Barbara Boxer rips Electoral College to shreds: We have a system where the winner can lose

[NCTraveler]

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) this week said that she intended to abolish the Electoral College because it was a “system where the winner can lose.”

“The presidency is the only office in America where the candidate who wins the most votes can still lose the election,” Boxer explained during a speech on Wednesday from the Senate floor. “Right now, Hillary Clinton’s lead in the popular vote is 2.3 million votes. It is expected that she’ll win by more than 2.7 million votes.

Boxer reminded her Republican colleagues that Donald Trump a “disaster for a democracy” in 2012. Under the system, candidates must win enough states to obtain 270 electoral votes, which gives more power to voters in swing states.

“Political science experts agree that too many Americans feel their vote doesn’t count,” she said.

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/barbara-boxer-rips-electoral-college-to-shreds-we-have-a-system-where-the-winner-can-lose/

[Begabig]

1. Well obviously the representative from California...

... would like their state to be one of the few that gets attention during a national election.

[NCTraveler]

2. The representative from California would like the peoples choice to actuall win.

The peoples voice has been ignored.

Some of us are tired of white land owners having more power at the ballot box.

[yeoman6987]

6. Well she's been a senator for 25 years at least and is leaving

But never brought up a bill at anytime. To little to late. I wish some would do what they complain about. Might not go anywhere but at least it's better then a speech. And the more bills that are started maybe exposure would wake up the voters.

[NCTraveler]

7. Too little too late.

Sorry to be brash, but bullshit. It's never too late. Too little too late could be used initially to dismiss any political fight in American history. That is until said fight becomes successful.

I would hate to see you talk about Sanders run. If you call Boxers move here too little too late...... wow. Lets stay consistent.

[hamsterjill]

12. Thank you.

I'd like the people's choice to actually win, too.

Now twice in my lifetime, my vote has meant absolutely nothing. Tell me why I should be okay with that!

[white_wolf]

5. That's where most of the people live.

I'm sorry, but I'm sick of small rural states holding the country back.

[Retrograde]

9. Yeah, just because Clinton got 4M more votes

than Trump in California we kinda like to think we should get some attention. That, and having over 12% of the nation's population, and paying more to the federal government than we get back.

[JustinL]

15. the current system is the one where only a few "swing states" get attention n/t

[SoCalMusicLover]

3. Killing Time Before She Departs

This is honestly why our political system is such a joke. Barbara gets up and tries to convince the repubs that the electoral college should be abolished. In other words, completely wasting her time.

Last time I checked, the repubs controlled both houses of Congress, and will continue to do so in January. While it's valiant to stand up and attempt to accomplish that which is impossible, it is also quite pointless.

The repubs won another election where they lost the popular vote. Why in the world would they EVER want to pass something which would hinder that in the future? Would the Democrats do that if the situation were reversed? Doubtful.

[NCTraveler]

4. Things like this don't happen overnight.

They happen because of the courage of people like Boxer. People willing to stand up and fight. It's not as much about Republicans as you state. That is the bogus aspect here.

The trend of progressive punching continues.

[Fla Dem]

14. So she should just shut up and sit down?

Last edited Thu Dec 1, 2016, 07:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Are all Democrats in congress just supposed to sit on their hands for the next 2-4 years because the Rethugs are in the majority? How else are we supposed to get our voices heard. That's what we elect our Representatives and Senators to do. Speak out for us, even when it's tilting at windmills. If they don't, who will?

Protests and marches are fine, but I want Democratic elected officials speaking out for what is right, whether it's an impossible mission or not. I'm sure many thought speaking out against discrimination, Jim Crow laws and Gay Rights was a waste of time as well.

[closeupready]

10. Well, she WOULD. Is this supposed to be significant, all things considered?

She's in this for HERSELF, all of this. I can't be bothered to care about anything she says.

[radius777]

11. EC in current form sucks; all voters aren't equal.

The founders implemented the EC to protect a weaker minority from the majority, as they were afraid of powerful states (at the time) like VA and MA having too much influence. And also to get smaller states to join the Union.

The problem with this is that our world has changed, and many of the most powerless live in and around metro areas, i.e PoC, women, immigrants, poor, gays, etc - i.e. the types of voters who overwhelmingly vote Dem.

Actual human votes should matter more than land, and rural white states have far more power than they should have, and are what is holding us back from advancing.

The EC is just part of this problem. Congress and especially the senate is also designed in a way to overrepresent white, underpopulated and rural values. Why should large diverse (and wealth producing) states like CA and NY have only two votes in the senate - the same as small red rural states?

To me, the entire system is 'taxation without representation', where blue votes simply don't matter like red votes, who are holding back the country bigly.

Our gov't needs serious reform across the board.

Boxer is rightly angry now, becuase this isn't the narrow win Gore had, but Hillary winning by millions of votes, yet losing in the EC. The same issue would've came up in 2004 if Kerry won OH (and won the presidency) while losing the popular vote by millions. There's something not right with such a system, where millions of peoples votes simply don't matter. That's not a democracy, representative or otherwise.

[JCanete]

13. true or not, post election timing for this will be used as sore-loserdome. Granted, saying it before

the election would have been a suggestion that we thought our candidate was going to lose the electoral college. Saying it post victory, like after Obama's win in 2012 might have been a good time to make a point about things like this. Right now it won't have the desired rhetorical impact.