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

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
30,328
Reaction score
2,641
Points
1,140
They could use some help in The House since the past 2 years have been a dismal failure for them.

Maybe you can send Pelosi a Bribe to get you a job.

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 don’t think this is worth debate? The EC was set up a long time ago and our society has evolved tremendously since then. What was a smart system then may not be smart now. Either way, why do you feel it’s a threat to our great experiment?
OP seems to have vanished from his own debate.

Course I'm sure he's busy watching his football team. But that does tell us which is the more important.
Im doing both while also walking around and chewing gum. How do you like them apples?!
I’m flattered that you think I’d be a good leader tree, but I’m just fine sitting with the peanut gallery
 

The Original Tree

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
27,666
Reaction score
5,173
Points
290
Location
OHIO
You wouldn’t be a leader. You’d be a traitor and usurper just like everyone in The Democrat Party has been bent to be, Bent For Evil.
They could use some help in The House since the past 2 years have been a dismal failure for them.

Maybe you can send Pelosi a Bribe to get you a job.

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 don’t think this is worth debate? The EC was set up a long time ago and our society has evolved tremendously since then. What was a smart system then may not be smart now. Either way, why do you feel it’s a threat to our great experiment?
OP seems to have vanished from his own debate.

Course I'm sure he's busy watching his football team. But that does tell us which is the more important.
Im doing both while also walking around and chewing gum. How do you like them apples?!
I’m flattered that you think I’d be a good leader tree, but I’m just fine sitting with the peanut gallery
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
30,328
Reaction score
2,641
Points
1,140
You wouldn’t be a leader. You’d be a traitor and usurper just like everyone in The Democrat Party has been bent to be, Bent For Evil.
They could use some help in The House since the past 2 years have been a dismal failure for them.

Maybe you can send Pelosi a Bribe to get you a job.

You don’t think this is worth debate? The EC was set up a long time ago and our society has evolved tremendously since then. What was a smart system then may not be smart now. Either way, why do you feel it’s a threat to our great experiment?
OP seems to have vanished from his own debate.

Course I'm sure he's busy watching his football team. But that does tell us which is the more important.
Im doing both while also walking around and chewing gum. How do you like them apples?!
I’m flattered that you think I’d be a good leader tree, but I’m just fine sitting with the peanut gallery
Oh, then why did you want me to go get a job in Congress? You’re a confusing character
 

BrokeLoser

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
19,985
Reaction score
4,049
Points
290
Location
MEXIFORNIA
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 don’t think this is worth debate? The EC was set up a long time ago and our society has evolved tremendously since then. What was a smart system then may not be smart now. Either way, why do you feel it’s a threat to our great experiment?
Imagaine if some states full of pieces of shit went rogue and decided to fuck the American people over by allowing tens of millions of foreigners to invade our nation and lay litters of disgusting subhumans whom would vote for the party that would promise to steal from Americans and give to them....The EC prevents this from happening.
That’s a good thing...right?
 

Slade3200

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
30,328
Reaction score
2,641
Points
1,140
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 don’t think this is worth debate? The EC was set up a long time ago and our society has evolved tremendously since then. What was a smart system then may not be smart now. Either way, why do you feel it’s a threat to our great experiment?
Imagaine if some states full of pieces of shit went rogue and decided to fuck the American people over by allowing tens of millions of foreigners to invade our nation and lay litters of disgusting subhumans whom would vote for the party that would promise to steal from Americans and give to them....The EC prevents this from happening.
That’s a good thing...right?
That’s a fake phony thing... at least you’re trying though
 

BrokeLoser

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
19,985
Reaction score
4,049
Points
290
Location
MEXIFORNIA
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 don’t think this is worth debate? The EC was set up a long time ago and our society has evolved tremendously since then. What was a smart system then may not be smart now. Either way, why do you feel it’s a threat to our great experiment?
Imagaine if some states full of pieces of shit went rogue and decided to fuck the American people over by allowing tens of millions of foreigners to invade our nation and lay litters of disgusting subhumans whom would vote for the party that would promise to steal from Americans and give to them....The EC prevents this from happening.
That’s a good thing...right?
That’s a fake phony thing... at least you’re trying though
Of course it is...I made it all up.
 

Montrovant

Fuzzy bears!
Joined
May 4, 2009
Messages
21,191
Reaction score
4,379
Points
290
Location
A Picturesque Apocalypse
First, as I understand it the USSC is looking only at so-called faithless electors. I'm not sure how that might be "the beginning of the end of our nations great experiment."

Second, as has already been explained (in large part by Pogo), the system was not set up to require electors to follow the votes of the people of the states they represent; in fact, originally, there was no election day and electors were often (or perhaps all?) chosen by state legislatures.

