The attempt to dismantle the electoral college begins. SCOTUS to hear arguments.

[Pogo]

I'm thinking this USSC input is a good thing, not a bad thing: apparently TEN electors voted, or tried to vote, for someone besides who they were supposed to!! That's pretty awful and needs fixing.

From the article I read, I am not clear whether they were replaced or stopped before they did that, or whether their faithless votes counted AGAINST Trump.

The article said that analysis showed that fully five past presidential elections would have been changed by this many faithless votes happening! This is a much worse problem than I realized. I am sure it's not in the Constitution that these people get to simply decide the election on their own (purchased or grumpy) opinions!!

Important topic, thanx to the Thread Parent.

Last points first: the Constitution simply says that states will appoint electors, however they choose to appoint them, and then those electors vote. Nowhere does it stipulate who they have to vote for. As they are after all human electors, they make their human choice. Electors are chosen to decide who to vote for. The argument against "faithless elector" laws is that they remove that choice FROM the Elector, a choice built in to the Constitution.

In the last election Electors not falling in with the WTA mentality cost Rump two electoral votes and cost Clinton five. Three others were replaced by these laws that removed that Constitution-derived choice and rep[aced them with a robot, whose existence was thus rendered meaningless, hence the question before the Court now. Those three were all Clinton-pledged votes.

Fun fact: remember how Rump claimed to have won "more electoral votes than anyone since Reagan"? Not only was he completely wrong on recent Presidential elections, he didn't even win the most in 2016. Mike Pence got 305 Electoral votes to Rump's 304.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm thinking this USSC input is a good thing, not a bad thing: apparently TEN electors voted, or tried to vote, for someone besides who they were supposed to!! That's pretty awful and needs fixing.

I don't think you're following. They are ruling on whether or not to allow such a thing.

Not only that. Also these various pacts and agreements intended to push in popular vote and go around the Electoral College.

The winning party's elector would still have to vote at the Electoral College and would presumably be able to vote for whomever they chose.

 

[Pogo]

There's no reason for them to exist.

I don't want them to exist. I'd like virtual electors -- how to work THAT into constitutional law I leave to the lawyers. I don't trust these electors or the criminals who try everything to get at them. The human element only adds bad complications in this case, IMO.

If Electors do not exist, then there's literally no reason to have an Electoral College at all.

So maybe that's just fine.

As I read it your argument is that, by concentrating the POTUS vote into fewer people (the EC versus the public), the danger of corruption goes up. Whelp, that seems like an argument for the popular vote, doesn't it?

 

[DOTR]

I'm thinking this USSC input is a good thing, not a bad thing: apparently TEN electors voted, or tried to vote, for someone besides who they were supposed to!! That's pretty awful and needs fixing.

From the article I read, I am not clear whether they were replaced or stopped before they did that, or whether their faithless votes counted AGAINST Trump.

The article said that analysis showed that fully five past presidential elections would have been changed by this many faithless votes happening! This is a much worse problem than I realized. I am sure it's not in the Constitution that these people get to simply decide the election on their own (purchased or grumpy) opinions!!

Important topic, thanx to the Thread Parent.

Actually it is in the Constitution. The electors decide who the President is.

And the Democrats are thinking “why go to all the trouble of filling California with illegals if rednecks in Alabama still get a say?”

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually it is in the Constitution. The electors decide who the President is.

And when the electors are all forced to vote a certain way, without any choice...that principle is violated, is it not?

Are you trying to undermine your own arguments?

 

[White 6]

I got about 20 years. It may go down the tube for good in that time if we resort to rule by the coastlines.

Yes, I agree, though I think major trends play out in 10 to 15 years, and I'm counting from 2016.

There would be secession of the Flyover Zone, IMO, with the trigger issues not abolition and Mormonism like last time (people who don't read history have NO IDEA how important the problem of Mormonism, with their scandalous, anti-woman polygamy and determination to set up a Republic of Utah, was in the middle of the 19th century) but the never-ending determination of the gun grabbers and the big cities' communism, which intends to grab everything else anyone has. Who'd'a thunk we'd have seen in our lifetimes a resurrection of socialism/communism and in the U.S.?

So far then, the USA would divide into three pieces, if they try to disenfranchise the country in favor of the evil cities, two coasts and the middle. Most writers think it would make six new states at least, however, as the coasts are long and the Midwest/South is wide. These states would of course spend all their time making war against each other, as in Europe, and thus become impoverished.


