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

LeeOnLido

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2018
Messages
4,582
Reaction score
598
Points
190
what the left wants to do is evidence that millions of illegal votes were casted in 2016. thats the only way they can win elections, does anyone actually believe that not one illegal alien voted in 2016?
 

kyzr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
14,029
Reaction score
3,969
Points
280
Location
The AL part of PA
The USSC is looking at the "electors" and state rights, not necessarily the electoral college.
1. Can electors be bound to the vote's decision? (i.e. no "faithless" EC voters)
2. Can states tie electoral votes to the national popular vote? (voids the state voters)
3. Can states use virtual electors, meaning no physical electors, just use the states' EC votes as voted on (Constitutional?)
4. Can states allocate EC votes per congressional district? (instead of winner take all)

It will be interesting to see how much flexibility states have regarding the EC.
 
Last edited:

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
4,987
Reaction score
522
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
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 edited:

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
4,987
Reaction score
522
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
I sure would like to see another Trump appointee on the Supreme Court soon ---- very soon.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
9,510
Reaction score
1,811
Points
150
The USSC is looking at the "electors" and state rights, not necessarily the electoral college.
1. Can electors be bound to the vote's decision? (no "faithless EC voters)
2. Can states tie electoral votes to the national popular vote? (voids the state voters)
3. Can states use virtual electors, meaning no physical electors, just use the states' EC votes as voted on (Constitutional?)
4. Can states allocate EC votes per congressional district? (instead of winner take all)

It will be interesting to see how much flexibility states have regarding the EC.
This is a great post. I think the constitution demand electors be appointed but precedent is on the side of allowing states to enforce any number of rules on those individuals since the constitution is silent on this.

However, original intent is for electors to be independent, so it’ll be interesting to see if we have originalists or strict textualists as majority.
 

Maxdeath

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2018
Messages
4,647
Reaction score
1,935
Points
385
Actually I believe that the state is bound to have their electoral votes by the will of its people. If it decides to go with the so called popular vote then it is negating the votes of its citizens.
A faithless electorate should not be allowed. That person has promised to cast a vote for whoever was voted for by the citizenry of the state. Their vote was counted as well as everyone else. Once they are chosen to vote in the electoral college the become an arm of the people. Their pledge, promise should mean more then their personal beliefs or feelings.
I have no problem with virtual virtual electors.
 

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
32,553
Reaction score
4,220
Points
1,140
I sure would like to see another Trump appointee on the Supreme Court soon ---- very soon.
I'd like to.impeach at least on of his appointees asap.
 

conserveguy877

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2015
Messages
4,682
Reaction score
513
Points
195

jknowgood

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
34,713
Reaction score
6,496
Points
1,130
Location
South carolina

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
4,987
Reaction score
522
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
Actually I believe that the state is bound to have their electoral votes by the will of its people. If it decides to go with the so called popular vote then it is negating the votes of its citizens.
Ummmmmmm……...the electoral college itself negates the votes of many citizens: everyone in Maryland outside the overwhelming Baltimore and Prince Georges County votes, for instance. However, I am satisfied to live with that as long as there are definite rules -- state or preferably federal -- on the electoral college. Some of them shouldn't just haul off and vote for a communist!!

A faithless electorate should not be allowed. That person has promised to cast a vote for whoever was voted for by the citizenry of the state. Their vote was counted as well as everyone else. Once they are chosen to vote in the electoral college the become an arm of the people. Their pledge, promise should mean more then their personal beliefs or feelings.
Well said. This definitely needs tightening up if there were TEN faithless electors last time. I don't like the potential for confusion and election-throwing here. Remember all the rotten leftists in November 1916 trying to convince people on the Electoral Collage to change their votes?? Apparently they succeeded in a larger number of cases than ever before. I think these faithless electors should be charged and tried in court and go to jail.
 

Seawytch

Information isnt Advocacy
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
39,250
Reaction score
5,582
Points
1,160
Location
Peaking out from the redwoods
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.
You think our entire nation will end if we become an actual democracy? Yeah, okay....
Having new York and California telling us how to govern. What could go wrong?
You know that isn't how it works, right? These 3 Common Arguments For Preserving the Electoral College Are All Wrong

Myth #2: Rural areas would get ignored
Since 2000, a popular argument for the electoral college made on conservative websites and talk radio is that without the Electoral College, candidates would spend all their time campaigning in big cities and would ignore low-population areas.

Other than this odd view of democracy, which advocates spending as much campaign time in areas where few people live as in areas where most Americans live, the argument is simply false. The Electoral College causes candidates to spend all their campaign time in cities in 10 or 12 states rather than in 30, 40 or 50 states.

