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

[DOTR]

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?

Do you see that you are dealing with the uneducated who never heard of federalism and do not know what a federal republic is? A Hollywood celebrity told them it was slaveholders....but what’s amazing is how tenaciously they hold to it. I think it’s because it’s what they wanted to believe in the first place.

 

[DOTR]

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.

But not constitutional.

 

[Circe]

I didn't read the OP ---

But I take the Wall Street Journal, so here is some of the piece:

Supreme Court to Look at Electoral College Rules
High court to consider whether presidential electors can vote for candidate not chosen in state popular vote

The high court said it would hear a pair of cases from Colorado and Washington where state law requires presidential electors to vote for the presidential candidate that won the statewide vote.

The court’s eventual decision could have ramifications for razor-thin presidential elections if enough members of the Electoral College seek to break rank and cast ballots that depart from the will of the voters.

In the 2016 election, one Colorado elector was replaced when he cast a vote for Ohio Republican John Kasich instead of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee who carried the state.

A divided federal appeals court sided with the faithless elector last year, ruling Colorado violated the Constitution by nullifying his vote. That court said that while a state has the power to pick its electors, those electors have the discretion to vote for whom they wish.

The ruling conflicts with a decision in the Washington case, where its state Supreme Court last year ruled that faithless electors in 2016 could be fined for voting for Colin Powell instead of Mrs. Clinton, the winner of the state’s popular vote.
**************************************************************
To summarize the rest, a decision is expected in June, time enough to resolve the issue for the 2020 election. (GOOD!)
Thirty states now require electors to vote in accordance with the majority popular vote in that state. Ten electors bolted in 2016. The piece does not say whether this was the most ever. Presumably it was, since the event has provoked a USSC case.

"The Electoral College was conceived by the framers to ensure that the president was selected by an elite and dispassionate assembly of leaders rather than a popular rabble....
In practice, states came to direct their electors to vote consistent with the statewide popular vote rather than make an independent judgment regarding the candidates...
The system effectively gives less-populated states disproportionate power..."

This has normally not been controversial because in nearly every election, the electoral vote agreed with the popular vote. Not in the Trump election, or two others, however (George W. Bush and Benjamin Harrison).

"15 states and the District of Columbia have enacted measures that would award their electoral votes to the nationwide popular vote winner once states holding an Electoral College majority adopt similar measures...
The Supreme Court’s ruling could affect the viability of any such plan."

I should hope so!! I would hate that.

I recommend this article in its entirety. The Wall Street Journal is the best paper in the country, guys, and it doesn't support Trump (nearly enough to suit me) wholeheartedly, if that's an issue.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Do you see that you are dealing with the uneducated who never heard of federalism and do not know what a federal republic is? A Hollywood celebrity told them it was slaveholders....but what’s amazing is how tenaciously they hold to it. I think it’s because it’s what they wanted to believe in the first place.

Beyond that, “racism” has become a standard lie for those on the left wrong to use against conservative positions that they cannot refute through any honest, relevant argument. When you hear a LIbEral call a position “racist”, that has nothing to do with race, then you know that the LIbEral has lost the argument, and that the LIbEral himself knows that he's lost the argument, and is making a desperate, futile, last-chance grasp to try to save a position that he know he cannot defend honestly. It's almost like a lesser version of Godwin's Law with it's most popular corollary.

For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that, when a Hitler comparison* is made, the thread is finished and whoever made the comparison loses whatever debate is in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

* Or, in this case, the gratuitous cry of “racism”.​

 

[Pogo]

That's it. Three reasons that are all obsolete.

I notice you don't cite the reason everyone worries about and believes is the true reason: so the cities can't overwhelm the country voters and do exactly what they are trying to do now: grab guns and institute socialism and truly weird perversions in the place of common culture. I don't think the nation will stay as one unit once the "elites" get away with that, and I would join the secession, as would many here.

It would end peace and prosperity and progress, but I think we'd do it all the same, and that's why -- not the other things you cite -- this is IMO an important issue.

I didn't cite that because it's not a real thing. It's a contemporary mythology and one not based on any kind of logic. Again, one person, one vote, still holds.

In the eigthteenth century few of the population lived in cities anyway. Most people were farming.

 

[eagle7_31]

That's it. Three reasons that are all obsolete.

I notice you don't cite the reason everyone worries about and believes is the true reason: so the cities can't overwhelm the country voters and do exactly what they are trying to do now: grab guns and institute socialism and truly weird perversions in the place of common culture. I don't think the nation will stay as one unit once the "elites" get away with that, and I would join the secession, as would many here.

It would end peace and prosperity and progress, but I think we'd do it all the same, and that's why -- not the other things you cite -- this is IMO an important issue.

I didn't cite that because it's not a real thing. It's a contemporary mythology and one not based on any kind of logic. Again, one person, one vote, still holds.

In the eigthteenth century few of the population lived in cities anyway. Most people were farming.

