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

[Circe]

How does that prevent country people from being overwhelmed? Congressional districts are based on population.

I'm a little surprised you want an explanation for this: it seems obvious to me, and I suspect you're a city dweller. People who don't live in cities know that country districts generally vote VERY differently from cities in their states. So the country congressional districts would not be disenfranchised by the cities in their states, as they too often are now. Even California has 31 percent Republican vote, which is sure more than were reflected in the winner-take-all election in 2016.

 

[Circe]

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.

This is an interesting point. Because I always vote (unless disgusted with both major candidates: see Sarah Palin, and also that Mormon guy), I assume other Republicans do also even in hopeless Maryland. Certainly enough do now that if we had electoral votes proportioned by congressional district, my vote would finally be counted. But maybe many more Republicans would turn out if they knew it would count, and thus change other districts: "Monkey County," for instance, as we call the dubious deep state area north of Washington, Montgomery County.

 

[colfax_m]

How does that prevent country people from being overwhelmed? Congressional districts are based on population.

I'm a little surprised you want an explanation for this: it seems obvious to me, and I suspect you're a city dweller. People who don't live in cities know that country districts generally vote VERY differently from cities in their states. So the country congressional districts would not be disenfranchised by the cities in their states, as they too often are now. Even California has 31 percent Republican vote, which is sure more than were reflected in the winner-take-all election in 2016.

There's far fewer rural congressional districts so their votes will be far less. Besides, isn't going to Congressional districts just a roundabout way of going to a popular vote since these districts are based on roughly equal population?

 

[Pogo]

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.

This is an interesting point. Because I always vote (unless disgusted with both major candidates: see Sarah Palin, and also that Mormon guy), I assume other Republicans do also even in hopeless Maryland. Certainly enough do now that if we had electoral votes proportioned by congressional district, my vote would finally be counted. But maybe many more Republicans would turn out if they knew it would count, and thus change other districts: "Monkey County," for instance, as we call the dubious deep state area north of Washington, Montgomery County.

That's a natural appelation -- where I grew up we called Montgomeryville "Monkeyville" for short. Durn Welsh and their longwinded names....

As an above-average politically interested you may vote every time but I think both you and the average/subaverage voter know that unless it's an unusual year your state is going blue, so you can vote red, blue, or not at all and they all come out to the same thing. The effect is to dull voter participation, particularly if it's a year you don't have a Senator up for re-election, maybe not a governor either, so all that's left is downballot minutiae and you already know your POTUS vote doesn't count. That's the big snafu of WTA and I believe it's a major factor in our abysmal turnout rates (in 2016 it was 55%, which for most voting countries would be scandalous).

 

[healthmyths]

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.

And if the popular vote replaces the electoral college, then the candidates will spend most of their time and money in these 10 states representing 54% of the population, while the rest of the USA will have NO voice.
Calif
Texas
Florida
New York
Penn
Illinois
Ohio
Georgia
North Carolina
Michigan

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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.

Why? Every other election is decided without this out-dated anacronym. Shouldn't the president be elected the same as anyone else?

Are you brain dead?
There is no other election in America that is national.
The Presidential election is it. Only one.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Why? Every other election is decided without this out-dated anacronym. Shouldn't the president be elected the same as anyone else?

Are you brain dead?
There is no other election in America that is national.
The Presidential election is it. Only one.

And how is ever other election decided?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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.

Why? Every other election is decided without this out-dated anacronym. Shouldn't the president be elected the same as anyone else?

Are you brain dead?
There is no other election in America that is national.
The Presidential election is it. Only one.

And how is ever other election decided?

The Presidential election is the only one like it.
And we both know that if large coastal cities were primarily Republican, you all would be screaming support of the electoral system. Only reason you want actual vote count is because it supports Democrats.

 

[Pogo]

How does that prevent country people from being overwhelmed? Congressional districts are based on population.

I'm a little surprised you want an explanation for this: it seems obvious to me, and I suspect you're a city dweller. People who don't live in cities know that country districts generally vote VERY differently from cities in their states. So the country congressional districts would not be disenfranchised by the cities in their states, as they too often are now.

