[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 170 (Tuesday, November 29, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6531-S6533]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ELECTORAL COLLEGE

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss legislation I 
introduced to eliminate the Electoral College and ensure that the 
candidate who wins the most votes will be elected President. Clearly, 
this has nothing to do with this past election. There are recounts 
going on, and we will see where that goes, but the bottom line is that 
this looks to the future.
  The Presidency is the only office in America where the candidate who 
wins the most votes can still lose the election. There isn't any 
elected office in the Nation, be it county, city, State, or national 
level, where this is true. The person who gets more votes--one person, 
one vote--wins, but that is not true in the Presidential election.
  I realized how little sense this made many years ago, but when I 
tried to explain it to my grandkids after this election, they said: 
Grandma, who won? Well, I told them, Donald Trump. Well, wait a minute, 
didn't Mrs. Clinton get more votes? Yes.
  What if we did that in sports? I am a major basketball fan. What if 
the team that got the most points didn't win? What if that happened? 
What would people think? Well, why not? Well, because not everybody on 
the team touched the ball, therefore--even though they won by 40 
points--they don't win.
  This doesn't make sense. This is an outdated system that does not 
reflect democracy, and it violates the principle of one person, one 
vote. Every single American, regardless of what State they live in, 
should be guaranteed that their individual vote matters. Throughout our 
great history, we have had--this is the 45th President--five elections 
where the winner of the general election did not win the popular vote, 
but in our lifetime it has happened twice. We have had two in the last 
16 years, and so it really needs to be addressed. This is more than an 
anomaly. It looks like it could happen one way or the other. We don't 
know if a Republican or a Democrat gets seated.
  Right now, Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote is 2.3 million 
votes. It is expected that she will win by probably more than 2.7 
million votes. That would be more than the votes cast in Alaska, 
Delaware, Washington, DC, Hawaii, Vermont, and the Dakotas combined. We 
are not talking about a few votes; we are talking about 2.7 million 
votes--more than the votes cast in Alaska, Delaware, Washington, DC, 
Hawaii, Vermont, and the Dakotas combined. Clinton would have won the 
popular vote by a wider margin than not only Al Gore in 2000, but 
Richard Nixon in 1968 and John Kennedy in 1960.
  In 2012 Donald Trump said, ``The electoral college is a disaster for 
democracy.'' I couldn't agree more. I don't agree with too much of what 
Donald Trump says, but I sure agree with that. He said, ``The electoral 
college is a disaster for democracy.''
  After the election, his views did not change:

       ``You know, I'm not going to change my mind just because I 
     won. But I would rather see it where you went with simple 
     votes.''

  These are all quotes of his.

       ``You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else 
     gets 90 million votes and you win.''

  After he said that, I think his advisers went a little nuts because 
by the next morning, he tweeted that the electoral college system was 
``actually genius.'' Then he also tweeted this, which was very 
interesting: ``If the election were based on the total popular vote, I 
would have campaigned in New York, Florida, and California and won even 
bigger and more easily.''
  OK. Maybe that is true. Maybe that is true. His point is well-taken.
  Presidential candidates should campaign in every single State. 
Actually, if we got rid of the electoral college, candidates would have 
to campaign in every State because the vote of every American would 
matter regardless of where they live. If you get all the popular vote 
in one State, you will add to your popular vote at the end.
  According to nationalpopularvote.com, 94 percent of campaigning by 
the Presidential candidates in 2016 took place in 12 States--12 States. 
That was it. Two-thirds of these general election campaign events took 
place in six States.
  In 2015 Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin said: ``The nation as a whole 
is not going to elect the next president. Twelve states are.'' Just 
think about that. ``The nation as a whole is not going to elect the 
next president.''
  He was right when he said that in 2015. He was right.
  So what message does that send to the people who live in the populous 
States, like my State, where 39 million Americans live? What message 
does that send to the 27 million Americans who live in Texas? What 
message does