If the 2016 results were flipped Clinton losing the popular vote and winning the EC, the left would not be uttering a word about it.

 

[Pogo]

​

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.

Actually --- considering the Constitution makes no provision or suggestion that Electors must follow a vote ... indeed makes no requirement for a vote AT ALL ----- there's no Constitutional basis to expect them to follow said vote. All the Constitution says is that the state shall designate Electors and those Electors shall vote.

As I see it the "faithless elector" question then comes down to whether a state appointing an Elector and then dictating to that Elector how they "must" vote ---- constitutes that state designating an Elector at all. Doesn't look like it to me.

 

[Pogo]

That's it. Three reasons that are all obsolete.

I notice you don't cite the reason everyone worries about and believes is the true reason: so the cities can't overwhelm the country voters and do exactly what they are trying to do now: grab guns and institute socialism and truly weird perversions in the place of common culture. I don't think the nation will stay as one unit once the "elites" get away with that, and I would join the secession, as would many here.

It would end peace and prosperity and progress, but I think we'd do it all the same, and that's why -- not the other things you cite -- this is IMO an important issue.

I didn't cite that because it's not a real thing. It's a contemporary mythology and one not based on any kind of logic. Again, one person, one vote, still holds.

In the eigthteenth century few of the population lived in cities anyway. Most people were farming.

If the 2016 results were flipped Clinton losing the popular vote and winning the EC, the left would not be uttering a word about it.

I don't know, or care, what "the left" or "the right" or "the middle" would utter, as if entire blocs of abstract concepts could "utter" anything at all in unison anyway. And you don't know either.

This is a Constitutional question. It has nothing to do with anything "left", "right", "center", "north", "south", "east" or "west". It's about how the system works.

 

[Pogo]

Now since the OP Grampa Murked U abandoned his own thread and left nothing but a pay site for reference, here's an article outlining what's going on:

>> January 17 -- The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases challenging state attempt s to penalize Electoral College delegates who fail to vote for the presidential candidate they were pledged to support.

Electoral College delegates are selected by each party, and under state laws, they are pledged to cast their ballots for the candidate who carries the popular vote. But from 1796 to 2016, over 20 presidential elections, 150 electors have not abided by that pledge, according to FairVote, a nonpartisan voting rights advocacy group.

In fact, 2016 marked the largest number of faithless voters — a total of seven who cast votes for candidates they were not pledged to support.

[Some] States have tried to prevent such "faithless elector" votes by enacting laws to remove them or fine them or both.

Now, just as the presidential campaign is heating up, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear challenges to such state laws in Washington and Colorado.

... However the high court rules, the cases are likely to focus national attention on the shortcomings and uncertainties of the Electoral College in an era when two presidential candidates have lost the popular vote but won the presidential election in the Electoral College. << --- NPR​

Washington and Colorado were two of the states where such electors voted at variance with their so-called "pledge". Obviously SOME states have such laws and some do not.

The article says electors are "selected by each party" but obviously that wasn't the case originally as the country, and its first POTUS, had no political parties. Not sure how/when that came about but it would be interesting to find out, especially since the Constitution specifically says the states select electors, not political parties.

 

[JustAGuy1]

That's it. Three reasons that are all obsolete.

I notice you don't cite the reason everyone worries about and believes is the true reason: so the cities can't overwhelm the country voters and do exactly what they are trying to do now: grab guns and institute socialism and truly weird perversions in the place of common culture. I don't think the nation will stay as one unit once the "elites" get away with that, and I would join the secession, as would many here.

It would end peace and prosperity and progress, but I think we'd do it all the same, and that's why -- not the other things you cite -- this is IMO an important issue.

I didn't cite that because it's not a real thing. It's a contemporary mythology and one not based on any kind of logic. Again, one person, one vote, still holds.

In the eigthteenth century few of the population lived in cities anyway. Most people were farming.

Only to whiny children who don't like the rules because they are blocked from getting their way.
Yes, that's you.

 

[Pogo]

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.?

You don't have the foggiest clue in the world what the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise was for while the adults are talking, do ya short bus.

Pop quiz: what state were four of the first five POTUSes from? And how did that happen?

SEE ya........

 

[ThisIsMe]

Hillary won the popular vote for one reason. Winner take all states dominated by the left causes conservatives to sit out. If I lived in California I wouldn't bother to vote either.

Hmm, that's actually a very good point. How many places around the country are like that, where people who know their state will go the opposite of what they want, so they dont even show up.

However, in a way, that's actually an argument FOR national popular vote isnt it? Or at least a reason to get away from winner take all. If WTA were dispensed with, how many more voters would that activate, if they knew that maybe their vote would actually matter.

I used to be in favor of the national vote, because I thought that if more people wanted one candidate, then that would only be fair. I did change my mind, however, when someone here on usmb explained that, with a national vote, it removes the voice of people in smaller states. Youd have high population areas being able to sway elections, and have an impact on what goes on in other states.

