Hillary Clinton: It's Time To Abolish The Electoral College

[Ken Burch]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/13/politics/hillary-clinton-anderson-cooper-electoral-college-cnntv/index.html

New York (CNN)Hillary Clinton told CNN on Wednesday that it is time to abolish the Electoral College, part of a sweeping interview where the former Democratic nominee sought to explain why she lost the 2016 election.
Clinton, in the interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, displayed her animus for fired FBI Director James Comey, reflected on her love for the people -- namely former President Bill Clinton -- who helped her get through the crushing loss and blasted the arcane election body that she believes helped Donald Trump win the presidency.
"I think it needs to be eliminated," Clinton said of the Electoral College. "I'd like to see us move beyond it, yes".
Clinton won the 2016 popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, a fact she routinely brings up in her new memoir. But Trump won the Electoral College, a body of 538 members who select the president based on the popular vote in each state, meaning the person who gets the most votes nationally doesn't necessarily win the election.

Excellent suggestion, Madam Secretary.

A plank in support of EC abolition and direct presidential elections should be in EVERY Democratic platform until it happens.

[Takket]

1. it is time to go

it is only ceremonial and it serves no practical purpose. plus it is just a waste of money, right fiscal conservative? how much money is the government spending to fly these people to DC to vote?

45 lost the election, but he won the process....... that is the only reason he is president

[PoliticAverse]

6. They don't actually vote in DC, they meet and vote in their respective states....

http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-3-the-president/3-usc-sect-7.html

The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct.

[Funtatlaguy]

2. The only way it ever happens is if

A Dem wins the elec college but loses the pop vote.
Otherwise, Repubs will never agree .

[Ken Burch]

5. Interesting that you should mention THAT scenario.

In the last days of the 2000 campaign, it was seen as a real possibility that Gore might carry the EC but lose the popular vote.

From what I read at the time(wasn't online in those days)Karl Rove had plans to organize mass right-wing protests to try and force the EC to elect Dubya had the results played out that way.

[Alice11111]

47. I was half hoping that would happen, so the Repubs would

lead the charge to get rid of the EC. However, I knew they would characterized the election as rigged if Hillary won.

[Bettie]

55. If it had gone

EC to Clinton Pop to Trump, we'd still be mired in lawsuits...or the SC would have given it to Trump.

EC needs to go.

[Alice11111]

57. 100pc!

[PoliticAverse]

3. "I said that in 2000". n/t

[Warpy]

4. It was set up to prevent an ignorant blowhard like Dump from

being elected by the rabble. The founders well knew that populist dictators could get in, usually when most people weren't doing well and he promised them that he, and only he, had all the answers to fix all the problems. They were never meant to be rubber stamp partisan hacks, which is what they became in 2016.

So yeah, if they can't be counted upon to do their jobs, get rid of them completely, forever. All the presidents who got in against the will of the majority have been mistakes. This one is by far the worst. No more.

[pnwmom]

7. It was set up to give the rural slave-holding states more power than they otherwise would have

and because travel and communications were much harder back then.

But I'm sure they never imagined someone losing the electoral college with a 3 million vote margin -- or 10 million or more (which is mathematically possible).

[Ken Burch]

12. All true. In presidential elections, it creates a weighted vote.

The votes from people who simply happen to live in small states, most in the South or Mountain West, are given greater value than voters who live in large states and/or in cities.

It's finally time that, in presidential elections, the votes of all voters count equally.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

8. It's long since time.

The Electoral College means that for most of us, our vote doesn't count. If you're a Dem in a Republican majority state, your vote doesn't count. If you're a Republican in a Democratic majority state, your vote doesn't count.

The winner should be the person who gets the most votes.

The Electoral College really enshrines small population states over larger population states. Which, in a way, is what the Senate does.

[Freddie]

13. Gerrymandering on a national scale

The small states already have outsized power thanks to the Senate. Thanks to gerrymandering, the EC and the Senate, the MAJORITY do not want the government we have and are powerless to fix it. Something is very wrong with this picture.

[treestar]

62. Yes! The Senate does that already!

In modern times there is no reason to favor smaller population states.

[white_wolf]

9. I agree completely.

The first election I was old enough to really take note of was Bush v Gore and even at 10, I knew the EC was bullshit.

[haveahart]

10. She's right again.

[world wide wally]

11. Even if it is not abolished, it should be reevaluated to reflect the will of the voters.

1 EC vote for every X number of people nationwide. No more catering to "slave states"

[Major Nikon]

14. It was time to eliminate it over 100 years ago

Over half the states have less than 5 million people in them. So how do you convince those states their votes will even be less relevant than they already are? The answer is you don't which makes the whole idea, while perhaps a worthy one, an unworkable pipe dream.

[BigmanPigman]

15. Al Gore said that only one Repub president since 1988 was elected

with the popular vote ( Bush 2004). He, Robert Reich and many more agree that it not only should be changed but also CAN be changed. Now we have to elect people who will finally do it.

