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

Missouri_Mike

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2012
Messages
15,894
Reaction score
4,056
Points
280
This isn’t just about electing presidents. It includes elimination of Constitutional rights as well. They would no longer need a super majority of states to alter or even delete rights. The 2nd amendment could be eliminated with a simple majority vote. The 1st would soon follow.
 

Seawytch

Information isnt Advocacy
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
39,261
Reaction score
5,590
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.
Why should two places decide who is president?
They wouldn't, that's a myth.
 
OP
Grampa Murked U

Grampa Murked U

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
80,008
Reaction score
17,455
Points
2,205
Location
Kansas City
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.
Nice strawman.

I have literally never seen anyone complain about that or the fact that candidates don't go into the woods/pastures to campaign.
 

jknowgood

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
34,904
Reaction score
6,656
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?
They wouldn't, that's a myth.
Turn them around and if they were conservative and vote conservative. Would you feel the same way?
 

petro

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
6,886
Reaction score
2,484
Points
350
Location
The cold north
. Can states allocate EC votes per congressional district? (instead of winner take all)
This is a good question.
In MN Hillary only won by 75K popular votes and took all 10 electoral votes for the state. Effectively eliminating the voices of rural districts that were fully red on the electoral map.
If the state allowed the vote to be split, Trump would have gotten at least half the electors in the state.
MN is not a liberal state as only a few populated counties speak for the entire state.450px-Minnesota_Presidential_Election_Results_2016.svg.png
My district 6 which includes the northern counties of the metro region extending to St. Cloud to the northwest 60 miles from the Twin Cities is republican along with much of the state. Yet in the eyes of the rest of the country the state is determined to be liberal, far from actual reality.
Even though the electoral college is supposed to protect small states from the tyranny of large states. Rules in MN use the tyranny of a large city population to override the voices of smaller communities.
 

Jitss617

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2019
Messages
32,969
Reaction score
5,266
Points
1,140
OP
Grampa Murked U

Grampa Murked U

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
80,008
Reaction score
17,455
Points
2,205
Location
Kansas City
. Can states allocate EC votes per congressional district? (instead of winner take all)
This is a good question.
In MN Hillary only won by 75K popular votes and took all 10 electoral votes for the state. Effectively eliminating the voices of rural districts that were fully red on the electoral map.
If the state allowed the vote to be split, Trump would have gotten at least half the electors in the state.
MN is not a liberal states as only a few populated counties speak for the entire state.View attachment 301262
My district 6 which includes the northern counties of the metro region extending to St. Cloud to the northwest 60 miles from the Twin Cities is republican along with much of the state. Yet in the eyes of the rest of the country the state is determined to be liberal, far from actual reality.
Even though the electoral college is supposed to protect small states from the tyranny of large states. Rules in MN use the tyranny of a large city population to override the voices of smaller communities.

Good video talking about just that.
 

Nostra

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
11,005
Reaction score
5,309
Points
380
I sure would like to see another Trump appointee on the Supreme Court soon ---- very soon.
Wouldn't it be fun if an opening came up now and Mitch put impeachment on hold to confirm a new Justice.:5_1_12024:
 

Seawytch

Information isnt Advocacy
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
39,261
Reaction score
5,590
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.
Nice strawman.

I have literally never seen anyone complain about that or the fact that candidates don't go into the woods/pastures to campaign.
It was an "argument" made in this thread, that only CA and NY would decide elections if there was no EC. It is a myth.
 

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
4,987
Reaction score
522
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
Turn them around and if they were conservative and vote conservative. Would you feel the same way?
Yeah. How about we don't destroy the Republic, people? This worked out poorly for Rome.
 

Seawytch

Information isnt Advocacy
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
39,261
Reaction score
5,590
Points
1,160
Location
Peaking out from the redwoods
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?
They wouldn't, that's a myth.
Turn them around and if they were conservative and vote conservative. Would you feel the same way?
Yes. You wouldn't though. If it was a Republican always losing the EC and winning the popular vote, you would switch on a dime....just like Trump did.

Donald Trump backs the Electoral College. He once opposed it.

Unlike you I believe in the concept of "one person, one vote".
 

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
4,987
Reaction score
522
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
It was an "argument" made in this thread, that only CA and NY would decide elections if there was no EC. It is a myth.
Of course they would! It was solely the wildly overwhelming California vote for Hillary (quite a lot of it illegal, I believe) that caused all this carry-on about banning the Electoral College in the first place. BY someone we might have hoped would know better, the losing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton!! She has sure not covered herself with glory since the election --- she has been leading this unconstitutional campaign to leave all the voting up to California and New York. I think that's pretty bad of her.
 

