The Electorial College

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is obvious that most responses to this thread are written by individuals that have little or no knowledge of the history of this country. If you did you would know the following about the Electoral College.

When discussing the election of the president during the writing of the Constitution the EC was a compromise between the large states and the smaller states. The smaller states feared they would have very little impact on the election of the president simply because their populations were not as great as the big states. In a popular, direct vote for the president the small states thought they would hardly ever have much impact on who becomes president. Therefore, in order to gain ratification of the Constitution the EC was devised to give smaller states a bigger voice in the electoral process. This meant that each state would have two votes representing their state plus the number of representatives they have in the House.

This compromise brought the small states into the fold (Delaware was first to ratify) and eased the path to full ratification by the thirteen states. The reasons for the EC are as valid today as they were in the beginning. Remember that it was the states that created the federal government and each elect their representatives to the national government. There is no such thing as a "federal election". It can not be found in the Constitution anywhere exept as it relates to voting rights of minorities. In light of this I suggest you read a little bit before you post such threads as this.

Before you get on your high horse about what people do and don't know, nobody has disputed the above facts. What is in dispute is, "is the EC relevant today". Some say absolutely, some say no. I'm, with the latter argument...

I'm with the former.

go figure

 

[Dr Grump]

It is obvious that most responses to this thread are written by individuals that have little or no knowledge of the history of this country. If you did you would know the following about the Electoral College.

When discussing the election of the president during the writing of the Constitution the EC was a compromise between the large states and the smaller states. The smaller states feared they would have very little impact on the election of the president simply because their populations were not as great as the big states. In a popular, direct vote for the president the small states thought they would hardly ever have much impact on who becomes president. Therefore, in order to gain ratification of the Constitution the EC was devised to give smaller states a bigger voice in the electoral process. This meant that each state would have two votes representing their state plus the number of representatives they have in the House.

This compromise brought the small states into the fold (Delaware was first to ratify) and eased the path to full ratification by the thirteen states. The reasons for the EC are as valid today as they were in the beginning. Remember that it was the states that created the federal government and each elect their representatives to the national government. There is no such thing as a "federal election". It can not be found in the Constitution anywhere exept as it relates to voting rights of minorities. In light of this I suggest you read a little bit before you post such threads as this.

Before you get on your high horse about what people do and don't know, nobody has disputed the above facts. What is in dispute is, "is the EC relevant today". Some say absolutely, some say no. I'm, with the latter argument...

I'm with the former.

go figure

And I thought you were leaving...
...again...

 

[SpidermanTuba]

" The EC keeps one or two regions from dominating the entire electorate and helps build a national consensus.

Yeah, its clearly done a GREAT job of this, too.

There's absolutely nothing in the electoral college that prevents one region from dominating the electorate.

 

[jillian]

No, for that election to have turned out differently, the Democrats would have to have been allowed to steal the election with their unending illegal recounts, instead of being stopped in their tracks.

for the entire history of this country the highest court of each state has been the final arbiter of its election law.

...except in Bush v Gore which took the opposite position of all precedent on the subject...And then said that it couldn't be used as precedent for any case in the future.

So, you know, it would be really nice if you actually looked at facts before you spewed.

 

[Dr Grump]

No, for that election to have turned out differently, the Democrats would have to have been allowed to steal the election with their unending illegal recounts, instead of being stopped in their tracks.

for the entire history of this country the highest court of each state has been the final arbiter of its election law.

...except in Bush v Gore which took the opposite position of all precedent on the subject...And then said that it couldn't be used as precedent for any case in the future.

So, you know, it would be really nice if you actually looked at facts before you spewed.

Facts and the Cesspit are like Ann Coulter and Bill Maher - they try to get together, but it never works out...

 

[jillian]

Can't trust the people can we?

Has nothing to do with distrusting "the people." The EC keeps one or two regions from dominating the entire electorate and helps build a national consensus.

That it kept that crazy son of a bitch Al Gore out of the White House was just gravy.

The electoral college did not keep Gore out...legal challenges did. The courts. The activist courts that conservatives and populists rant and rave against.