[Podkayne K]

16. Dear Mrs. Clinton:

The time to get rid of the electoral college was 1824. But better almost 200 years late than never!

[mcar]

19. Um, I don't think she was around then

[Podkayne K]

44. You know that...

and I know that. But dollars to donuts, someone on the right will find a way to blame her for that debacle anyway.

[broadcaster90210]

17. Gee. Ya think?

nt

[mcar]

18. I love her for speaking out

And speaking truth. She really has no more fcks to give.

[TomSlick]

20. The problem is that abolition of the EC would require a constitutional amendment.

A constitutional amendment would require a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress - including the gerrymandered House and a Senate in which small population states have outsized power. If it did - somehow - get out of the Congress, ratification by 3/4 of the State legislatures or ratifying conventions is then required and the smaller states are unlikely to vote to eliminate their outsized voting power under the EC.

I'm not saying it's impossible but that ain't how the smart money is betting.

[yallerdawg]

23. I'd like to have that argument on record.

When the Republicans conflate winning the Electoral map with the "will" of the people - both Bush and Trump now - I want to hear exactly why the "popular vote" shouldn't pick the president.

Unlike every other election we have at any other level!

[DoctorPepper]

29. Not quite true...

There's an end run working its way through state legislatures, has been for years.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com

[Qutzupalotl]

36. ...starting with the blue states, I notice.

A risky move unless we get a lot of red states on board. But yes, an end run.

[Podkayne K]

45. Maybe there's another approach?

Most of the smaller states do have a lot of power. However, their businesses and media outlets lose a huge amount of $$$$$$$ by not having the candidates either visit their state or run ads in their state. If these businesses could be persuaded that their bottom line would improve significantly for the two years--and maybe longer--the race for President occurrs, they could have a significant influence on eliminating the EC and actually allowing the voters decide whom they want for Pres.

I realize it's a long shot and a super long process, but if the stars were aligned correctly, and this planet was proved to be not flat and didn't have the sun circling it and wasn't really the center of the universe, maybe, just maybe...

[treestar]

60. I am from a small state and am for it

There's no reason our votes should count more than votes in big states. And we have disproportionate power in the Senate already. A lot of people would see the justice of it.

[Hekate]

21. Absolutely, yes

[gordianot]

22. When the shoe goes on the other foot maybe.

It will take shock therapy but this needs to be a continual conversation.

[Gore1FL]

24. That's long been true

The problem is:

* The GOP will say mean things.
* There isn't solid support to change things.
* No plan to do so has been presented
* Bernie Sanders probably thinks this is a good idea (and he's not a Democrat!)

Not that I agree that any of these are actual hindrances to be worried about. Unfortunately, that's the lines of arguments I've heard concerning on Single Payer healthcare, so I assume much of DU will hate this out of consistency.

[bettyellen]

51. Gotta love how you agree with HRC but try your hardest to be divisive....

Of course I'm being sarcastic, it's actually pretty obnoxious.

[Gore1FL]

56. I'm not being divisive. I am observing DU already being divisive.

Of course I agree with HRC. I do on a lot of issues. That's why I voted for her.

I am glad you find the current state of DU divisions as obnoxious as I do.

[bettyellen]

58. It's never enough to just say- "she is right" there's always some bizarre blowback-

I'm sorry if I misread you, but it's constant. No one can just say, I agree- well said/ well done.

[Gore1FL]

64. She is right. I agree. Well Done, HRC. nt

[bettyellen]

65. Thank you! That's all that needs to be said right now.

[chillfactor]

26. I agree...

president should be elected by popular vote..if so we would have had a GREAT president in the White House instead of the crazed maniac we have now.

[phleshdef]

27. It served a practical purpose in the beginning. It serves no practical purpose now.

[davsand]

28. Takes a Constitutional amendment. Better start organizing.

Not saying it's a bad idea. I am saying it is not a quick process and it will take work.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

[left-of-center2012]

30. I agree !

It was the Electoral College’s fault Hillary lost the election!
The people voted for H.C.

[still_one]

31. and while it may be true, it isn't going to happen. Too many smaller states would never go for it

[Orrex]

37. And large states with tiny populations. I'm looking at you, Wyoming

What could possibly inspire such states to give up their grossly disproportionate over-representation in the electoral college?

[still_one]

38. That is what I actually meant. Thanks for clarifying it

[Orrex]

40. No problem--your post was fine on its own...

but you touched on one of my favorite axes to grind.

[ProfessorGAC]

41. Mine Too

I hate it when they show an electoral map and there's all that red on it, and then it turns out that 75% of the red is in the lowest population density areas of the country.

Acres don't vote. If we look at such a map, it looks like 2/3rds of the country favored "it" for president, when in fact 10 million more PEOPLE wanted someone other than "it".

[Orrex]

43. That kills me on every election night

The Democrat invariably* scores in the densely populated coasts, but the Republican paints a wide swath of red across the country, making it look (and feel) that I'm hopelessly surrounded by Confederate flag waving assholes on all sides.

