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

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
9,705
Reaction score
1,874
Points
150
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.
Neither did the founders have any intention to have electoral votes distributed through Congressional districts. The two Constitutional options are direct popular vote within a State or a vote by its legislature. Invalidating the popular vote for President is not one of them.
Not sure I get what you mean. The founders had no intention to have individuals vote for any president. Rather, they only intended the people to vote for electors to go to the capital and vote based on their own knowledge and wisdom.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,299
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
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.
SCOTUS has no power over the constitution the are sworn to uphold it. The one and only way to end the electoral college is by constitutional amendment. Of course the chances of that happing are on par with a snowball's chance in hell.
Nothing in the OP suggests the SCOTUS is considering "ending the electoral college". That's why the word "rules" is in there. It's the object of the sentence. It's what the SCOTUS is actually considering --- :th_avatar107484_8:
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,299
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
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.
Neither did the founders have any intention to have electoral votes distributed through Congressional districts. The two Constitutional options are direct popular vote within a State or a vote by its legislature. Invalidating the popular vote for President is not one of them.
Not sure I get what you mean. The founders had no intention to have individuals vote for any president. Rather, they only intended the people to vote for electors to go to the capital and vote based on their own knowledge and wisdom.
Not even that --- electors, Constitutionally, are chosen any way the state wants to, not necessarily by ballots. They could pick random names out of the phone book, whatever.
 

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
4,987
Reaction score
522
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
Of course the proverbial elephant in the room is that another reason for the EC as it was set up was Slave Power, which also no longer exists.
Which is why the 3/5 of a man thing was set up for representation. The North felt the South would get way too much power counting the slaves. But it does still exist: now it's gone the opposite way: the South (and Midwest) feel the North and Coasts get way too much power counting the...……..well. Cities. Which the blacks took over in the last century and now form overwhelming voting blocs. Boy, we sure got ourselves in a pickle with that Peculiar Institution.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,299
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
NONE of them are even required to hold an election at all;
I love this point.....

number two, lumping all a state's vote into one candidate ***ALREADY*** negates the votes of everybody who voted for somebody else, even if most of that state did (again, see Michigan/Pennsylvania/Wisconsin/Virginia/Florida/Utah etc 2016);
And Maryland, My Maryland, as the song goes, and every single other state in the union. Because with the possible exception of some Southern states before the Civil War, there will always be some variation in voting; that's why we have votes. The trick is to disenfranchise as few voters as possible: I want the electors representing congressional districts. That would be more fair than the state-by-state system now.
Agree. At present only Maine and Nebraska do that, two states with precious few Congressional districts. It would at least make inroads to not dumping so many votes into the crapper.

My state for instance gets 15 EVs. In 2016 the vote was something like 49% red, 48% blue, yet 100% of our votes went to the red one even though most NC voters chose not-red. Would have made more mathematical sense to send 8 red electoral votes and 7 blue ones, or maybe 7/6/1/1. But as it was literally most of the state's votes were just ignored.
 

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
4,987
Reaction score
522
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
Not even that --- electors, Constitutionally, are chosen any way the state wants to, not necessarily by ballots. They could pick random names out of the phone book, whatever.
Pogo, you are absolutely terrifying me. (Probably a good thing.) So, then what do you think of this "Pact" business, wherein states pledge to go with the popular vote even if their state went for the other candidate??

That one looks like an end run around the Constitution in favor of a popular vote. But I understand SEVERAL states are already in such an unholy pact.
 

task0778

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
5,361
Reaction score
1,614
Points
360
Location
Texas hill country
They wanted us to vote for electors. It was a degree of separation from the actual decision making process that they thought would insulate the presidency from falling into a populist who wasn’t really good for the country.
This is a first class explanation. (I think I mean I understood it.) Okaaaaaa….y. Conservatives, he's saying we could have a problem here. That a "constitutionalist" decision by the U.S. Supreme Court would ALLOW faithless electors. Even next election...……….that would not be good for Trump.
I am not so sure about that in the next election Trump would be victimized by a faithless elector, it could go the other way. Say an elector from one of those 15 or so states that signed the pact to give their votes to the national popular vote winner decides not to do that if his/her state voted for someone else. In this case, say the Dem nominee wins the national vote but one of those 15 states actually went for Trump. I can see an elector from that state voting for Trump in defiance of the pact.