But this reasoning basis is traipsing down the fallacious road of cherrypicking. We could parcel out any kind of segment -- "people who are over 40", "people who drive green cars", "people who don't eat raisins", try to separate them out and then we devolve to "if you take out the voters of (state), our guy won the election". Thing is, you don't take out the voters of (state) because e pluribus unum. To the extent a vote counts for anything each vote is supposed to count for "1". If more votes come from people who hate raisins, then that's just the way it is. It's really a lite version of "if our team hadn't given up those seven touchdowns we woulda won the game".

Besides which as I think somebody brought up, this then invites a level of district gerrymandering that makes the current morass look like child's play.

Even California has 31 percent Republican vote, which is sure more than were reflected in the winner-take-all election in 2016.

It is, exactly 31 percent more. Those Republican POTUS votes were tossed down the drain, same as the non-majority votes of 47 other states were, including states like mine that majority-voted for nobody. Unfortunately NOTA is not a choice for EC electors. Maybe it should be.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Why? Every other election is decided without this out-dated anacronym. Shouldn't the president be elected the same as anyone else?

Are you brain dead?
There is no other election in America that is national.
The Presidential election is it. Only one.

And how is ever other election decided?

The Presidential election is the only one like it.
And we both know that if large coastal cities were primarily Republican, you all would be screaming support of the electoral system. Only reason you want actual vote count is because it supports Democrats.

Speculation fallacy is dismissed.

 

[Pogo]

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.

And if the popular vote replaces the electoral college, then the candidates will spend most of their time and money in these 10 states representing 54% of the population, while the rest of the USA will have NO voice.
Calif
Texas
Florida
New York
Penn
Illinois
Ohio
Georgia
North Carolina
Michigan

Again --- doesn't add up. Presumably they would spend most of their resources in cities and densely-populated state areas (e.g.NJ, which magically is not on your list) in pursuit of those numbers.

And again this still IGNORES the fact that in the current 'system' nobody bothers to visit the "locked" "red" and "blue" states anyway because both sides know they ARE locked. One knows they have it sewn up, the other knows they have no shot. As a result they end up infecting the so-called "battleground" states relentlessly, which is an even shorter list than the one you have here. At least four of the states on your list never see a POTUS candidate except in the primaries, so even in your fantasyland THEY would get something they don't have now.

Matter of fact the only reason you're even delineating "STATES" that candidates would visit is the present bullshit WTA system that collapses a state's vote into, to coin a term, a "tyranny of the plurality". In actual fact they wouldn't be visiting "STATES" at all; they'd be visiting specific local areas. If a candidate comes to Philadelphia that doesn't count as a visit to frickin' Sullivan County (upstate, nowhere near). In a popular vote system the two would have no more to do with each other than would Houston and Sacramento.

And NOBODY ever visits Alaska or Hawaìi, those states having been allotted by "gentlemen's agreement".

Yanno what, maybe it should be mandated that candidates must campaign everywhere. Whether we change the system or not.

 

[jwoodie]

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 Legislature thereof 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.

Again --- the Constitution says a state's electors are chosen, QUOTE, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct", END QUOTE. It does not say anything about "but don't do it by district or proportional to the vote". It doesn't say anything about needing to hold a vote at all. Holding a popular vote IS an option; NOT holding a vote is an option; apportioning electors proportional to that vote IS an option; apportioning electors by district IS an option; apportioning EVs as WTA is unfortunately also an option. It's left wide open.

We will have to see with which of us the Supreme Court agrees. In the meantime, the EC's 51 firewalls are our last defense against vote fraud in other states.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

And if the popular vote replaces the electoral college, then the candidates will spend most of their time and money in these 10 states representing 54% of the population, while the rest of the USA will have NO voice.
Calif
Texas
Florida
New York
Penn
Illinoises
Ohio
Georgia
North Carolina
Michigan

As a result of the electoral college, candidates spend most of their time and money in a handful of swing states representing far less of the population that.

 

[Pogo]

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 Legislature thereof 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.

Again --- the Constitution says a state's electors are chosen, QUOTE, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct", END QUOTE. It does not say anything about "but don't do it by district or proportional to the vote". It doesn't say anything about needing to hold a vote at all. Holding a popular vote IS an option; NOT holding a vote is an option; apportioning electors proportional to that vote IS an option; apportioning electors by district IS an option; apportioning EVs as WTA is unfortunately also an option. It's left wide open.

We will have to see with which of us the Supreme Court agrees. In the meantime, the EC's 51 firewalls are our last defense against vote fraud in other states.

