Well, that's it for the electoral college

[Hawkmoon]

Hillary says it should be abolished.

https://news.grabien.com/story-england-hillary-trashes-americas-electoral-college

My memory must be failing. I don't recall her calling for abolishing the electoral college during her campaign, when EVERYONE was predicting that she would win in a landslide over you-know-who.

[TommyGunn]

She's done it before,  but I can't recall if it was during the 2016 campaign or not.

[just Warren]

All that would mean is that candidates would campaign differently. Turnouts might also change because if you're in a red county *cough* trapped in a blue state your vote would actually matter. And thus many more people would have reason to go vote.

She might think it would be a huge advantage for her team but there's no way to know until a couple of cycles of doing it that way and it may be the worst thing her team ever did.

[Kingcreek]

I thought it started when Bush's electoral count beat Gore's popular vote.

[TommyGunn]

All that would mean is that candidates would campaign differently. Turnouts might also change because if you're in a red county *cough* trapped in a blue state your vote would actually matter. And thus many more people would have reason to go vote.

She might think it would be a huge advantage for her team but there's no way to know until a couple of cycles of doing it that way and it may be the worst thing her team ever did.

  It seems to me a lot of statisticians have determined that if we used the popular vote Hillary would have won.
Sure, possibly politicians might campaign differently,  but whether that would effect cultural voting patterns is all hypothetical.

And if you were in a blue state like some of our truly liberal states, I doubt your red vote would count much differently than under our current system.

[just Warren]

Now the meaning or power of my vote, all of our votes, stop at the border of our respective states.

With no EC they would be combined. If that's enough to turn back a blue candidate I don't know.

[TommyGunn]

Now the meaning or power of my vote, all of our votes, stop at the border of our respective states.

With no EC they would be combined. If that's enough to turn back a blue candidate I don't know.

 

Sorta think the geeky statisticians that figure these things know that and take it into account.....

Maybe I'm being too optimistic?

But otoh I really don't want to tinker with our current system until we get this country's collective IQ  high enough we don't need parkas.  Maybe not even then.

[K Frame]

How the electoral college functioned in 2016 is EXACTLY what the Founders and Framers envisioned when they put it into place.

If she knew anything about the history of our Republic she'd know that.

Yet, she's somehow the "most qualified" person ever to run for the presidency.

What amuses me is that a LOT of people who are calling for this on the bottom level simply can't comprehend that to abolish it would require changing the Constitution, and they have no clue how that process works.

And they have no clue that there's not a single chance in hell of it ever being ratified by 38 states...

Someone at my office was bitching about it right after the election. I filled her in on the process. She had NO clue. She thought Congress could do it with a simple vote. She's in her 30s, and it's painfully evident that she didn't pay attention in civics class. If she even had a civics class.

[zxcvbob]

There has been talk about states colluding to send bad faith electors to circumvent the EC.  They sounded serious about it, but I haven't heard anything in a while.

[K Frame]

That was a big talk plan after 2000.

And again after 2016.

A plan like that MIGHT work if it were a very close election, but for all the screeching from the left in 2016 it wouldn't have made any difference because of the wide spread of the EC and various state laws that work to keep the electors in line with the popular vote in the state.

Had electors jumped ship in one of the traditional Democratic strongholds (Wisconsin or Michigan, for example, won by Trump in 2016) they would have been in the very uncomfortable spot of crowing about the "voice of the people being ignored nationally" but actively ignoring the voice of the people at the state level.

Had it resulted in a flip flop (Clinton winning instead of Trump) it would likely have gone right to the Supreme Court and it would have gotten really ugly really fast.

[Perd Hapley]

There has been talk about states colluding to send bad faith electors to circumvent the EC.  They sounded serious about it, but I haven't heard anything in a while.

I recall a bunch of rich and famous Clinton supporters trying to push that about 18 months ago. And it backfired in a most satisfying manner.