An activist judge is one who rules for the "other side"

 

[Cecilie1200]

No, for that election to have turned out differently, the Democrats would have to have been allowed to steal the election with their unending illegal recounts, instead of being stopped in their tracks.

for the entire history of this country the highest court of each state has been the final arbiter of its election law.

...except in Bush v Gore which took the opposite position of all precedent on the subject...And then said that it couldn't be used as precedent for any case in the future.

So, you know, it would be really nice if you actually looked at facts before you spewed.

It really says it all when leftists furiously inform us that the courts - ANY court - is the "final arbiter of the law". It's not even necessary to point out that the Constitution gives the US Supreme Court ultimate appellate jurisdiction over anything the lower courts do, when you can just sit back and marvel at the fact that leftists really believe the courts have the right to change the law as they see fit.

The only "spewing" I'm doing is from the nausea I get knowing that fools like you are allowed to vote.

 

[Dr Grump]

No, for that election to have turned out differently, the Democrats would have to have been allowed to steal the election with their unending illegal recounts, instead of being stopped in their tracks.

for the entire history of this country the highest court of each state has been the final arbiter of its election law.

...except in Bush v Gore which took the opposite position of all precedent on the subject...And then said that it couldn't be used as precedent for any case in the future.

So, you know, it would be really nice if you actually looked at facts before you spewed.

It really says it all when leftists furiously inform us that the courts - ANY court - is the "final arbiter of the law". It's not even necessary to point out that the Constitution gives the US Supreme Court ultimate appellate jurisdiction over anything the lower courts do, when you can just sit back and marvel at the fact that leftists really believe the courts have the right to change the law as they see fit.

The only "spewing" I'm doing is from the nausea I get knowing that fools like you are allowed to vote.

Do you know what the term 'precedence' means, Moron?

If you have the right to vote, any mental midget with an IQ over 40 should be allowed to....

 

[jillian]

It really says it all when leftists furiously inform us that the courts - ANY court - is the "final arbiter of the law". It's not even necessary to point out that the Constitution gives the US Supreme Court ultimate appellate jurisdiction over anything the lower courts do, when you can just sit back and marvel at the fact that leftists really believe the courts have the right to change the law as they see fit.

The only "spewing" I'm doing is from the nausea I get knowing that fools like you are allowed to vote.

Are you really so ignorant and uninformed about our system of government? I realize you're far less educated than you would like others to believe. In fact, I was somewhat sure of that from your prior posts Now I am 100% convinced of it. Our entire system is based upon a system of stare decisis. Now read and learn:

the United States and England, the Common Law has traditionally adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle, known as stare decisis, distinguishes the common law from civil-law systems, which give great weight to codes of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction.

The principle of stare decisis was not always applied with uniform strictness. In medieval England, common-law courts looked to earlier cases for guidance, but they could reject those they considered bad law. Courts also placed less than complete reliance on prior decisions because there was a lack of reliable written reports of cases. Official reports of cases heard in various courts began to appear in the United States in the early 1800s, but semiofficial reports were not produced in England until 1865. When published reports became available, lawyers and judges finally had direct access to cases and could more accurately interpret prior decisions.

stare decisis legal definition of stare decisis. stare decisis synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

That system requires that judges not just willy nilly decide they don't like prior caselaw in order to effectuate a political agenda (a la Bush v Gore),

as for the rest of your pathetic comments they really aren't worth bothering with.

but i would direct you to Marbury v. Madison

If you actually read and learn, you might not sound as embarrassing in the future so perhaps you'll actually respond to a post without sounding as if you've sat down on something rather unpleasant.

as for me being "allowed to vote" feel free to insult me when you can actually respond in legal terms and not by shooting words from your rather large buttocks.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It really says it all when leftists furiously inform us that the courts - ANY court - is the "final arbiter of the law". It's not even necessary to point out that the Constitution gives the US Supreme Court ultimate appellate jurisdiction over anything the lower courts do, when you can just sit back and marvel at the fact that leftists really believe the courts have the right to change the law as they see fit.

