Kosh
Quick Look Over There!
When these states have to give their vote to Trump in 2020, they will suddenly change their minds!
11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College
- Thread starter TroglocratsRdumb
- Start date
When these states have to give their vote to Trump in 2020, they will suddenly change their minds!
Again though, I think they can be made to "toe the line" up to the voting, but it's very possible that they cannot be compelled to vote any particular way. They may have to pledge themselves to a Dem or Repub candidate, but violating that pledge may not be allowed to have any sort of legal consequences.
Legal consequences isn't the point. If the state ass-umes the power to dictate how its Elector will vote, and will actually replace that Elector if it doesn't with another who will, then the state is short-circuiting the Constitutional function of that Elector, who's supposed to be a human being with free will.
Ah, but the state can choose electors however it wants. If that means choosing electors that will be willing to sign a pledge, that's what it means. And the legal consequences matter because, if there can be no legal consequences for an elector voting however he/she wants, then the state can't actually dictate how an elector will vote. They can only compel an elector to 'say' they will vote a certain way, but the elector has no obligation to actually follow through.
The state can say, "Tell us that you are going to vote for whomever wins the election," and the elector has to agree or be replaced. When that elector votes for someone else, however, the state can neither negate that already cast vote, nor do anything in particular to that elector as punishment.
I may be wrong, but I think that is a simplified version of the current state of affairs.
Again, whatever legal consequences exist or are put into practice (I don't think any ever have) is an entirely separate issue affecting only the Elector. What I'm focused on is function. If the function as the Constitution describes it, is a living breathing person whose job it is to make that decision, then that's what that person should do. If the state is undermining that role --- including orders to vote WTA --- then it's undermining what the Constitution describes as that function.
And my read is that the state does not have that authority, which I suspect is why no legal consequences have ever been assessed ---- because they know it wouldn't hold up in court.
So my concern here is not how the state "chooses" Electors but rather how it defines them. I say defining them as empty suits who have to follow orders is unConstitutional. Because that document doesn't seem to allow states to so define them.
Last edited:
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
Opposition to the EC is not limited to liberals.
The vast majority of elections for representatives in this country are based on popular vote, or "popularity contests." That includes the elections held in each state for presidential electors, other than Maine and Nebraska. There is no national popular vote for president, that's true, but the electors in all but 2 states are decided on through state popular votes.
Every individual would have an equal say in who is elected president in a national popular vote system. The EC does not give individuals a voice they would not otherwise have had. What I think you are trying to say is that it can give less populated areas of the country more of a say than they would otherwise have. Those are very different things.
There are probably a whole lot of reasons Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, but the fact is that she did lose. To say it was a "rejection by the American people" is disingenuous at best, as presidential elections both tend to be fairly close and also only include those who voted. Neither Clinton nor Trump received a majority of the votes cast, so both could be said to have been rejected if one could.
Anyone who opposes the EC simply because Clinton lost the election is being ridiculous. However, people have had issues with the EC system for far longer than the past 2 years.
Too bad you wasted all those keystrokes, because the Electrical College has been under fire since at least James Madison. I get it that butthurt must be like some kind of drug, I guess it feels like heroin or sump'm, but this goes back way way way way way before "HILLARY CLINTON" or even her great-grandparents, were born..
And this particular scheme described in the OP goes back at least a dozen years, and as Montrovant just indicated, has bipartisan support. It's been signed onto by 12 states, 11 of which were already in before "HILLARY CLINTON" ran for President, and it's pending in several more states including mine.
Last edited:
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
Again though, I think they can be made to "toe the line" up to the voting, but it's very possible that they cannot be compelled to vote any particular way. They may have to pledge themselves to a Dem or Repub candidate, but violating that pledge may not be allowed to have any sort of legal consequences.
Legal consequences isn't the point. If the state ass-umes the power to dictate how its Elector will vote, and will actually replace that Elector if it doesn't with another who will, then the state is short-circuiting the Constitutional function of that Elector, who's supposed to be a human being with free will.