[[Page S6532]]

that send to the smaller States, like North Dakota and Rhode Island, 
where the candidates don't even bother to campaign for the votes 
because they are either blue or red? They are not purple, so they don't 
matter. No wonder voter turnout was just 58 percent in this election. 
Too many Americans don't believe their vote matters because they are 
told: Oh, you live in a red State. It is going to Trump. Even if you 
are for Trump, just stay home.
  It is ridiculous. Maybe that person really wanted to vote, but they 
are convinced that if they live in a bright red State like Alabama, 
they don't have to vote because it is going for Trump, and if they are 
for Hillary Clinton and they live in a reliably blue State, they may 
think: Well, you know what, I am not interested. Why should I bother? 
My State is blue. What is the difference?
  So we have a 58-percent voter turnout. It is altogether ridiculous. 
Political science experts agree that too many Americans feel their vote 
doesn't count. It just doesn't count.
  Listen to Doug McAdam, professor of sociology at Stanford University, 
who asked, ``What about all those citizens who live in noncompetitive 
states?''
  He makes my point:

       ``Consider the loyal Republican who lives in California or 
     the stalwart Mississippi Democrat? Every four years, voting 
     for them is an exercise in political powerlessness, at least 
     when it comes to the presidential race.''

  What is the difference? Hillary is going to win by so much. Don't 
worry about it.
  But if we were using the popular vote, believe me, every Republican 
would get out and every Democrat would get out and every Independent 
would get out because their vote would count.
  Every 4 years, a lot of people in different States feel their vote 
doesn't matter. They feel powerless when it comes to the Presidential 
race--the only race in the country where the winner doesn't win, maybe. 
The winner doesn't win. It is crazy. I looked all over to find another 
example where this is true; it is not true.
  William Crotty, professor emeritus of political science at 
Northeastern University, said that the electoral college ``has never 
worked well. The fact is that it is a terrible system that has no place 
in an age where democracy is ascendant. It continues to exist from 
sheer inertia and the protection of entrenched power. It has little to 
do with democracy.''
  Well, everybody knows I didn't run again for the Senate. I have a 
fabulous replacement coming. But I did drop this bill to do away with 
the electoral college because I am still a Senator, I am still here, 
and I will be darned if I am going to let this thing pass.
  Listen to a professor of law at Fordham University, John Feerick:

       ``Not only have reasons for the Electoral College long 
     since vanished but the institution has not fulfilled the 
     design of the framers. Today it represents little more than 
     an archaic and undemocratic counting device. There is no good 
     reason for retaining such a formula of electing the president 
     of the United States.''

  Well, I also saw a poll which shows that 62 percent of the people in 
this country, regardless of party, think we should do away with it and 
go to a system where the winner wins. How unique--the winner wins and 
the loser loses. That is the way it should be in the greatest democracy 
in the country.
  Try explaining this to your kids and grandkids. I am telling you, if 
they are about 11 or 12, explain what happened.
  I know changing the system won't be easy. I have been around a long 
time. I have spent more than half of my life in politics in elected 
office. So we understand that the legislation would need to be enacted 
by Congress and would only take effect after being ratified by three-
quarters of the States within 7 years after its passage. This is very 
difficult. This is a constitutional amendment. So I am not naive, and I 
understand what we are talking about.
  But there is another way to address this; it is called the National 
Popular Vote plan. It would guarantee that the Presidential candidate 
who wins the most votes would win the election and be the President, 
whether it is Donald Trump getting the most votes or Hillary Clinton 
getting the most votes, et cetera. All it requires is for enough States 
to act. It is an interstate compact where the States would agree to 
award their electoral votes to the Presidential candidate who wins the 
popular vote.
  So in California, where we have a number of electoral votes, if 
Donald Trump wins, they go to Donald Trump regardless of how our State 
voted. In other words, the votes are counted and then the States give 
their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote--pretty simple. 
So you still have the electoral college, but the result is that the 
votes are given to the person who wins the national popular vote. The 
agreement takes effect only once the participating States together hold 
a majority of electoral votes; that is, 270 out of 538 electoral votes.
  So far, the National Popular Vote bill has been enacted into law by 
10 States and the District of Columbia, adding up to 165 electoral 
votes. The legislation has been introduced in every State in the 
country, and it has support on both sides of the aisle because electing 
the person who wins is the democratic way.
  Trump supporter Newt Gingrich wrote a letter in 2014 endorsing the 
idea. He wrote:

       ``No one should become president of the United States 
     without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 
     50 States. . . . America would be better served with a 
     presidential election process that treated citizens across 
     the country equally.''

  Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr said:

       ``Only when the election process is given back to all of 
     the people of all the states will we be able to choose a 
     President based on what is best for all 50 states and not 
     just a select few.''

  I will make a point that I don't agree with Newt Gingrich on pretty 
much anything except this. This is rare. Newt Gingrich said Medicare 
should wither on the vine. He called Democrats traitors. Believe me, I 
served with him, I know. And his ethical standards don't meet what I 
think the standards should be. But setting that aside, here we are on 
the same side.

       ``No one should become president of the United States 
     without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 
     50 States. . . . America would be better served with a 
     presidential election process that treats citizens across the 
     country equally.''

  I urge my colleagues to take a close look at the legislation I have 
introduced, and I urge State legislators and Governors around the 
country to take a close look at the National Popular Vote bill.
  Again, I am going to be honest, it is really hard to pass a 
constitutional amendment. I am not naive about it. But to pass a law in 
various States isn't that hard. That should be done. The American 
people can help. I ask them to call their Senators and Members of 
Congress about our bill. There is a bill in the House being introduced 
by Charlie Rangel to do away with the electoral college--very simple--
and just let the popular vote stand. Ask them to sign on to this bill, 
but don't stop there. Write and call your representatives in the State 
house and push for your State to sign on to the interstate compact.
  A lot of people have come up to me after this election and said: You 
know, I don't feel my voice is heard, period.
  This is one of the reasons. Well, make your voice heard on either 
getting rid of the electoral college or the State compact where the 
State would give its votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
  Voting is the cornerstone of democracy. We have had men and women 
through the decades die for the right to vote. Many generations of 
Americans of every gender, race, religion, and ideology have marched 
and struggled and died to secure this fundamental freedom. Yet we have 
a system where the winner can lose.
  We owe it to the American people who have given so much for the right 
to vote to make sure that every vote matters and every vote counts. We 
owe it to them to ensure that the vote of a citizen in my State is 
worth the same as a vote of someone in a swing State. We owe it to 
every Republican voter and every Democratic voter and every Independent 
voter, every Green Party voter--whatever the party--to have that vote 
count. One person, one vote is the cornerstone of democracy.
  By making this critical change where the winner of the popular vote 
wins and every citizen's vote counts regardless of who they are, where 
they live, whether they are a Republican, Democrat, or a decline-to-
state or Green or

[[Page S6533]]

whatever party they choose, we would then be engaging voters in every 
single State. We will lift voter turnouts. We will ensure that every 
Presidential candidate speaks to the needs of Americans in every State 
and every region. We will ensure equal representation for all.
  You know, sometimes I come down here and I talk about issues that are 
very controversial. I must tell you, if you ask anyone on the street 
``Do you think the winner of the popular vote should win the 
Presidency?'' I would say a very strong majority would say ``Of 
course.'' If you ask them ``Do you know of any office in the land, 
whether it is Governor, mayor, supervisor, city council, sewer board, 
sanitation district, you name it, where the winner doesn't win?'' they 
will say ``No, I can't think of any.'' You know what, there are none. 
So why not do the simple thing and the right thing and the just thing 
and make sure that the winner of the popular vote is sworn in as our 
President. I think this will be a huge boon for every single voter in 
this greatest of all countries.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.

                          ____________________