The only "spewing" I'm doing is from the nausea I get knowing that fools like you are allowed to vote.

Are you really so ignorant and uninformed about our system of government? I realize you're far less educated than you would like others to believe. In fact, I was somewhat sure of that from your prior posts Now I am 100% convinced of it. Our entire system is based upon a system of stare decisis. Now read and learn:

the United States and England, the Common Law has traditionally adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle, known as stare decisis, distinguishes the common law from civil-law systems, which give great weight to codes of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction.

The principle of stare decisis was not always applied with uniform strictness. In medieval England, common-law courts looked to earlier cases for guidance, but they could reject those they considered bad law. Courts also placed less than complete reliance on prior decisions because there was a lack of reliable written reports of cases. Official reports of cases heard in various courts began to appear in the United States in the early 1800s, but semiofficial reports were not produced in England until 1865. When published reports became available, lawyers and judges finally had direct access to cases and could more accurately interpret prior decisions.

stare decisis legal definition of stare decisis. stare decisis synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

That system requires that judges not just willy nilly decide they don't like prior caselaw in order to effectuate a political agenda (a la Bush v Gore),

as for the rest of your pathetic comments they really aren't worth bothering with.

but i would direct you to Marbury v. Madison

If you actually read and learn, you might not sound as embarrassing in the future so perhaps you'll actually respond to a post without sounding as if you've sat down on something rather unpleasant.

as for me being "allowed to vote" feel free to insult me when you can actually respond in legal terms and not by shooting words from your rather large buttocks.

Blah de blah blah smokescreen.

Please direct me to ANY law or precedent giving the Florida State Supreme Court - or any state supreme court, for that matter - the right to completely rewrite election law out of whole cloth, Ms. "I'm so educated". And while you're at it, please cite for me the law or precedent giving the Florida Supreme Court ANY jurisdiction over election law. Oh, and one more thing. Show me any place where the US Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of lower courts is suspended, revoked, or limited.

Thank you.

 

[jillian]

Blah de blah blah smokescreen.

Please direct me to ANY law or precedent giving the Florida State Supreme Court - or any state supreme court, for that matter - the right to completely rewrite election law out of whole cloth, Ms. "I'm so educated". And while you're at it, please cite for me the law or precedent giving the Florida Supreme Court ANY jurisdiction over election law. Oh, and one more thing. Show me any place where the US Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of lower courts is suspended, revoked, or limited.

Thank you.

blaah de blah?? smokescreen? is that what you do when you have no response? i don't think the court would find that very compelling argument. i understand your frustration though. it must be very difficult for you to have to respond to someone who actually knows you're just words...without the slightest bit of knowledge behind them.

I've already told you. The law was and is that the highest court of every state is the final arbiter of their own election law. no one who knows anything is going to argue that. but feel free to research the subject.Dissenting opinions in Bush v. Gore
yes, it's the dissenting opinion in bush v gore, but it is the law at the time and it is now. if bush v gore were correct, the court wouldn't have written the only opinion in its history that it said was of no precedential value.

feel free to read the case citations contained in the dissent. those, i believe are what you are looking for. they are still good law and have never been overturned. and given that bush v gore isn't good law, you have to rely on those cases.

btw, it's ok that you don't know these things. i get paid to. you don't. what's not ok is your absolute certainty that everyone you disagree with is wrong while your UNINFORMED opinion is correct.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Blah de blah blah smokescreen.

Please direct me to ANY law or precedent giving the Florida State Supreme Court - or any state supreme court, for that matter - the right to completely rewrite election law out of whole cloth, Ms. "I'm so educated". And while you're at it, please cite for me the law or precedent giving the Florida Supreme Court ANY jurisdiction over election law. Oh, and one more thing. Show me any place where the US Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of lower courts is suspended, revoked, or limited.

Thank you.

blaah de blah?? smokescreen? is that what you do when you have no response? i don't think the court would find that very compelling argument. i understand your frustration though. it must be very difficult for you to have to respond to someone who actually knows you're just words...without the slightest bit of knowledge behind them.