BTW, In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state can require an elector to abide by the popular vote winner in that state, but said nothing what the state can do about it if they don't. That's mostly what the current SCOTUS case is all about. The constitutionality of the pact is not under review. Yet.
 

kyzr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
14,092
Reaction score
4,074
Points
280
Location
The AL part of PA
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.
SCOTUS has no power over the constitution the are sworn to uphold it. The one and only way to end the electoral college is by constitutional amendment. Of course the chances of that happening are on par with a snowball's chance in hell.
The SCOTUS has the power of "interpretation" of the Constitution.
If someone wants to change their interpretation, that would take an Amendment, good luck with that.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,299
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Of course the proverbial elephant in the room is that another reason for the EC as it was set up was Slave Power, which also no longer exists.
Which is why the 3/5 of a man thing was set up for representation. The North felt the South would get way too much power counting the slaves. But it does still exist: now it's gone the opposite way: the South (and Midwest) feel the North and Coasts get way too much power counting the...……..well. Cities. Which the blacks took over in the last century and now form overwhelming voting blocs. Boy, we sure got ourselves in a pickle with that Peculiar Institution.
Not sure I'm comfortable with trying to equate Slavery and the Three-Fifths Compromise, where slaves were counted as 60% of a person while getting 0% of the vote --- with "the North and Coasts" where none of that takes place.

Of course, introduced from the opposite side, the South felt they'd have too little power without counting slaves, and that infamous Compromise was indulged to make it possible for there to be a United States at all, so that's an illustration of how divisive Slavery was from the beginning.

They never stop to explain to us in grammar school how it came to be that four of the first five Presidents and 8 of the first 9 presidential administration terms, all came from Virginia.
 

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
4,987
Reaction score
522
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
Actually I'm only aware of two Democratic conventions that year, the first in Charleston that had to be suspended and the second one resuming later in Baltimore. Are you counting the expulsion of the Southern delegates at the latter site as a third convention or did I miss one?
Yes! The expulsion, and then those delegates went to another site and had their own convention! Boy, people sure knew how to have fun in those days. God forbid we have so much fun as that anytime soon.

The Whigs had already collapsed largely due to their inability to come to an agreement on what stance to take on Slavery, which opened the door for the Republicans, but an offshoot of the Whigs (Constitutional Unionists) did run a significant showing in 1860; The CUs were for keeping the union intact while also keeping Slavery from spreading; its candidate John Bell won his home state of Tennessee, Lincoln's and Breckinridge's home state of Kentucky, and Virginia -- all "border" states. Another "border" state, Missouri, was the only one the Democrat Douglas won although he did get a split EV from New Jersey which split between Lincoln and Douglas, so at least that state wasn't doing WTA at the time.
Wonderful details. I actually knew the Whigs and Republicans switched around --- I'm going to say the previous election, 1856, IIRC, but it was part of the whole soup even later, as the Constitutional Unionists showed in 1860. We have a (rather long-running) county newspaper north of here still named the Cecil County Whig.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,299
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Not even that --- electors, Constitutionally, are chosen any way the state wants to, not necessarily by ballots. They could pick random names out of the phone book, whatever.
Pogo, you are absolutely terrifying me. (Probably a good thing.) So, then what do you think of this "Pact" business, wherein states pledge to go with the popular vote even if their state went for the other candidate??

That one looks like an end run around the Constitution in favor of a popular vote. But I understand SEVERAL states are already in such an unholy pact.
BOO! :funnyface:

As I understand the NPV compact would still require each participating state to dictate how their Electors must vote, regardless of conscience. That would mean how the SCOTUS chooses to sort out the question of compelling EVs is absolutely crucial, because if it says states can't do that, then the NPV falls apart.

Of course by the same token the so-called "faithless electors" then also get free rein to vote as they choose so it's a mixed bag.
 

jwoodie

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
14,135
Reaction score
2,798
Points
280
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.
Neither did the founders have any intention to have electoral votes distributed through Congressional districts. The two Constitutional options are direct popular vote within a State or a vote by its legislature. Invalidating the popular vote for President is not one of them.
There are no such "two Constitutional optiojns". You just optioned to pull that out of your ass. What the ACTUAL Constitution says is that each state chooses its electors "in such Manner as the State may direct" and says *NOTHING* about how they must direct it.
Do you deliberately misconstrue what I write or are you just too stupid to understand it? I did not say that the Constitution specifies two options for each state to choose its electors; I said that there were two options that were Constitutional.