"51 firewalls"?

Actually the EC has nothing to do with "voter fraud". It has nothing to do with a popular "vote" at all.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Why? Every other election is decided without this out-dated anacronym. Shouldn't the president be elected the same as anyone else?

Are you brain dead?
There is no other election in America that is national.
The Presidential election is it. Only one.

And how is ever other election decided?

The Presidential election is the only one like it.
And we both know that if large coastal cities were primarily Republican, you all would be screaming support of the electoral system. Only reason you want actual vote count is because it supports Democrats.

Lol, no. Every other election in the US is decided the same way, why should the presidential.election be the only one where a minority can decide for everyone else?

It's ridiculous, and always has been.

It's also the only reason republicans have been able to.get elected for quite a while.

 

[jwoodie]

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 Legislature thereof 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.

Again --- the Constitution says a state's electors are chosen, QUOTE, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct", END QUOTE. It does not say anything about "but don't do it by district or proportional to the vote". It doesn't say anything about needing to hold a vote at all. Holding a popular vote IS an option; NOT holding a vote is an option; apportioning electors proportional to that vote IS an option; apportioning electors by district IS an option; apportioning EVs as WTA is unfortunately also an option. It's left wide open.

We will have to see with which of us the Supreme Court agrees. In the meantime, the EC's 51 firewalls are our last defense against vote fraud in other states.

"51 firewalls"?

Actually the EC has nothing to do with "voter fraud". It has nothing to do with a popular "vote" at all.

If California manufactures a million extra votes, it doesn't affect other states. Comprende?

 

[justoffal]

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....

Um....yeah.... You have no idea what you're talking about. When the local mayor knocks on your door and confiscates your spare bedroom then you will know.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

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.

Why? Every other election is decided without this out-dated anacronym. Shouldn't the president be elected the same as anyone else?

Are you brain dead?
There is no other election in America that is national.
The Presidential election is it. Only one.

And how is ever other election decided?

The Presidential election is the only one like it.
And we both know that if large coastal cities were primarily Republican, you all would be screaming support of the electoral system. Only reason you want actual vote count is because it supports Democrats.

Lol, no. Every other election in the US is decided the same way, why should the presidential.election be the only one where a minority can decide for everyone else?

It's ridiculous, and always has been.

It's also the only reason republicans have been able to.get elected for quite a while.

Because each state has its own government and governor. No state in this Union will agree to being side lined by the Giants like Texas and California. The electoral college is the only way to keep the union a union.

Jo

 

[Crepitus]

Why? Every other election is decided without this out-dated anacronym. Shouldn't the president be elected the same as anyone else?

Are you brain dead?
There is no other election in America that is national.
The Presidential election is it. Only one.

And how is ever other election decided?

The Presidential election is the only one like it.
And we both know that if large coastal cities were primarily Republican, you all would be screaming support of the electoral system. Only reason you want actual vote count is because it supports Democrats.

Lol, no. Every other election in the US is decided the same way, why should the presidential.election be the only one where a minority can decide for everyone else?

It's ridiculous, and always has been.

It's also the only reason republicans have been able to.get elected for quite a while.

Because each state has its own government and governor. No state in this Union will agree to being side lined by the Giants like Texas and California. The electoral college is the only way to keep the union a union.

Jo

Not really. Nobody's leaving at this point.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Why? Every other election is decided without this out-dated anacronym. Shouldn't the president be elected the same as anyone else?

Are you brain dead?
There is no other election in America that is national.
The Presidential election is it. Only one.

And how is ever other election decided?

The Presidential election is the only one like it.
And we both know that if large coastal cities were primarily Republican, you all would be screaming support of the electoral system. Only reason you want actual vote count is because it supports Democrats.

Lol, no. Every other election in the US is decided the same way, why should the presidential.election be the only one where a minority can decide for everyone else?

It's ridiculous, and always has been.

It's also the only reason republicans have been able to.get elected for quite a while.

Said it before, saying it again: If such a proxy system made sense we'd see the states electing their governors and Senators that way, instead of "having our governor elected by Philadelphia and Pittsburgh". It's the same thing in microcosm. We'd have a "state electoral college" derived from its counties.

But they don't. They never have. None of them. I'm not aware it's ever even been suggested.

It's gotta be either a worthy system or a worthless one. Can't have it this way here and that way there.