I've already told you. The law was and is that the highest court of every state is the final arbiter of their own election law. no one who knows anything is going to argue that. but feel free to research the subject.Dissenting opinions in Bush v. Gore
yes, it's the dissenting opinion in bush v gore, but it is the law at the time and it is now. if bush v gore were correct, the court wouldn't have written the only opinion in its history that it said was of no precedential value.

feel free to read the case citations contained in the dissent. those, i believe are what you are looking for. they are still good law and have never been overturned. and given that bush v gore isn't good law, you have to rely on those cases.

btw, it's ok that you don't know these things. i get paid to. you don't. what's not ok is your absolute certainty that everyone you disagree with is wrong while your UNINFORMED opinion is correct.

Note the part underneath where I identify your post for what it is (a smokescreen with a ton of meaningless blather) which contains my response. Duuhhh.

I will feel free to dismiss this entire post, since I did NOT ask you to cite USA frigging Today. I asked you to cite law and/or precedent. If your next post does not do any better at this request, I will FURTHER feel free to assume that you are admitting that I am correct. YOU may feel free to shove your "do more research" up your ass - right next to the spot you drag your opinions out of, one assumes - until such time as YOU can answer the fucking question.

By the way, it is NOT okay that you don't know these things, especially since you keep prattling to everyone that you get paid to. No one is buying your bullshit, Mensa Girl, except for those people on the board even less able to walk and chew gum at the same time than you are. It's long past time you pony up something real, instead of just "I must be right because I can claim [fill in the blank] job".

Strike one.

 

[Dr Grump]

Blah de blah blah smokescreen.

Please direct me to ANY law or precedent giving the Florida State Supreme Court - or any state supreme court, for that matter - the right to completely rewrite election law out of whole cloth, Ms. "I'm so educated". And while you're at it, please cite for me the law or precedent giving the Florida Supreme Court ANY jurisdiction over election law. Oh, and one more thing. Show me any place where the US Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of lower courts is suspended, revoked, or limited.

Thank you.

blaah de blah?? smokescreen? is that what you do when you have no response? i don't think the court would find that very compelling argument. i understand your frustration though. it must be very difficult for you to have to respond to someone who actually knows you're just words...without the slightest bit of knowledge behind them.

I've already told you. The law was and is that the highest court of every state is the final arbiter of their own election law. no one who knows anything is going to argue that. but feel free to research the subject.Dissenting opinions in Bush v. Gore
yes, it's the dissenting opinion in bush v gore, but it is the law at the time and it is now. if bush v gore were correct, the court wouldn't have written the only opinion in its history that it said was of no precedential value.

feel free to read the case citations contained in the dissent. those, i believe are what you are looking for. they are still good law and have never been overturned. and given that bush v gore isn't good law, you have to rely on those cases.

btw, it's ok that you don't know these things. i get paid to. you don't. what's not ok is your absolute certainty that everyone you disagree with is wrong while your UNINFORMED opinion is correct.

note how the Cesspit didn't answer your post?

It really is an ignorant slapper ain't it..

It hasn't a clue what it is talking about and going by its response, and I guess to get so humiliatingly hung, drawn and quartered is more than it can bear, and thus does what it does in 99.9 percent of its posts - flame and get personal. Talk about anger management issues....

 

[jillian]

Blah de blah blah smokescreen.

Please direct me to ANY law or precedent giving the Florida State Supreme Court - or any state supreme court, for that matter - the right to completely rewrite election law out of whole cloth, Ms. "I'm so educated". And while you're at it, please cite for me the law or precedent giving the Florida Supreme Court ANY jurisdiction over election law. Oh, and one more thing. Show me any place where the US Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of lower courts is suspended, revoked, or limited.

Thank you.

blaah de blah?? smokescreen? is that what you do when you have no response? i don't think the court would find that very compelling argument. i understand your frustration though. it must be very difficult for you to have to respond to someone who actually knows you're just words...without the slightest bit of knowledge behind them.