Third, and this is one that always bugs me, California and New York simply would not control the outcome of a national popular vote. This is true for a couple of very simple, easy-to-understand reasons. The first would be population. According to the Census Bureau, in 2018 California had a population of 39,557,045. New York had a population of 19,542,209. The total population of the country was 327,167,434. U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
Unless one is going to assume that California and New York have a much higher percentage of voting-age citizens, I think it's safe to use the whole population numbers to representing the voting public. As such, those 2 states represent about 18% of the population. How will less than 20% of the people control the rest of the country?
Second, and most importantly, neither New York nor California is filled with people who all vote for the same candidates. I don't know if there are a lot of people who get fooled by the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College, but just because those states have all of their electors vote for the Democratic presidential candidate does NOT mean that all the voters voted for that candidate. In the same way, just because Texas (a state with a much larger population than New York) has all it's electoral votes go for the Republican presidential candidate does not mean all of the voters choose the same candidate.
In 2016 Clinton received 8,753,788 votes in California. Trump received 4,483,810. In New York, Clinton received 4,556,124 votes, Trump received 2,819,534. With a popular vote, Trump would actually get MORE representation from the voters of California and New York than he did in the election, as the WTA gave him ZERO.

Is the math difficult to follow? Are the concepts complex? Californians and New Yorkers do not all vote the same. Even if they did, there are not enough voters in those states to control an election by themselves. I'll add one final point: The president is not a king nor a dictator. Because of these truths, no 2 states can control the country by themselves even if the president were elected by popular vote. This comes up in any discussion about the EC, and it's just as silly every time.
 

White 6

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2019
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
1,230
Points
180

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
111,636
Reaction score
22,502
Points
2,220
Location
Location, location

my2¢

So it goes.
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
8,889
Reaction score
1,302
Points
290
Location
State 48
The one question I believe needs to be answered is whether the state can bind a member of its electoral college to vote in a certain way? No matter if the state law requires their electors to vote in accordance with the state's popular vote or based on the national popular vote.

My personal belief is that member of the state's elector college should be able to vote for anybody they please and not be bound by any limits placed on them by the state's legislature.
 

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
4,987
Reaction score
522
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
I'm not opposed to that either. I think proportional allocation of electoral votes based on percentage vote won in the state makes a lot of sense.

Clinton would have won in 2016 had that been the case.
This is purely a popular national vote dressed up to sneak it around the Constitution.

I want electoral votes allocated by congressional district. That solves the problem of the votes of country people being entirely overwhelmed by the cities -- or two cities, anyway, Los Angeles and New York.
 

Circe

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
4,987
Reaction score
522
Points
195
Location
Aeaea
My personal belief is that member of the state's elector college should be able to vote for anybody they please and not be bound by any limits placed on them by the state's legislature.
Bribery and blackmail, here we come. The electors last election reported continual, non-stop lobbying of them to change their votes from the way they were supposed to vote to the way the caller, visitor, or writer wanted. They had to shut down phones, move out of houses. Most of them voted as they were supposed to; ten didn't and may have been suborned. I'd like to see that stopped.
 
Last edited:

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
9,368
Reaction score
1,719
Points
150
I'm not opposed to that either. I think proportional allocation of electoral votes based on percentage vote won in the state makes a lot of sense.

Clinton would have won in 2016 had that been the case.
This is purely a popular national vote dressed up to sneak it around the Constitution.

I want electoral votes allocated by congressional district. That solves the problem of the votes of country people being entirely overwhelmed by the cities -- or two cities, anyway, Los Angeles and New York.
How does that prevent country people from being overwhelmed? Congressional districts are based on population. Besides, aren’t you just opening the electoral process up to manipulation by gerrymandering?
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,297
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
I'd like to focus on this and develop:

and most importantly, neither New York nor California is filled with people who all vote for the same candidates. I don't know if there are a lot of people who get fooled by the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College, but just because those states have all of their electors vote for the Democratic presidential candidate does NOT mean that all the voters voted for that candidate. In the same way, just because Texas (a state with a much larger population than New York) has all it's electoral votes go for the Republican presidential candidate does not mean all of the voters choose the same candidate.
In 2016 Clinton received 8,753,788 votes in California. Trump received 4,483,810. In New York, Clinton received 4,556,124 votes, Trump received 2,819,534. With a popular vote, Trump would actually get MORE representation from the voters of California and New York than he did in the election, as the WTA gave him ZERO.
Well put, and another thing this tells us about so-called "red" and "blue" states --- the "red" voters in a California or the "blue" voters in a Texas (or any "locked" state regardless of population), already know that due to the perverse WTA system their vote is going to be immediately dismissed out of hand. Other than state and local offices or referenda they have no reason to vote at all; it's not going to matter. All it really gives a voter is the chance to cast a Duopoly-protest vote for a "third" party candy, which has all the impact of a tree falling in the forest where no one is there to hear it.

And that means we don't even know how many Idahoans would vote "blue" or how many Connecticutsters would vote "red" IF they had any inkling their vote would actually show up.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
115,935
Reaction score
18,297
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
My personal belief is that member of the state's elector college should be able to vote for anybody they please and not be bound by any limits placed on them by the state's legislature.
Bribery and blackmail, here we come. The electors last election reported continual, non-stop lobbying of them to change their votes from the way they were supposed to vote to the way the caller, visitor, or writer wanted. They had to shut down phones, move out of houses. Most of them voted as they were suppsed to; ten didn't and may have been suborned. I'd like to see that stopped.
"Because someone would abuse the structure" is not a valid reason to abandon the structure though.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top