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.
Wouldn't it be fun if an opening came up now and Mitch put impeachment on hold to confirm a new Justice.
Your idea of fun may be a little hotter than mine...……….. :114:

My ideal is a quick acquittal (I want dismissal but I guess I won't get that) and then -- let's say someone RETIRES, to be nice -- and then by March we get a new (conservative) justice, and the rest of year is clear for what passes for normal politicking and everyone forgets about that. Hah! That would be so great.
 

jwoodie

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
14,135
Reaction score
2,798
Points
280
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.
#2 is clearly repugnant of the Constitution, which assigns the responsibility of each state to select its own electors. This is underscored by the provision that ultimate authority for determining the election of a President lies with the House of Representatives on a state-by-state vote.

#4 may be more problematic, since the manner of choosing electors for the Electoral College is determined by each state's legislature. State legislatures (and supreme courts) have great flexibility to draw (and gerrymander) congressional districts, so this method could be used to invalidate the popular votes of their citizens.
 

Seawytch

Information isnt Advocacy
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
39,261
Reaction score
5,590
Points
1,160
Location
Peaking out from the redwoods
It was an "argument" made in this thread, that only CA and NY would decide elections if there was no EC. It is a myth.
Of course they would! It was solely the wildly overwhelming California vote for Hillary (quite a lot of it illegal, I believe) that caused all this carry-on about banning the Electoral College in the first place. BY someone we might have hoped would know better, the losing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton!! She has sure not covered herself with glory since the election --- she has been leading this unconstitutional campaign to leave all the voting up to California and New York. I think that's pretty bad of her.
Another ridiculous myth...

FACT CHECK: Hillary Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely from California

It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead, but the logic of that assessment is somewhat flawed. One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump’s electoral vote victory “came entirely from Texas,” since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election. One could combine any number of states’ vote counts and exclude them from the aggregate, but doing so wouldn’t undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can’t sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn’t also have significant support from multiple other states. In this case, California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.4 million votes she received in other states.​

FACT CHECK: Trump Repeats Voter Fraud Claim About California
 

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
4,987
Reaction score
522
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
#4 may be more problematic, since the manner of choosing electors for the Electoral College is determined by each state's legislature. State legislatures (and supreme courts) have great flexibility to draw (and gerrymander) congressional districts, so this method could be used to invalidate the popular votes of their citizens.

I'd be okay with No. 3, virtual EC, simply because the original reason for the Electoral College was the distance, and no Internet/phones/etc. Electors had to literally get on a horse and assemble at the "College." That no longer pertains, so as long as the votes are not fiddled with, the actual electors could be dispensed with.

I like your explanation of No. 4, but I think I want that, at least for Maryland: most of the state counties were LANDSLIDE (60% or more) for Trump, but were overwhelmed by the black vote in Baltimore and Prince Georges Counties and winner took all. I'd like to hear arguments on this particular issue. I don't see how gerrymandering could be a problem in Maryland: currently, conservatives simply get their votes cancelled wholesale.
 
Last edited:
OP
Grampa Murked U

Grampa Murked U

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
80,008
Reaction score
17,455
Points
2,205
Location
Kansas City
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.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
9,705
Reaction score
1,874
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.
#2 is clearly repugnant of the Constitution, which assigns the responsibility of each state to select its own electors. This is underscored by the provision that ultimate authority for determining the election of a President lies with the House of Representatives on a state-by-state vote.

#4 may be more problematic, since the manner of choosing electors for the Electoral College is determined by each state's legislature. State legislatures (and supreme courts) have great flexibility to draw (and gerrymander) congressional districts, so this method could be used to invalidate the popular votes of their citizens.
Invalidating the popular vote of their citizens is irrelevant. The founders had no intention to have electors be bound to the popular vote of citizens.
 

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
4,987
Reaction score
522
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
FACT CHECK: Hillary Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely from California

It’s true that if California’s vote totals were entirely removed from the equation then Hillary Clinton would lose her popular vote lead...

That. This is the point: California went 4 1/2 million for Hillary, but her plurality in the national popular vote was only 3 million. Had that vote not been for her (with all the illegals voting), Hillary STILL would have won California. So the extras did not matter: her 3-million claim that we should abort the Electoral College wholly comes from California. The rest of that argument was specious.

Conservatives: we better fight for this, or we WILL lose to the big cities and the illegals ---- forever. This country will turn communist the next election after they kill the Electoral College.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top