Eric Holder: Abolish the Electoral College | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

4081
Published on November 12, 2016

Former Attorney General Eric Holder joins Bill Maher to discuss the aftermath of Donald Trump’s election and calls for the abolition of the Electoral College.

Find Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO GO® http://itsh.bo/iioY87.

It’s HBO.

Category Tag

24 comments

  • Carlos Zurita 2 years ago

    great idea Bill, remembered Trump tweeted once, that electoral vote was
    stupid.

    Reply
  • Gamer with a Conscience 2 years ago

    Get the people’s mandate then go ahead & abolish it for fuck’s sake

    Reply
  • thejobloshow 2 years ago

    Abolishing the electoral college means corporate Democrats like Clinton
    will run the country for good because of the population density in blue
    states.

    Reply
  • Edwin Newton 2 years ago

    the electoral college is so nessesary for less populated states to have a
    voice. bill is just a pissed crybaby

    Reply
  • Mac Varga 2 years ago

    Okay weren’t conservative complaining about the electoral college the last
    2 elections.

    Reply
  • Ryan 2 years ago

    The electoral college was designed to prevent these sorts of thieves from
    governing.

    Reply
  • Kal El 2 years ago

    Hillary supporters didn’t argue against the electoral college when trump
    was losing in the polls. In fact some of them were argue in favor of the
    electoral college the day before the election happens.

    Reply
  • John Doe 2 years ago

    THE CLEVELAND INDIANS SCORED MORE RUNS THAN THE CHICAGO CUBS.
    #NOTMYWORLDSERIESCHAMPIONS AMIRITE GUYS? LET THROW SOME BRICKS AT WINDOWS
    NOW TO INSURE TRUMPS REELECTION!

    Reply
  • MOR PHIUS 2 years ago

    all the votes are not in…trump may have won the popular vote as well…so
    suck it twice hillary-bots

    Reply
  • Anoop Kammaran 2 years ago

    Lol… is it me or does this sound exactly like how republicans reacted
    when Obama got elected in 2012?

    Reply
  • 4478nick 2 years ago

    You cannot assume that Clinton would win if the popular vote rule was
    established. The two opposite campaigns would be massively different and
    potentially could bring different results.

    Reply
  • Wackky 2 years ago

    LOL. Both candidates knew they had to win the Electoral College. Hillary
    Clinton knew this. Donald Trump knew this. Both candidates campaigned in an
    attempt to win the electoral college. Both candidates used 100% of their
    campaign resources to try and win the electoral college. Donald Trump ended
    up winning the electoral college.
    The popular vote is completely irrelevant as an excuse in this situation
    because neither candidate was campaigning for it and they both knew this.
    It’s irrelevant that Hillary Clinton has at this stage won the popular vote
    because neither candidate was campaigning to win it and the goal of both
    campaigns wasn’t to win the popular vote. You can’t say that Hillary
    Clinton should be President because she won the popular vote because that
    wasn’t the point of the campaigns. If both candidates were campaigning for
    the popular vote, you don’t know how it would turn out.
    Stop using this popular vote excuse. It’s an irrelevant by-product of the
    system that both candidates don’t care about.

    Reply
  • nefersen 2 years ago

    My candidate didn’t win, so we should change the rules. Very fair, Bill.

    Reply
  • KC Nwaneri 2 years ago

    The electoral college protects against the “tyranny of the majority,”
    though. Granted, it’s not 100% depending on your party.

    Reply
  • Homer Simpson 2 years ago

    So are you going to sit there and say that, with Obama in the White House
    and a Democratic governor, People in California were hampered from voting?
    Or in New York? Give me a break.

    Reply
  • Steven Clarke 2 years ago

    You can’t hold a different opinion on the electoral college and
    superdelegates without being a hypocrite.

    Reply
  • Nathan Warrington 2 years ago

    Explain why Obama & Clinton haven’t condemned the violent riots happening
    right now, are they that salty ?

    They are taking part in the divide, what happened to letting America heal.

    And what happened to When they go low you go high ?

    Fucking idiots

    Reply
  • David Curry 2 years ago

    Oh okay let’s fish through the attic and look for that “abolish the EC”
    topic that we left to rot in 2004. If you felt so strongly about getting
    rid of the centuries-old EC, you would have advocated for its removal
    during the liberal free-for-all Obama years

    Reply
  • bendernik 2 years ago

    Dems claims election isn’t rigged when Clinton is leading… trump wins THE
    ELECTION WAS RIGGED.

    Reply
  • Rob749s 2 years ago

    The electoral college should use proportional representation at the state
    level. But don’t abolish it.

    Reply
  • otto 2 years ago

    There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College – more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.
    To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

    Instead, pragmatically, The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

    All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.

    Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
    No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes.
    No more handful of ‘battleground’ states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
    All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

    The bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
    The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.
    The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country

    NationalPopularVote

    Reply
  • otto 2 years ago

    There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.

    Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.

    The whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

    It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

    It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

    It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant), and

    It would not make every vote equal.

    It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

    A national popular vote is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

    Reply
  • otto 2 years ago

    The night Mitt Romney lost, Donald Trump tweeted.
    “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

    Current and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Jimmy Carter (D-GA-1977), Hillary Clinton (D-NY-2001), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), and Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969).

    Current and past presidential candidates with a public record of support for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Congressmen John Anderson (R, I –ILL), and Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), Senator and Governor Lincoln Chafee (R-I-D, -RI), Governor and former Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean (D–VT), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Senator and Vice President Al Gore (D-TN), Ralph Nader, Governor Martin O’Malley (D-MD), Jill Stein (Green), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN).

    Reply
  • otto 2 years ago

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

    Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

    Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published.