BOXER INTRODUCES BILL TO ELIMINATE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version Share this

 

East County News Service

November 16, 2016 (Washington D.C.) — For the fifth time in U.S. history, the president who won the popular vote has lost the presidency.  Hillary Clinton received nearly a million more actual votes than Donald Trump, yet Trump is poised to be named president by the Electoral College after receiving more electoral college delegates.

The same thing happened back in 1876 when the Electoral College chose Rutherford B. Hayes by a one-vote margin and in 1888 when Benjamin Harrison was chosen despite losing the popular vote.  In 2000, Al Gore received the most popular votes nationwide but George W. Bush won the most votes in the electoral college—and the presidency.

Now, California Senator Barbara Boxer wants to change that.  So she’s introduced a bill that would eliminate the Electoral College and determine the winner of presidential elections by the popular vote. But the process isn’t easy.  It would require passage by Congress and ratification of three-fourths of all states within seven years after Congressional approval.

But it could have a powerful ally.  Donald Trump has in the past called the Electoral College a “disaster”, voicing support for “one person, one vote. In an interview after his election, he repeated his support for getting rid of the Electoral College, despite benefitting from the system this election.

Boxer, who is retiring, states, "In my lifetime, I have seen two elections where the winner of the general election did not win the popular vote. The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately.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."

The Electoral College was established by our nation’s Founding Fathers as a way of assuring checks and balances should the people elect someone unfit to be President, though that has never happened before.

In theory, there is a possibility that when the Electoral College meets, its electors could choose not to elect Trump.  The rules governing those votes vary from state to state, with some allowing electors to vote their conscience, while others have enacted faithless elector statutes that impose penalties on electors who fail to vote for the candidate who received the most electorates.

Since our nation’s founding, there have been fewer than 200 faithless electors—and most of those changed their votes after the candidate they pledged to vote for died after the election.

But even if the Electoral College were to choose Clinton over Trump, the Constitution would require that the election outcome then be determined by the House of Representatives in Congress, which is currently controlled by Republicans.

The House did decide one disputed election way back in 1824, handing the election to John Quincy Adams, even though Andrew Jackson had won both the popular vote and the Electoral College vote – but due to votes cast for other candidates, failed to win the minimum number of Electoral Colleges votes required to secure a victory.

Comments

Babs, please,, just leave quietly

If there's any merit at all, to Boxer's proposed legislation, it should have been presented well before now and there were many opportunities to do so beyond the eve of the Senator's departure. Where were you when the IdiotBush (yes, it's one word now) was installed in the front office? What's with the grandstanding now that you've decided to quit feeding at the public trough? Are we suppose to be impressed by this sudden surge of 'clear thinking' and patriotism? For just one, I'm not impressed. You've been there for far too long Babs, and as a result, are part of the problem. Like the label or not, you're a "Career Politician", a breed which develops the view that their careers are much more important than the needs of their constituents. Adios, Babs.

Electoral complications

Any system with so many contradictory elements as the system Americans employ in self-governance, has no right to call itself "a government of the people". There's something bordering on the ridiculous when 'majority vote' gives way to some concept known as the Electoral College, or the equally ridiculous concept of Super Delegates,, just the "Super" label alone, should make any American born into the belief that 'we're all equal', gag or even puke. Let's face it people,,we lost control of our electoral process around the same time we lost control of our government itself. Money runs everything! Everything! And voting, in a thoroughly corrupted two-party system will only produce more of the same, as our very brief history generously indicates. Jefferson understood this very well when he cautioned that a revolution would be necessary every so often to maintain the people's control of their government. It may well be, that with his Orangishness ensconsed in the Front Office, we'll have the final impetus for the final solution. If we can lose 58,000 troops in Nam for ABSOLUTELY nothing, seems to me that we could let a few heads roll over a 'decent commitment' for a change, like restoring the sovereignty of the people...but then I'm old and crotchety and just so very very tired of these recurring dramatic farces, that seem to sink to ever lower depths, with presidential aspirants who speak only for the moneyed interests, if they can even manage a coherent sentence (as in Bush-Trump) and who have developed into 'political dynasties'(Bush-Clinton) in a nation thought to be free of such 'entitled' concepts, that I'd gladly lead the revolution. Where's Smedley Butler when we need him??

That whole popular vote thing

Not so quick. With the projection of the absentee votes Trump will also win the popular vote. If it were not for illegal votes in California he would have won even without the absentee's.

Every major news site, even the major business sites

such as Wall Street Journal and International BusinessTimes say Clinton is up around 1.3 to 1.4 million votes in the popular vote. Of course it's not over until all votes are counted but it's definitely inaccurate to say Trump won the popular vote at this point.

It's probably a myth about large numbers of illegals voting in CA.  Unlike what some fake news sources  published,  givnig them  driver's licenses  did NOT let them vote. Their driver's licenses are specially marked and undocumented immigrants are NOT allowed to registered at the DMV. Only citizens are automatically registered to vote at the DMV.

Voter registration forms also require you to certify under penalty of perjury that you are a U.S. citizen,  and I've not heard of a single case in CA of undocumetned  immigrants voting,only a lot of hysteria.  If it were a real problem it would have made headlines in major news sites like  CNN,  CBS,  the  LA Times, AP, etc.

 

 

you lost girl, so now change

you lost girl, so now change the Constitution? sore loser. you are a corrupt pile of garbage babs. go back to your burrow