Sanders: U.S. should "rethink" Electoral College

[mystery-ak]

Sanders: U.S. should "rethink" Electoral College
By Jessie Hellmann - 11/14/16 09:06 AM EST

Bernie Sanders thinks the U.S. needs to have a "serious" discussion about the future of the Electoral College.

The 2016 Democratic presidential candidate acknowledged in an interview with USA Today that Donald Trump did not win the popular vote but still won the presidency.

"We may want to take a look at the whole Electoral College, which is seating a man for president who didn’t get the most votes. This is something we need a serious discussion on," Sanders said.

"This campaign revolved around 15 states of the country, right? Battleground states. My state of Vermont is a strong Democratic state; no one paid attention. Wyoming is a Republican state; nobody paid attention to Wyoming. Is that a good way?"

Asked if it would be good to change the Electoral College, Sanders said: "I think you ought to think about this... I think we want to rethink that."

While Trump won the electoral vote, 290-228, to become the next president, he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by more than 600,000 votes.

That fact has led millions of people to sign a petition encouraging electors to pick her over Trump when they formally vote Dec. 19.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/305830-sanders-us-should-rethink-electoral-college

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Terrible idea.  The EC acts as a firewall to confine the effects of leftist ballot-stuffing to the state in which it occurs.  Swing states, which usually have power split within the state, give each party some ability to keep a watchful eye on the electoral shenanigans of the other.  But in deep bleu states, where the left controls all arms of state government and that cities, the potential for large scale ballot-stuffing that tips an entire election is obvious.

[Cripplecreek]

One more thing Trump and Sanders agree on.

[LMAO]

If you were to ask people like this if they know why the Framers put the EC for electing presidents in place,they don't have a clue.

If you were to ask them  if they know the process of changing it, I have found they don't have a clue.

 This is just more whining and butt hurt because things didn't go their way.   Which is part of the reason why the framers put the EC in place

[thackney]

No.



I'm not interested in having only the major US cities picking our president.

[240B]

No.



I'm not interested in having only the major US cities picking our president.

Without the EC, New York and California would decide every election. Everybody else may as well just stay home.

[LMAO]

Without the EC, New York and California would decide every election. Everybody else may as well just stay home.

The EC isn't going anywhere despite the whining.

I'm sure three quarters of the states would love to give up their voice in the presidential elections

[Cripplecreek]

If you were to ask people like this if they know why the Framers put the EC for electing presidents in place,they don't have a clue.

If you were to ask them  if they know the process of changing it, I have found they don't have a clue.

 This is just more whining and butt hurt because things didn't go their way.   Which is part of the reason why the framers put the EC in place

In a sense, prior to the 17th amendment, each state had a form of electoral college for picking senators. The people voted for their state representatives and state senators who in turn voted for two senators to send to Washington. After the passage of the 17th amendment senators are picked by popular vote and tend to be picked by urban areas. If not for the 17th amendment we would likely have more than 80 GOP senators in Washington.

The GOP has super-majorities in 26 or 27 states now with the democrats having super-majorities in 11 or 12 and the remaining states mixed.

The popular vote creates a very different world.

[Night Hides Not]

Given the choice of following the Founding Fathers, vs. the likes of Bernie Sanders, I'll cast my vote for the Founding Fathers every time.

[240B]

The popular vote creates a very different world.

We were discussing that very subject a couple of days ago in terms of Hillary. Moore and Reid love to say, "Hillary won the popular vote!" Well no. Because it was not a popular vote election.


What I mean is different elections cause different behavior in the voting population. In the electoral system, people will say, "Well, my State is always blue/red for the last 50 years, so why should I vote?"


Conversely, if you knew that every single vote counts regardless of what State you are in, as in a popular vote election, then you would have incentive to vote no matter what.


So, saying you won the 'popular vote' in an electoral contest is a canard. It is not relevant. It is like comparing apples to oranges, because there is no way to know what the result may have been if the contest had been a real popular vote election.


Saying that Hillary won the popular vote is a bait and switch. It wasn't that kind of election.

[Doug Loss]

OK, I'm rethinking the Electoral College...yup, it works for me.  But thanks for asking me to reaffirm it's fundamental goodness!

[Hoodat]

The US should rethink the 17th Amendment.

[ScottinVA]

No, Bernie... we shouldn't.  Ever.

