An avenue by which to at least consider abolishing the electoral college?

[Garrett78]

I would argue that Russia's goal of influencing the outcome of our election was made easier by the electoral college, for the simple fact that targeting a few specific states can make all the difference.

And Trump's supporters believe (because Trump said so) that the electoral college benefits those evil Democrats.

So, perhaps this opens the door to abolishing the electoral college. Or, more likely, this is just wishful thinking on my part given what it would take to do away with that vestige of slavery that I abhor.

[fierywoman]

1. And while we're at it, let's abolish Citizens United.

[still_one]

2. While that can be argued, it isn't going to happen. It would require an amendment to the

Constitution, and the small states are not going to go for that, and if they try to do it through Congress, they don't have the 2/3

[Garrett78]

7. I'm aware. I know it's wishful thinking but it's worth planting seeds in the public consciousness.

[CTyankee]

9. I agree with you on that. Things have gone so urgently bad with this past election we have to

reconsider the electoral college and just plain getting rid of it.

[modrepub]

3. Kind of Obvious

Repubs would rather work with Russia/China/North Korea than allow any Democrat to hold power at the national level. No way in hell the Red States give up on the EC (for aforementioned reason).

If we ever hold congress and the presidency, I'd be happy with keeping federal taxes in the areas where they are being collected and having congressional committees headed by representatives from areas generating the most federal tax revenue. Sorry, reps from population and money loosing states should not be involved making decisions where tax money goes

[Lee-Lee]

4. It's not going to happen. Look at if realistically

It would require 2/3 of states to approve it.

Small states get political influence and attention during campaigns because the EC exists and makes them more influential than they would be if we used a popular vote system.

They are not going to give that up. Not the state legislatures and not the members of Congress from that state.

That’s just reality.

[PBC_Democrat]

5. There is only one way ...

It will take a Constitutional amendment.
That would require a 2/3's vote in BOTH houses of Congress (never going to happen)
then it's off to the states where 38 states would have to ratify it (never going to happen)

The other option is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

It would probable be struck down by the Supreme Court and I can even imagine the outrage when an R wins the national popular vote and CA or MA has to give all of its electoral votes to the R, or when a D wins and TX has to give its votes to the D.

In my mind, we need to have people talking about how unfair the EC is, it'll take 10 or 15 years but I think we can create grassroots support to either modify or eliminate the EC.

[Garrett78]

8. Agreed. We need to keep talking about the unfairness and plant seeds in the public consciousness.

Talk about how a person in Wyoming has a much greater say than someone in Texas or California when it comes to who becomes president.

[ck4829]

6. The Electoral Clown College is a joke, plain and simple

The electors who put in Trump must feel like Charles Manson with the blood on their hands when they helped enable the alt-right, I bet it makes them feel all tingly inside.

They are murderers.

[Wounded Bear]

10. The real way to do it lies here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929

The Reapportionment Act of 1929 (ch. 28, 46 Stat. 21, 2 U.S.C. § 2a) was a combined census and apportionment bill passed by the United States Congress on June 18, 1929, that established a permanent method for apportioning a constant 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives according to each census. The bill neither repealed nor restated the requirements of the previous apportionment acts that districts be contiguous, compact, and equally populated.

It was not clear whether these requirements were still in effect until in 1932 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Wood v. Broom[1] that the provisions of each apportionment act affected only the apportionment for which they were written. Thus the size and population requirements, last stated in the Apportionment Act of 1911, expired immediately with the enactment of the subsequent Apportionment Act.

The Act of 1929 gave little direction concerning congressional redistricting. It merely established a system in which House seats would be reallocated to states which have shifts in population. The lack of recommendations concerning districts had several significant effects.

The Reapportionment Act of 1929 allowed states to draw districts of varying size and shape. It also allowed states to abandon districts altogether and elect at least some representatives at large, which several states chose to do, including New York, Illinois, Washington, Hawaii, and New Mexico. For example, in the 88th Congress (in the early 1960s) 22 of the 435 representatives were elected at-large.

That's what we need to fix. Through this, red states have been getting stronger and blue states weaker for a century. We need to add about 50 seats, and thus about 50 EC votes, which would make it harder to game the system.

And, it doesn't require a Constitutional Amendment.