either, but outside of LA and SF, I think Trump won Ca (or came very close)

when boxer and reid finally leave the senate and crawl back under whatever rock the democrats found them under, the treason rating for the overall senate will drop drastically.

(11-16-2016 11:29 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Here's an idea. Let each Congressional District in the country decide if they want to allocate their own Electoral Vote by district election or have it allocated for them by Statewide election.

That way every district gets to decide for themselves...even in California and Illinois! Democracy!

I didn't think so.

because under that scenario Obama beating Mitt by 6 million votes would have lost the EC by a narrow margin

(11-16-2016 12:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-16-2016 11:29 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  Here's an idea. Let each Congressional District in the country decide if they want to allocate their own Electoral Vote by district election or have it allocated for them by Statewide election.

That way every district gets to decide for themselves...even in California and Illinois! Democracy!

I didn't think so.

because under that scenario Obama beating Mitt by 6 million votes would have lost the EC by a narrow margin

............and, the country would have been much, much better off!!

(11-15-2016 06:49 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  



Do Barbara Boxer, Congresswoman for umpteen million years, and the other Democrats still not understand our form of government?

Quote:Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) will introduce legislation on Tuesday to get rid of the Electoral College, after Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election despite leading in the popular vote.

“In my lifetime, I have seen two elections where the winner of the general election did not win the popular vote,” Boxer said in a statement. “In 2012, Donald Trump tweeted, ‘The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.’ I couldn’t agree more. One person, one vote!”

She added that Clinton, whom she supported, is "on track to have received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama."
"The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately," she said.

Clinton is currently leading Trump by nearly a million votes, according to a Cook Political Report tracker of the national popular vote, but Trump won the Electoral College, leading the former secretary of State 290-232.

According to Pew, Clinton would be the fifth person to win the popular vote but lose the election, with the most recent being Al Gore in 2000.

Boxer's legislation would amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College. Even if it is approved by Congress it would need to be approved by three-fourths of the states within seven years before it would take effect.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/se...al-college

if you like what they did to our healthcare, you'll love what they want to do with our elections.