Providing for a direct popular vote but then invalidating the results through Congressional District manipulations violates federal voting rights. In contrast, awarding Electoral votes on a proportional basis does not. We will have to see with which of us the Supreme Court agrees.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,299
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Actually I'm only aware of two Democratic conventions that year, the first in Charleston that had to be suspended and the second one resuming later in Baltimore. Are you counting the expulsion of the Southern delegates at the latter site as a third convention or did I miss one?
Yes! The expulsion, and then those delegates went to another site and had their own convention! Boy, people sure knew how to have fun in those days. God forbid we have so much fun as that anytime soon.

The Whigs had already collapsed largely due to their inability to come to an agreement on what stance to take on Slavery, which opened the door for the Republicans, but an offshoot of the Whigs (Constitutional Unionists) did run a significant showing in 1860; The CUs were for keeping the union intact while also keeping Slavery from spreading; its candidate John Bell won his home state of Tennessee, Lincoln's and Breckinridge's home state of Kentucky, and Virginia -- all "border" states. Another "border" state, Missouri, was the only one the Democrat Douglas won although he did get a split EV from New Jersey which split between Lincoln and Douglas, so at least that state wasn't doing WTA at the time.
Wonderful details. I actually knew the Whigs and Republicans switched around --- I'm going to say the previous election, 1856, IIRC, but it was part of the whole soup even later, as the Constitutional Unionists showed in 1860.
Ah I see, you're counting the Breckinridge convention in --- what was it, Birmingham?

I must say it's refreshing to converse with one who knows what they're talking about historically :thup:

The brand-spankin-new Republican Party of 1854 was largely, though not solely, populated by those Whigs who were also abolitionists. Lincoln himself for one. The rest hung on for a while, or became Democrats, or formed the Constitutional Unionists, or gave up politics. The Whigs had been the Big Gummint party of the time while the Democrats had been the 'states rights' people. That's why Buchanan couldn't/didn't do more to address the coming north-south schism... he didn't believe a POTUS had the authority. Lincoln brought a Whiggier view to that.


We have a (rather long-running) county newspaper north of here still named the Cecil County Whig.
Over yonder mountain we've got businesses such as banks named after the "State of Franklin", which is what East Tennessee tried to become when it petitioned to be its own state, naming itself after Ben Franklin to curry favor (it didn't work).
 

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
4,987
Reaction score
522
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
Of course, introduced from the opposite side, the South felt they'd have too little power without counting slaves, and that infamous Compromise was indulged to make it possible for there to be a United States at all, so that's an illustration of how divisive Slavery was from the beginning.
Yes, well said. My point being that the descendants of those same slaves have now overwhelmed cities and present the exact opposite problem: that the black cities now overwhelm the white country citizens' votes and this is viewed as a big problem needing preservation of the Electoral College, lest the whole country be basically ruled by black votes from the large cities. And talk about secession ---- THAT would result in secession PDQ, IMO.

They never stop to explain to us in grammar school how it came to be that four of the first five Presidents and 8 of the first 9 presidential administration terms, all came from Virginia.
You imply it's explainable? It's a mystery to me. However ---- Virginia preserves to this day certain ...qualities that, watching the news now, makes me feel sure the phone lines are BUZZING between Washington and Virginia with DC pols asking Virginia pols if they won't please wait to start yet another national insurrection at least until the next election, please?

John Brown's Body lies a-mouldering in the ground.....and who will raid Harper's Ferry this time? The issue will not be abolition: it will be gun-grabbing.
 

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
4,987
Reaction score
522
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
Agree. At present only Maine and Nebraska do that, two states with precious few Congressional districts. It would at least make inroads to not dumping so many votes into the crapper.

My state for instance gets 15 EVs. In 2016 the vote was something like 49% red, 48% blue, yet 100% of our votes went to the red one even though most NC voters chose not-red. Would have made more mathematical sense to send 8 red electoral votes and 7 blue ones, or maybe 7/6/1/1. But as it was literally most of the state's votes were just ignored.
It is probably a good sign for electoral college voting by congressional district that both you and I favor that solution. Since we seem to be more or less on different sides in the politics.
 