*invariably, that is, until Trump floundered into office under grossly dubious circumstances.

[ProgressiveValue]

39. The right wing talking point is,

the left is jam packing California full of Mexicans, as well as liberals moving there, so California, in the absence of the EC, would pick the President every single time as well as force their state bills onto other states. They don't want California forcing its gun control on the rest of the country; as well as their other progressive values. The EC prevents that no matter how many people move there.

[Orrex]

42. Republicans will take every legal and illegal step to maintain their lock on power

They've enjoyed glowing success by appealing to racism, sexism and xenophobia, and by redirecting voters' class-resentment.

If they manage to disenfranchise a few dozen million Californians along the way, so much the better!

[TheFrenchRazor]

49. so the votes of non-californians should count more than those of californians? really? nt

[treestar]

61. There are not enough voters in California

for that state to "decide" under a popular vote system.

It's the EC that lets states "decide." The swing states get to decide. The states with more acres get more weight in the decision.

[lunamagica]

32. She's absolutely right. The EC is archaic. It overrides the will of the prople. It is absurd beyond

belief that the candidate who gets more votes (by millions!) loses the election.

[Mike Niendorff]

33. Agreed 100%.

The "electoral college" is nothing more than a cheap vote-weighting system -- designed to ensure that "some votes are more equal than others".

Abolish it. Now.


MDN

[Kentonio]

34. It should, but there's nearly zero chance of it happening any time soon.

The only scenario that seems even vaguely likely is if Mueller uncovers clear evidence that Trump was colluding with the Russians, and a constitutional amendment to reform the voting system is seen by Republicans as their best route to seperate themselves from his administration. Obviously they could also shift if they lose an election that way, but it seems unlikely we'd lose the popular vote any time soon.

[disillusioned73]

35. I can get behind that..

[JoeStuckInOH]

46. The EC is fine. The problem is most states use the Winner-Take-All method.

In the elections where a popular vote did not match the Electoral College selection, it was cases of a small margin of victory in several states that awarded the entirety of EC votes to the winner, when in actually they voters in those regions were split nearly 50/50 in real life. In fact, with the current winner-take-all style we have a system that has allowed losers of the popular vote to win the election... and theoretically the electoral college could award 100% of the 538 electoral votes to someone with only 51% of the vote. Neither of those is very fair or representative of the true election results.

The better method of awarding EC votes is the "Congressional District Method" where a state splits its electoral votes between multiple candidates. This is what is used in Maine and Nebraska currently (and several states in the past). Basically, an Elector is assigned to each congressional district and the results of each district determine the individual EC vote. This alleviates the intense focus on large swing states and allows a more finite resolution to the representation of the popular vote via the electoral college. By the numbers, Hillary and Gore both win under a system where most or all states allow for split EC voting under the Congressional District Method.

Is the Congressional District Method better than abolishing the Electoral College all together? Perhaps not. But changing or abolishing the EC requires a CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT to change. You'll never get enough small population states to vote to ratify an amendment that neuters their own voting power. And I don't really blame them either - that would be dumb on their part. It's a raw deal where only 1/2 the states really matter in an election. There would be massive voter disenfranchisement in the small states as well as many medium sized states. This is the same reason I'm not a big fan of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

The cool thing about the Congressional District Method? It does NOT require a constitutional amendment. States ALSO get to keep all of their national voting power. It only requires individual states to individually change their laws to be able to split their EC votes for a more fair representation of their constituent makeup.

[TheFrenchRazor]

48. FINALLY, a major dem politician has the backbone to say it. that's a start. nt

[Fluke a Snooker]

50. Unfortunately, we are living under a codified White Male Supremacist Manifesto

...aka the United States Constitution, creating the oppressive system that we've suffered under for over 200 years, and only being able to finally start wresting control away.

[Ken Burch]

54. That is true. Still, what is there to do but to try and change that?

And are we any better off NOT trying?

[Fluke a Snooker]

66. To do that, we need to eliminate the GOP from control

The best way to do that is to accelerate voting to immigrants, including immediate citizenship.

[Ken Burch]

67. With you on ALL of that.

n/t.

[pressbox69]

52. Right.

Bush, 45, how many more losers need to be sworn in?

[Willie Pep]

53. I agree but I don't see it happening.

The rural states would never let it happen and they have a disproportionately large influence on our politics. People will never go for it if they believe that they will be ruled by the big cities and right now there is a lot of resentment toward the big cities.

[treestar]

59. It really is a very strange institution

Creates the only election in the history of the world where you can get the most votes and lose.

[colsohlibgal]

63. Amen

Divide State population by Electoral Votes and you see how out of whack and fair it is.

Gore won the popular vote without doubt, as did Hillary. Because of our stupid legacy system the will of the majority got subverted and we got Dubya and Drump. The damage they have caused need not have happened.

[Blue_Tires]

68. I wouldn't abolish it

but the math has to be changed... Right now the red states in the midwest have far too much weight for their population...