Ah, but the state can choose electors however it wants. If that means choosing electors that will be willing to sign a pledge, that's what it means. And the legal consequences matter because, if there can be no legal consequences for an elector voting however he/she wants, then the state can't actually dictate how an elector will vote. They can only compel an elector to 'say' they will vote a certain way, but the elector has no obligation to actually follow through.
The state can say, "Tell us that you are going to vote for whomever wins the election," and the elector has to agree or be replaced. When that elector votes for someone else, however, the state can neither negate that already cast vote, nor do anything in particular to that elector as punishment.
I may be wrong, but I think that is a simplified version of the current state of affairs.
Again, whatever legal consequences exist or are put into practice (I don't think any ever have) is an entirely separate issue affecting only the Elector. What I'm focused on is function. If the function as the Constitution describes it, is a living breathing person whose job it is to make that decision, then that's what that person should do. If the state is undermining that role --- including orders to vote WTA --- then it's undermining what the Constitution describes as that function.
And my read is that the state does not have that authority, which I suspect is why no legal consequences have ever been assessed ---- because they know it wouldn't hold up in court.
What I'm saying is that so long as states have no authority to punish so-called faithless electors, they are incapable of preventing electors from functioning as intended. Thus the ruling of the pledge: it is a meaningless gesture in the end, and I think that is why the USSC allowed it. A state can require an elector to pledge whatever it wants, but so long as that state cannot punish the elector for not following through on the pledge, it doesn't matter.
Certainly it's a far cry from the original intent and set up of the EC, but it does still allow electors to make the decision. Considering those electors almost never do, and never with any real consequence, it's a bit of a throw away argument, anyway.
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,584
- 2,645
And I would argue that in doing so they also expose their intellectual limitations, being unable to understand the intent and actual incredible design our Founding Fathers created to ensure EQUAL representation and preventing the ability of any one group or large concentrated group to impose their will on others / strip others of their voice.
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,584
- 2,645
The effort was only wasted on ignorant liberals who still reject the results of the 2016 election, who want revenge for their FELON candidate losing.
From the NPV website:
Even in his own time Madison, a chief architect of the Electoral College, saw how WTA would create exactly the division and factionalism that it has, and called for banning it then --- even though his own state of Virginia would lose some punch. He called for that because it was the right thing to do.
>> Lawsuits Filed to Invalidate State Winner-Take-All Laws
On February 21, 2018, lawsuits were filed in Massachusetts, Texas, South Carolina, and California asking that the federal courts to declare existing state winner-take-all laws unconstitutional.
Forty-eight states award all of their state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in each separate state. Maine and Nebraska award two of their electoral votes to the statewide winner on a winner-take-all basis, but award the remainder of their electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each separate congressional district. The lawsuits seek to invalidate both the statewide and district-wide winner-take-all methods of awarding electoral votes.
Only three states had winner-take-all laws in the first presidential election in 1789, and all three repealed them by 1800. In 1789, presidential electors were chosen from congressional districts in Massachusetts, from special presidential-elector districts in Virginia, and by counties in Delaware. The Governor and his Council appointed the state’s presidential electors in New Jersey. State legislatures appointed presidential electors in the other states.
.... the Virginia Legislature quickly passed a winner-take-all law in time for the 1800 election—thereby assuring Jefferson of all of Virginia's electoral votes.
Meanwhile, the Federalist majority in the legislature of John Adam’s home state of Massachusetts—alarmed by rising support for Jefferson in the state—repealed the state’s district system—thereby assuring John Adams of all the state’s electoral votes in 1800.
This triggered a domino effect in which each state’s dominant political party adopted winner-take-all so that it could deliver the maximum number of electoral votes to its party’s nominee.
--- and that's how we got into this mess.On February 21, 2018, lawsuits were filed in Massachusetts, Texas, South Carolina, and California asking that the federal courts to declare existing state winner-take-all laws unconstitutional.