Maybe we ought to just keep the Electoral College.

Agree. Keep it. Actually I plan to be around that long, especially counting from 2016. I have similar bone structure and slender body mass on average to my great grandmother who died at 103, 17 days before her 104th birthday, unlike my father, grandfather and uncles who all passed at about 85. She received a hand signed letter from John F. Kennedy on the occasion. I am pretty sure one of my first cousins still has it.

 

[my2¢]

My personal belief is that member of the state's elector college should be able to vote for anybody they please and not be bound by any limits placed on them by the state's legislature.​

Bribery and blackmail, here we come. The electors last election reported continual, non-stop lobbying of them to change their votes from the way they were supposed to vote to the way the caller, visitor, or writer wanted. They had to shut down phones, move out of houses. Most of them voted as they were supposed to; ten didn't and may have been suborned. I'd like to see that stopped.​

​

I feel turnabout is fair play. The Democrat and Republican party operatives arrange the interruption of our dinners and quiet evenings throughout the period preceding the election with their calls. I have absolutely no sympathy if the victorious slate of electors are bombarded with a similar number of calls that their party had arranged.

I also don't see bribery and blackmail as an issue at all. Of those few faithless electors in 2016, Trump lost two votes and Hillary lost five.

Faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

 

[Pogo]

I'm thinking this USSC input is a good thing, not a bad thing: apparently TEN electors voted, or tried to vote, for someone besides who they were supposed to!! That's pretty awful and needs fixing.

I don't think you're following. They are ruling on whether or not to allow such a thing.

Not only that. Also these various pacts and agreements intended to push in popular vote and go around the Electoral College.

The winning party's elector would still have to vote at the Electoral College and would presumably be able to vote for whomever they chose.

This ^^. Keeping in mind the crucial distinction between a winning candidate and a winning party.

In 2016 John Kasich (R) got EVs from both a Clinton-"pledged" elector and a Rump-"pledged" elector. Another Clinton-"pledged" elector voted for Sanders, another Rump-"pledged" elector voted for Ron Paul. Three more Clinton-"pledged" electors voted for Colin Powell who wasn't even a candidate (nor was Paul) (but they don't need to be).

There's another illegitimate bullshit term that needs to go yesterday --- "pledged". That's tantamount to a judge instructing the jury on what their verdict is going to be, before the trial starts.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm thinking this USSC input is a good thing, not a bad thing: apparently TEN electors voted, or tried to vote, for someone besides who they were supposed to!! That's pretty awful and needs fixing.

I don't think you're following. They are ruling on whether or not to allow such a thing.

Not only that. Also these various pacts and agreements intended to push in popular vote and go around the Electoral College.

The winning party's elector would still have to vote at the Electoral College and would presumably be able to vote for whomever they chose.

This ^^. Keeping in mind the crucial distinction between a winning candidate and a winning party.

In 2016 John Kasich (R) got EVs from both a Clinton-"pledged" elector and a Rump-"pledged" elector. Another Clinton-"pledged" elector voted for Sanders, another Rump-"pledged" elector voted for Ron Paul. Three more Clinton-"pledged" electors voted for Colin Powell who wasn't even a candidate (nor was Paul) (but they don't need to be).

There's another illegitimate bullshit term that needs to go yesterday --- "pledged". That's tantamount to a judge instructing the jury before the trial starts, what their verdict is going to be.

I agree completely.

 

[Pogo]

[

Also imo, the court should have no say in how any state selects it's electors. That authority is delegated entirely to the states in the Constitution. If you want to take that power away from the State you'll need to amend the Constitution.

The argument can certainly be made (and presumably is being made) that states dictating "faithless elector" laws are violating the intended design of the Electoral College system in removing the human element. Because if the state is dictating what their vote must be, then they have no vote at all and they cannot be legitimately described as an "Elector". That devolves into a robot. There's no reason for them to exist.

My bad, I just made an ass of me. I assumed the topic was the National Popular Vote.

The OP linked a paywall site and then disappeared, never to defend his characterization again, so we're operating on the assumption, pretty much, that the SCOTUS is considering the "faithless elector" song and dance. The NPV would certainly be relevantly related though.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It was created as a compromise to keep less populated states and slaveholders happy and get them to ratify the Constitution.

The mention of “slaveholders” is very obviously a deceitful effort to suggest that the Electoral College is based on racism. It's no surprise to hear this from you; it's one of the lies that your kind just can't help repeating, even though you know it's a lie, and you know that everyone who hears it will know that it's a lie. Your kind just can't help yourselves.