I've already told you. The law was and is that the highest court of every state is the final arbiter of their own election law. no one who knows anything is going to argue that. but feel free to research the subject.Dissenting opinions in Bush v. Gore
yes, it's the dissenting opinion in bush v gore, but it is the law at the time and it is now. if bush v gore were correct, the court wouldn't have written the only opinion in its history that it said was of no precedential value.

feel free to read the case citations contained in the dissent. those, i believe are what you are looking for. they are still good law and have never been overturned. and given that bush v gore isn't good law, you have to rely on those cases.

btw, it's ok that you don't know these things. i get paid to. you don't. what's not ok is your absolute certainty that everyone you disagree with is wrong while your UNINFORMED opinion is correct.

Note the part underneath where I identify your post for what it is (a smokescreen with a ton of meaningless blather) which contains my response. Duuhhh.

I will feel free to dismiss this entire post, since I did NOT ask you to cite USA frigging Today. I asked you to cite law and/or precedent. If your next post does not do any better at this request, I will FURTHER feel free to assume that you are admitting that I am correct. YOU may feel free to shove your "do more research" up your ass - right next to the spot you drag your opinions out of, one assumes - until such time as YOU can answer the fucking question.

By the way, it is NOT okay that you don't know these things, especially since you keep prattling to everyone that you get paid to. No one is buying your bullshit, Mensa Girl, except for those people on the board even less able to walk and chew gum at the same time than you are. It's long past time you pony up something real, instead of just "I must be right because I can claim [fill in the blank] job".

Strike one.

I'm wondering if you're intentionally lying of if you're a sociopath. i gave you links to the cases... not to USA today.

i don't make any untrue claims. it wouldn't be worth my time.

like i said... if you had a real response, you'd have come up with one.

epic fail on your part...

I feel kind of sorry for you. you must be feeling very embarrassed right about now.

 

[Dr Grump]

[qu I asked you to cite law and/or precedent.

She did you moron. Which part of "The law was and is that the highest court of every state is the final arbiter of their own election law" don't you understand?

 

[jillian]

note how the Cesspit didn't answer your post?

It really is an ignorant slapper ain't it..

It hasn't a clue what it is talking about and going by its response, and I guess to get so humiliatingly hung, drawn and quartered is more than it can bear, and thus does what it does in 99.9 percent of its posts - flame and get personal. Talk about anger management issues....

yeah, i noticed. sad and pathetic, isn't it? i think the word you use for people like that is "munter". fits it to a t.

anger management probably wouldn't work on it anyway. i haven't decided if it's sad or funny to watch it melt down.

 

[Annie]

When Jillian and Dr. Grump agree on anything, all should throw up their hands and say, "Alleluia!" Never truer words spoken!

Not.

Truth is, they go way back, way beyond most messageboards. Beyond religion, beyond pre-history. They are eternal. Dare we say it, beyond the internet!

Between them, they know all, indeed, they are all. To deny is to die!

 

[Annie]

When Jillian and Dr. Grump agree on anything, all should throw up their hands and say, "Alleluia!" Never truer words spoken!

Not.

Truth is, they go way back, way beyond most messageboards. Beyond religion, beyond pre-history. They are eternal. Dare we say it, beyond the internet!

Between them, they know all, indeed, they are all. To deny is to die!

Move to conspiracy or occult or something. LOL!

 

[Dr Grump]

When Jillian and Dr. Grump agree on anything, all should throw up their hands and say, "Alleluia!" Never truer words spoken!

Not.

Truth is, they go way back, way beyond most messageboards. Beyond religion, beyond pre-history. They are eternal. Dare we say it, beyond the internet!

Between them, they know all, indeed, they are all. To deny is to die!

You on your fourth or fifth martini? Would you like an olive with that?

 

[jillian]

When Jillian and Dr. Grump agree on anything, all should throw up their hands and say, "Alleluia!" Never truer words spoken!

Not.

Truth is, they go way back, way beyond most messageboards. Beyond religion, beyond pre-history. They are eternal. Dare we say it, beyond the internet!

Between them, they know all, indeed, they are all. To deny is to die!

Move to conspiracy or occult or something. LOL!

well, at least you can laugh at yourself.