Forty-eight states award all of their state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in each separate state. Maine and Nebraska award two of their electoral votes to the statewide winner on a winner-take-all basis, but award the remainder of their electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each separate congressional district. The lawsuits seek to invalidate both the statewide and district-wide winner-take-all methods of awarding electoral votes.
- American Bar Journal article describing lawsuits
Only three states had winner-take-all laws in the first presidential election in 1789, and all three repealed them by 1800. In 1789, presidential electors were chosen from congressional districts in Massachusetts, from special presidential-elector districts in Virginia, and by counties in Delaware. The Governor and his Council appointed the state’s presidential electors in New Jersey. State legislatures appointed presidential electors in the other states.
.... the Virginia Legislature quickly passed a winner-take-all law in time for the 1800 election—thereby assuring Jefferson of all of Virginia's electoral votes.
Meanwhile, the Federalist majority in the legislature of John Adam’s home state of Massachusetts—alarmed by rising support for Jefferson in the state—repealed the state’s district system—thereby assuring John Adams of all the state’s electoral votes in 1800.
This triggered a domino effect in which each state’s dominant political party adopted winner-take-all so that it could deliver the maximum number of electoral votes to its party’s nominee.
Even in his own time Madison, a chief architect of the Electoral College, saw how WTA would create exactly the division and factionalism that it has, and called for banning it then --- even though his own state of Virginia would lose some punch. He called for that because it was the right thing to do.
Once again (a) linear time has already proven you wrong, and (b) you're demonstrating exactly the kind of factionalism that James Madison warned about.
Unless of course you're prepared to demonstrate to this board how 11 states that already signed on and several more in which it was already pending, had some kind of magic crystals where they could read ten years into the future. Which, if they had that kind of time control, they could just go back in time and change the election. You'll also need to essplain how it already passed at least one legislative chamber in Arkansas, AridZona, Michigan, North Carolina and Oklahoma, all of which voted for Rump.
Last edited:
easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,584
- 2,645
The current push from the liberals against the Electoral College is equivalent to their efforts during the 24 - 72 hour period after a mass shooting:
They focus on the EMOTION, attempting to harness the anger, frustration, hate, and butt-hurt of their base to push for changes in rules and laws to better support / fit their agenda.
The current opposition stems from butt-hurt over Hillary losing her SECOND Presidential election opportunity.
If Libs were to become successful and get the Electoral College replaced with their preferred 'Popularity Contest', which they claim makes Hillary the legitimate 2016 Presidential election winner, and in the next election they LOST in the 1st-ever 'popularity contest' they would scream, bit@h, and whine about how they were cheated and how their candidate had won the no-longer valid 'electoral college' vote.
2 years of obstruction, bit@hing, whining, conspiracy, sedition, treason, chaos, hate, and but-hurt because snowflakes have been incited into an angry mob over a candidate who never won their party's nomination and who should be in prison right now lost an election.....
They focus on the EMOTION, attempting to harness the anger, frustration, hate, and butt-hurt of their base to push for changes in rules and laws to better support / fit their agenda.
The current opposition stems from butt-hurt over Hillary losing her SECOND Presidential election opportunity.
If Libs were to become successful and get the Electoral College replaced with their preferred 'Popularity Contest', which they claim makes Hillary the legitimate 2016 Presidential election winner, and in the next election they LOST in the 1st-ever 'popularity contest' they would scream, bit@h, and whine about how they were cheated and how their candidate had won the no-longer valid 'electoral college' vote.
2 years of obstruction, bit@hing, whining, conspiracy, sedition, treason, chaos, hate, and but-hurt because snowflakes have been incited into an angry mob over a candidate who never won their party's nomination and who should be in prison right now lost an election.....
Once AGAIN the NPV initiative was drafted in February of 2006. More that ten years before that election you fixate on. And before that obsession-election happened there were already 11 states that had debated it in their governments and passed it, and was partially approved in several more, including your Arkansases and your Oklahomas. And there's nothing you can do about that.