Presidential candidates don’t campaign in rural areas no matter what system is used, simply because there are not a lot of votes to be gained in those areas.

Data from the 2016 campaign indicate that 53 percent of campaign events for Trump, Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine in the two months before the November election were in only four states: Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio. During that time, 87 percent of campaign visits by the four candidates were in 12 battleground states, and none of the four candidates ever went to 27 states, which includes almost all of rural America.

Even in the swing states where they do campaign, the candidates focus on urban areas where most voters live. In Pennsylvania, for example, 72 percent of Pennsylvania campaign visits by Clinton and Trump in the final two months of their campaigns were to the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh areas.

In Michigan, all eight campaign visits by Clinton and Trump in the final two months of their campaigns were to the Detroit and Grand Rapids areas, with neither candidate visiting the rural parts of the state.

The Electoral College does not create a national campaign inclusive of rural areas. In fact, it does just the opposite.
 

Johnlaw

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
5,878
Reaction score
1,694
Points
280
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.
The appeal is about faithless electors. For heaven’s sake, get a grip and stop with the hysterics. The case will decide whether electors have to choose the candidate that won the popular in vote in that state.

If the court decides that electors can vote for whomever they choose than a president will not be chosen by the electoral vote that any candidate receives from that state but by the individual elector of that state based on his own whim. 538 people can not determine the fate of the presidency. If that is you concern then you may be right as to the implications for the electoral college. If not, then I haven't a clue what your concern is.
 
Last edited:

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
94,269
Reaction score
28,283
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
Actually I believe that the state is bound to have their electoral votes by the will of its people. If it decides to go with the so called popular vote then it is negating the votes of its citizens.
Ummmmmmm……...the electoral college itself negates the votes of many citizens: everyone in Maryland outside the overwhelming Baltimore and Prince Georges County votes, for instance. However, I am satisfied to live with that as long as there are definite rules -- state or preferably federal -- on the electoral college. Some of them shouldn't just haul off and vote for a communist!!

A faithless electorate should not be allowed. That person has promised to cast a vote for whoever was voted for by the citizenry of the state. Their vote was counted as well as everyone else. Once they are chosen to vote in the electoral college the become an arm of the people. Their pledge, promise should mean more then their personal beliefs or feelings.
Well said. This definitely needs tightening up if there were TEN faithless electors last time. I don't like the potential for confusion and election-throwing here. Remember all the rotten leftists in November 1916 trying to convince people on the Electoral Collage to change their votes?? Apparently they succeeded in a larger number of cases than ever before. I think these faithless electors should be charged and tried in court and go to jail.


"Ummmmmmm……...the electoral college itself negates the votes of many citizens..."


But, so do the illegal aliens Hussein told to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."


When did you post about that?
 

jknowgood

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
34,713
Reaction score
6,496
Points
1,130
Location
South carolina
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.
You think our entire nation will end if we become an actual democracy? Yeah, okay....
Having new York and California telling us how to govern. What could go wrong?
You know that isn't how it works, right? These 3 Common Arguments For Preserving the Electoral College Are All Wrong

Myth #2: Rural areas would get ignored
Since 2000, a popular argument for the electoral college made on conservative websites and talk radio is that without the Electoral College, candidates would spend all their time campaigning in big cities and would ignore low-population areas.

Other than this odd view of democracy, which advocates spending as much campaign time in areas where few people live as in areas where most Americans live, the argument is simply false. The Electoral College causes candidates to spend all their campaign time in cities in 10 or 12 states rather than in 30, 40 or 50 states.

Presidential candidates don’t campaign in rural areas no matter what system is used, simply because there are not a lot of votes to be gained in those areas.

Data from the 2016 campaign indicate that 53 percent of campaign events for Trump, Hillary Clinton, Mike Pence and Tim Kaine in the two months before the November election were in only four states: Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Ohio. During that time, 87 percent of campaign visits by the four candidates were in 12 battleground states, and none of the four candidates ever went to 27 states, which includes almost all of rural America.

Even in the swing states where they do campaign, the candidates focus on urban areas where most voters live. In Pennsylvania, for example, 72 percent of Pennsylvania campaign visits by Clinton and Trump in the final two months of their campaigns were to the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh areas.

In Michigan, all eight campaign visits by Clinton and Trump in the final two months of their campaigns were to the Detroit and Grand Rapids areas, with neither candidate visiting the rural parts of the state.

The Electoral College does not create a national campaign inclusive of rural areas. In fact, it does just the opposite.
Why should two places decide who is president?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top