The EC precludes a few self-interested, tightly packed population centers from ruling over the rest of the country.  It is a shining testament to the brilliance and vision of the Founders.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I've rethought it many times, and I come to the same conclusion you all do: getting rid of it would lead to domination by population centers.


We have all seen this effect in our states as a matter of fact.

[Hoodat]

I've rethought it many times, and I come to the same conclusion you all do: getting rid of it would lead to domination by population centers.

The 2000 election is what sold me.  The entire country was put on hold while recounts were conducted in three South Florida counties.  Imagine the chaos if that had been repeated in every county in America.  With the election that close in Florida, you can bet that recounts would have been quickly organized in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Seattle, California, etc., and at their conclusion, Gore would have won by 20 million votes.

Election fraud?  You ain't seen nothing yet.  Do away with the electoral college, and you will experience mob rule and corruption like never before.

[Oceander]

If you were to ask people like this if they know why the Framers put the EC for electing presidents in place,they don't have a clue.

If you were to ask them  if they know the process of changing it, I have found they don't have a clue.

 This is just more whining and butt hurt because things didn't go their way.   Which is part of the reason why the framers put the EC in place

Some would say it was to protect the 3/5 compromise on slavery. 

[dfwgator]

Without the EC, New York and California would decide every election. Everybody else may as well just stay home.

How many Republicans stay home in those states because they know voting for a Republican is an exercise in futility?

How many would vote if it came down to the popular vote?

And I believe in general, more Republicans than Democrats don't vote if they know it won't matter, they've got other things to do.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The 2000 election is what sold me.  The entire country was put on hold while recounts were conducted in three South Florida counties.  Imagine the chaos if that had been repeated in every county in America.  With the election that close in Florida, you can bet that recounts would have been quickly organized in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Seattle, California, etc., and at their conclusion, Gore would have won by 20 million votes.

Election fraud?  You ain't seen nothing yet.  Do away with the electoral college, and you will experience mob rule and corruption like never before.

Yep, very good point. If the left lets illegal get the vote, at least it only corrupts a single state.

[Hoodat]

The EC precludes a few self-interested, tightly packed population centers from ruling over the rest of the country.  It is a shining testament to the brilliance and vision of the Founders.

So was Article I, Sec 3:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

[Hoodat]

How many Republicans stay home in those states because they know voting for a Republican is an exercise in futility?

How many would vote if it came down to the popular vote?

And I believe in general, more Republicans than Democrats don't vote if they know it won't matter, they've got other things to do.

That is a valid point worth considering.  Personally, I would rather keep the EC and do away with Amendment XVII.

[Bigun]

So was Article I, Sec 3:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

   and 

[TomSea]

As I've said, the Democrats are using a lot of fraud in getting their votes in my opinion.

If we had only national popular vote, we might have all kinds of votes being manufactured in Democratic strongholds making a mockery of the individual right to vote; which they already do.

[240B]

Rush discussed this yesterday. His take was that Trump would have won either way, in an EC election or a popular vote election.


Trump did not campaign at all in New York or California, because what's the point. However, in a popular election Trump would have been all over both of those States, as well as several other Blue States. The point is that a popular vote election would mean a radically different campaign strategy.


Saying Hillary won the popular vote only means that there are more population dense areas who voted in New York and California than there are in the rest of the country. More than that, Drudge and others are reporting up to 3 million illegal votes were cast. No doubt all, or at least most, of these illegal votes went to Hillary.


Once all the votes are verified and all the discrepancies are resolved, it is likely Trump will wind up with what is being called 'the popular vote' as well.

[Bigun]

Rush discussed this yesterday. His take was that Trump would have won either way, in an EC election or a popular vote election.


Trump did not campaign at all in New York or California, because what's the point. However, in a popular election Trump would have been all over both of those States, as well as several other Blue States. The point is that a popular vote election would mean a radically different campaign strategy.


Saying Hillary won the popular vote only means that there are more population dense areas who voted in New York and California than there are in the rest of the country. More than that, Drudge and others are reporting up to 3 million illegal votes were cast. No doubt all, or at least most, of these illegal votes went to Hillary.


Once all the votes are verified and all the discrepancies are resolved, it is likely Trump will wind up with what is being called 'the popular vote' as well.

A most excellent point and absolutely true!

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Trump did not campaign at all in New York or California

Yes and Hillary didn't campaign that much in red states either. She even pulled out of Ohio at one point (which I thought was BS at the time, I guess not).


Rush doesn't know what he's talking about.