There ain't nothing you can do about the existence of linear time either. It ain't going anywhere. Fantasize about time travel all you like but it's permanent.
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
Who gets equal representation through the Electoral College? It isn't voters. Voters in some states have more weight to their votes than voters in other states in the EC. It isn't the states. Every state gets a different number of electors based on population.
In the EC, it is possible for a president to win the election by winning the electors of 11 states. That seems to indicate that the EC doesn't prevent concentrated groups from being able to impose their will on others (so far as presidential elections are concerned). I have read that it would be possible for a presidential candidate to win those 11 states by getting as little as 21% of the total votes cast in various state elections. Again, that seems to indicate that the EC doesn't prevent concentrated groups from deciding elections.
And finally, the current version of the Electoral College does not function the same way it did when the country was founded. This has been expounded upon a number of times in this thread. The original EC system had electors casting multiple votes, and the top 2 vote getters became president and vice president. Originally many states did not have winner-take-all electors; in fact, many states did not have any sort of elections to choose electors at all. So appealing to the intent of the founders may not be doing quite what you think it is.
>> ... the idea that the current system is designed to protect small states is just plain silly. It is not. In fact, the five smallest states have not received a general election campaign event in more than 20 years. Small-state interests routinely get ignored under the current system, in favor of the parochial interests of a few battleground states. It is obvious that a lack of small-state influence is a shortcoming of the system. National Popular Vote, when it takes effect, will ensure that a voter in Bismarck, North Dakota, for example, is as relevant as a voter in Boca Raton, Florida.
Those who claim that campaigns will simply focus on California in a national popular vote election are completely misguided. Remember, California will represent only 12 percent of the voting population in such a vote for president. Even in the worst years, Republicans earn four out of every 10 votes in California — without running earnest campaigns there. So the math discredits the argument that California will control presidential elections. It is a red herring, at best.
There are some who argue that a state such as Connecticut will lose its “voice” under a national popular vote for president. Quite the contrary, under the bill, all Connecticut voters will be counted in determining which presidential candidate received the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The votes of Connecticut Republicans will be added to the votes of other Republicans in other states, and similarly among Democrats. The president-elect will be the candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and D.C. Connecticut’s seven electoral votes will be cast for the national popular vote winner.
If those electoral votes were cast for a candidate who did not win the plurality inside Connecticut, it simply means that most Connecticut voters did not vote for the national popular vote winner. It would be clearly far worse to deny the presidency to the person supported by the most voters nationwide than to deny the seven persons filling temporary, honorary positions of presidential elector in Connecticut. << --- The Hill
Those who claim that campaigns will simply focus on California in a national popular vote election are completely misguided. Remember, California will represent only 12 percent of the voting population in such a vote for president. Even in the worst years, Republicans earn four out of every 10 votes in California — without running earnest campaigns there. So the math discredits the argument that California will control presidential elections. It is a red herring, at best.
There are some who argue that a state such as Connecticut will lose its “voice” under a national popular vote for president. Quite the contrary, under the bill, all Connecticut voters will be counted in determining which presidential candidate received the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The votes of Connecticut Republicans will be added to the votes of other Republicans in other states, and similarly among Democrats. The president-elect will be the candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states and D.C. Connecticut’s seven electoral votes will be cast for the national popular vote winner.
If those electoral votes were cast for a candidate who did not win the plurality inside Connecticut, it simply means that most Connecticut voters did not vote for the national popular vote winner. It would be clearly far worse to deny the presidency to the person supported by the most voters nationwide than to deny the seven persons filling temporary, honorary positions of presidential elector in Connecticut. << --- The Hill
Similar threads
- Locked
New Topics
-
Is the Guru Going All-In on Energy? Breaking Down the Mohnish Pabrai 13F for Q4 2025- Started by BellaJones
- Replies: 0
-
-
Zone1 Two hundred million horsemen riding on horses? Real or ROBOTS?- Started by DennisPTate
- Replies: 0