As for less populated states, of course that was the intent, as well as part of the need to get them to support the Constitution. Why should the people of any less-populated state have not wanted a system of government that allowed their needs to be heard and represented as well as those of the more densely-populated states?

 

[Crepitus]

It was created as a compromise to keep less populated states and slaveholders happy and get them to ratify the Constitution.

The mention of “slaveholders” is very obviously a deceitful effort to suggest that the Electoral College is based on racism. It's no surprise to hear this from you; it's one of the lies that your kind just can't help repeating, even though you know it's a lie, and you know that everyone who hears it will know that it's a lie. Your kind just can't help yourselves.

As for less populated states, of course that was the intent, as well as part of the need to get them to support the Constitution. Why should the people of any less-populated state have not wanted a system of government that allowed their needs to be heard and represented as well as those of the more densely-populated states?

No, it isn't.

It's reality. A thing you tRumplings are not really equipped to understand.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The mention of “slaveholders” is very obviously a deceitful effort to suggest that the Electoral College is based on racism.

And your mischaracterization is a non sequitur fallacy meant to shield yourself from having to account for a factual point that may undermine your overwrought arguments.

 

[Kondor3]

what the left wants to do is evidence that millions of illegal votes were casted in 2016...

The Left wants to do what again?

...thats the only way they can win elections...

Nahhhhh... all it takes is a so-called 'Republican' who acts more like a Dictator or King than a President...

...does anyone actually believe that not one illegal alien voted in 2016?

Oh, to be sure, it's likely that some Illegal Aliens did, indeed, vote.

The question before 'bar' (here) is whether any such voting by Illegal Aliens was even statistically significant, never mind a deciding factor.

And, until you can produce evidence in support of such hairy, wild-a$$ed claims, nobody will take seriously that stupid old assertion by Trump.

 

[Circe]

Fun fact: remember how Rump claimed to have won "more electoral votes than anyone since Reagan"? Not only was he completely wrong on recent Presidential elections, he didn't even win the most in 2016. Mike Pence got 305 Electoral votes to Rump's 304.

I did not know they voted for those offices separately. I'm a little scandalized.

 

[Circe]

Agree. Keep it. Actually I plan to be around that long, especially counting from 2016. I have similar bone structure and slender body mass on average to my great grandmother who died at 103, 17 days before her 104th birthday, unlike my father, grandfather and uncles who all passed at about 85. She received a hand signed letter from John F. Kennedy on the occasion. I am pretty sure one of my first cousins still has it.

I certainly hope so! We need people like you.

 

[Circe]

​

I feel turnabout is fair play. The Democrat and Republican party operatives arrange the interruption of our dinners and quiet evenings throughout the period preceding the election with their calls. I have absolutely no sympathy if the victorious slate of electors are bombarded with a similar number of calls that their party had arranged.

Serious suggestion: turn off your phone entirely. So people can only give messages silently to the phone company message box. You can call back friends. We've been doing that since 2016, that year about drove me crazy, and I feel so much better now that the predator scammers (and pols and docs touting for business) can't get thru to me or bother me. The spammers don't leave messages, hardly ever.

Of those few faithless electors in 2016, Trump lost two votes and Hillary lost five.

And three more faithless electors were blocked by their state laws! This just blows me away. I was too shell-shocked after 2016 to take in any of this; I'd have supposed all the faithless electors would have been trying to dispossess TRUMP, but no --- I think someone said it was half-and-half.

No, this is unacceptable. Faithless electors, whatever side they are against, are totally unacceptable to me. I wouldn't act like that and I expect them not to do like that either, or go to jail. I don't think any of them went to jail, but they all should have, IMO. Shocking behavior! Yeah, the U.S. Supreme Court definitely needs to sort this out.

 

[HenryBHough]

Dumb shits want the U.S. Constitution ruled unconstitutional?

Whatever they be smokin' they needs be sharin'!!!!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

…it's one of the lies that your kind just can't help repeating, even though you know it's a lie, and you know that everyone who hears it will know that it's a lie. Your kind just can't help yourselves.

No, it isn't.

It's reality. A thing you tRumplings are not really equipped to understand.

It's just like I said. Your kind just cannot help it.

[ATTACH=full]301514[/ATTACH]

 

[okfine]

Supreme Court to Look at Electoral College Rules

Depending on the outcome this could be the beginning of the end of our nations great experiment.

One person. One vote. How it should be.