I agree, to be able to have most high population areas, which are generally democrat, be able to out negate the voice of people in lower population rural areas isnt right. Why should ny, la, san Antonio, etc be able to win an election which could affect residents in Montana, kansas, and missouri?

Each state should have their own voice. Also, wouldnt most people be upset if they knew their state voted overwhelmingly for ine candidate, but their new electoral vote rules forced them to give their votes to the other candidate?

 

[ThisIsMe]

I'm thinking percentage division. Would that not be fair? It wouldnt have the effect that the national vote would have, but it would give more accurate representation to people, right?

If if a state goes 48%/52%, then however many ec votes that state has, then that is how many is awarded to each side.

So, if california goes 70% dem, 30% repub, then the dem candidate would get 38 votes, the repub would get 16.

This way, population concerns are still kept in tact, so higher population states would still get more ec votes, but the votes are distributed based on actual representation of what the people want.

 

[MisterBeale]

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....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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....

Not real up on what the founders uncovered regarding a democracy ?

Go do a little reading.

 

[Dr Grump]

Fantastic. About time this archaic system got kicked to the kerb..

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm thinking percentage division. Would that not be fair? It wouldnt have the effect that the national vote would have, but it would give more accurate representation to people, right?

If if a state goes 48%/52%, then however many ec votes that state has, then that is how many is awarded to each side.

So, if california goes 70% dem, 30% repub, then the dem candidate would get 38 votes, the repub would get 16.

This way, population concerns are still kept in tact, so higher population states would still get more ec votes, but the votes are distributed based on actual representation of what the people want.

Been touting this on this board ad infinitum

 

[Dr Grump]

Hillary won the popular vote for one reason. Winner take all states dominated by the left causes conservatives to sit out. If I lived in California I wouldn't bother to vote either.

Same if you're a Dem living in Texas.

 

[Pogo]

Hillary won the popular vote for one reason. Winner take all states dominated by the left causes conservatives to sit out. If I lived in California I wouldn't bother to vote either.

Hmm, that's actually a very good point. How many places around the country are like that, where people who know their state will go the opposite of what they want, so they dont even show up.

However, in a way, that's actually an argument FOR national popular vote isnt it? Or at least a reason to get away from winner take all. If WTA were dispensed with, how many more voters would that activate, if they knew that maybe their vote would actually matter.

This has been examined here and other threads on the same topic. There are untold swaths of voters in "locked" states who don't bother to show up because they know their candidate isn't going to win anyway. There are other untold swaths of voters --- we can't say it's a similar number since we don't know --- who also don't bother to show up in those same "locked" states, for the opposite reason -- "my guy is going to win this state, he doesn't need my help".

These, along with everybody whose vote is tossed in the proverbial wastebasket, which according to the numbers works out to most voters, keep our national turnout rate down to a ridiculous level (in 2016 it was 55% which for us is typical, for anywhere else in the voting world would be a national embarrassment). So we don't know how many more "red" voters would show up in, say, California if they knew their vote would actually go somewhere, nor do we know how many more "blue" voters would show up in the same state because now the "red" votes count. Multiply that by every state and you have millions of voters enfranchised who had no vote before. You also have an election result unlike any previously seen, since the parameters have changed.

I used to be in favor of the national vote, because I thought that if more people wanted one candidate, then that would only be fair. I did change my mind, however, when someone here on usmb explained that, with a national vote, it removes the voice of people in smaller states. Youd have high population areas being able to sway elections, and have an impact on what goes on in other states.

It does not at all 'remove the voice of people in smaller states'. A voter in Rhode Island gets one (1) vote, same as a voter in Texas. One (1) equals one (1). Doesn't get any simpler. If two people vote for X and one person votes for Y, then X wins, because 2 > 1 .. regardless where they live or what 'party' they vote for.

I agree, to be able to have most high population areas, which are generally democrat, be able to out negate the voice of people in lower population rural areas isnt right. Why should ny, la, san Antonio, etc be able to win an election which could affect residents in Montana, kansas, and missouri?

Here you've just revealed that your agenda: "which are generally democrat [sic]". Basically you're saying why should elections settle on a party that Numero Uno doesn't want? Doesn't work that way. You get one vote, just like everybody else. Even in states that begin with an uppercase letter. This argument is the same as saying "let's only count the votes of the coastlines and disenfranchise flyover country" just because you don't like the way flyovers vote.
.

Each state should have their own voice. Also, wouldnt most people be upset if they knew their state voted overwhelmingly for ine candidate, but their new electoral vote rules forced them to give their votes to the other candidate?

See post 161. There's thirteen states where it already happened, plus two districts.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Hillary won the popular vote for one reason. Winner take all states dominated by the left causes conservatives to sit out. If I lived in California I wouldn't bother to vote either.

Same if you're a Dem living in Texas.

Probably yes