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
4,987
Reaction score
522
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
Over yonder mountain we've got businesses such as banks named after the "State of Franklin", which is what East Tennessee tried to become when it petitioned to be its own state, naming itself after Ben Franklin to curry favor (it didn't work).
I was raised in East Tennessee; my daughter is in your state. There was a movie about the State of Franklin, I think. I lived there so long ago that Davy Crockett wasn't even born in Morristown, Tennessee, when I lived there...………...hmmmm. Makes one wonder if local pols always tell the truth about the history.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,299
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Of course, introduced from the opposite side, the South felt they'd have too little power without counting slaves, and that infamous Compromise was indulged to make it possible for there to be a United States at all, so that's an illustration of how divisive Slavery was from the beginning.
Yes, well said. My point being that the descendants of those same slaves have now overwhelmed cities and present the exact opposite problem: that the black cities now overwhelm the white country citizens' votes and this is viewed as a big problem needing preservation of the Electoral College, lest the whole country be basically ruled by black votes from the large cities. And talk about secession ---- THAT would result in secession PDQ, IMO.
Hard to see "overwhelming" by a segment that represents, what, 10-12% of the population?


They never stop to explain to us in grammar school how it came to be that four of the first five Presidents and 8 of the first 9 presidential administration terms, all came from Virginia.
You imply it's explainable? It's a mystery to me. However ---- Virginia preserves to this day certain ...qualities that, watching the news now, makes me feel sure the phone lines are BUZZING between Washington and Virginia with DC pols asking Virginia pols if they won't please wait to start yet another national insurrection at least until the next election, please?

John Brown's Body lies a-mouldering in the ground.....and who will raid Harper's Ferry this time? The issue will not be abolition: it will be gun-grabbing.
It's eminently explainable once you grok what the aforementioned "Three-Fifths Compromise" and "Slave Power" were all about. Virginia was the largest most electorally-powerful state at the time, directly because of that setup. It was the big winner. Statistically we should have had at most ONE from Virginia or any other state. Four out of five, all with two terms? There's sump'm behind that -- the Slave Power Electrical College.

I'm not aware of current "national insurrections" in Virginia though, even though both your state and mine border it.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,299
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Over yonder mountain we've got businesses such as banks named after the "State of Franklin", which is what East Tennessee tried to become when it petitioned to be its own state, naming itself after Ben Franklin to curry favor (it didn't work).
I was raised in East Tennessee; my daughter is in your state. There was a movie about the State of Franklin, I think. I lived there so long ago that Davy Crockett wasn't even born in Morristown, Tennessee, when I lived there...………...hmmmm. Makes one wonder if local pols always tell the truth about the history.
I'd go with a "Never" on that last quesiton. :)
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,299
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Agree. At present only Maine and Nebraska do that, two states with precious few Congressional districts. It would at least make inroads to not dumping so many votes into the crapper.

My state for instance gets 15 EVs. In 2016 the vote was something like 49% red, 48% blue, yet 100% of our votes went to the red one even though most NC voters chose not-red. Would have made more mathematical sense to send 8 red electoral votes and 7 blue ones, or maybe 7/6/1/1. But as it was literally most of the state's votes were just ignored.
It is probably a good sign for electoral college voting by congressional district that both you and I favor that solution. Since we seem to be more or less on different sides in the politics.
Ah, I don't even remember. I take each issue on its own, and when your point makes sense, it makes sense. It's always a good thing to listen to one another though, no doubt.
 

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
4,987
Reaction score
522
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
It's eminently explainable once you grok what the aforementioned "Three-Fifths Compromise" and "Slave Power" were all about. Virginia was the largest most electorally-powerful state at the time, directly because of that setup. It was the big winner. Statistically we should have had at most ONE from Virginia or any other state. Four out of five, all with two terms? There's sump'm behind that -- the Slave Power Electrical College.
No.....they definitely did not explain any of that in my elementary school. :) We always called it The War Between the States and the cause was whether states had the right to leave the Union. I gather that this as the cause is controversial today.

I'm not aware of current "national insurrections" in Virginia though, even though both your state and mine border it.
Not this week.

I think these things take awhile to build up: namely, between ten and fifteen years. Like WWI, which in 1900 everyone knew was coming, but ---- friction slows things down. Let's see: 2016 is my Date of Truth --- so I'd say around 2030, bust-up.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top