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

[Circe]

The founders had no intention to have electors be bound to the popular vote of citizens.

Prove it. What you are saying makes no sense to me. Why would the Founders bother with voting if they wanted a few hundred people to choose the prez all by themselves?

And this is the question before the Supreme Court, so apparently most people don't think as you do, that it's a settled question that our votes don't matter.

 

[BluesLegend]

Dem's trying to rig elections again, shocker.

 

[kyzr]

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.

OK, so add TX and FL, 4 states, not 2.

 

[colfax_m]

. 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.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.

Should instead the rules use the tyranny of rural communities to overrule the voices of the majority of the citizens?

 

[Circe]

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.
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.

(My emphasis in original post)

That's it. That's exactly what happens in Maryland, a mostly conservative state overwhelmed by the city vote every time. I would LIKE to have electors voting by congressional district: mine votes overwhelmingly Republican, and our votes are always negated. Let's support that change!

 

[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.

"Our nations [sic] grand experiment" (Liberalism) was the one that declared governmental power comes from the consent of the governed and not from some entrenched church-bitch king. That's got zero to do with the Electrical College.

If anything the concept of the EC in insulating that consent of the governed, runs counter to that concept.

 

[Circe]

Should instead the rules use the tyranny of rural communities to overrule the voices of the majority of the citizens?

Watch: if it becomes a meme to go to electoral college voting by congressional district instead of winner-take-all, and the Supreme Court passes on that choice, Democrats will furiously work to avoid this in every state, so that they can use their tyranny of CITIES to overrule the voices of all citizens living outside our ruined, crime-ridden, Democrat-controlled cities.

 

[colfax_m]

The founders had no intention to have electors be bound to the popular vote of citizens.

Prove it. What you are saying makes no sense to me. Why would the Founders bother with voting if they wanted a few hundred people to choose the prez all by themselves?

And this is the question before the Supreme Court, so apparently most people don't think as you do, that it's a settled question that our votes don't matter.

Federalist paper number 68.
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

They were skeptical that the masses could have adequate information or proper judgement to decide the president.

 

[Pogo]

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? (i.e. 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.

1 -- spot on. So-called "faithless elector" laws completely contradict the concept of the Electoral College. Said Electors are supposed to have personal conscience, not to be robots. If such laws want to make their vote automatic, then the Elector LITERALLY has no role. See also the post immediately before this one.

2 - The state voters are already voted every time a state casts its entire EV for somebody the state didn't vote for. For example, in 2016 Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia, Florida, AridZona, Utah and others. Even in states where one wins the state votes decisively, everybody in up to 49.9% of the ballots gets their vote tossed into the shitcan too. That's why our turnout is a national embarrassment. Voters don't bother because what's the point?

3 - See #1. It may be completely counter to the ideals of the Electoral College system but it is Constitutional. "In such manner as the state may direct" means the state can throw darts at pictures of candidates, consult a ouija board, or pick random names out of a hat if it so chooses. There's literally no requirement that we have an election day AT ALL.

4 - of course, two states do that now and others have in the past. There is literally ZERO in the Constitution even suggesting WTA. In fact the EC's principal architect James Madison, saw where WTA was going in his own lifetime and advocated amending the Constitution to BAN it, for the reasons now evident. He could see it in his own time.

 

[Circe]

Federalist paper number 68.
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

They were skeptical that the masses could have adequate information or proper judgement to decide the president.

Well, you seem to be saying the Founders didn't want us to vote, but to have the Electors freely choose the prez by themselves --- since we've in fact been voting as a population for centuries, and until lately faithless Electors were very rare, I don't see how you can be correct. Surely our voting tradition can't have been all wrong all along.

 

[Pogo]

Should instead the rules use the tyranny of rural communities to overrule the voices of the majority of the citizens?

Watch: if it becomes a meme to go to electoral college voting by congressional district instead of winner-take-all, and the Supreme Court passes on that choice, Democrats will furiously work to avoid this in every state, so that they can use their tyranny of CITIES to overrule the voices of all citizens living outside our ruined, crime-ridden, Democrat-controlled cities.

Allocating by district just ain't gonna happen. If it could it would have by now. The glaring flaw of the WTA system is that it's a mob mentality where each state figures "state X is exercising more power by lumping all its votes for one candidate, therefore we have to do the same thing or we'll have less power".

That's why Madison wanted to ban that shit. Would that he could have prevailed, but he didn't.

 

[Pogo]

Federalist paper number 68.
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 68

They were skeptical that the masses could have adequate information or proper judgement to decide the president.

Well, you seem to be saying the Founders didn't want us to vote, but to have the Electors freely choose the prez by themselves --- since we've in fact been voting as a population for centuries, and until lately faithless Electors were very rare, I don't see how you can be correct. Surely our voting tradition can't have been all wrong all along.

Your reading is correct, and no we haven't been voting for centuries. As late as 1860 South Carolina had no election day. It simply appointed electors, as had other states before that.

Again, there is LITERALLY no Constitutional requirement for any kind of POTUS election day at all. Anywhere.

 

[Coyote]

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.

The Corrupt Democratic Party cannot function in a free democracy*, therefore they must destroy it.

How exactly does the electoral college equal a free democracy?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

the Democrats are against democracy

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Here's why:

"Leftists love the concept of “reeducating” the public, the idea that we, the great unwashed, are too simpleminded to understand both complex issues of policy and what is best for ourselves in our own lives. (See this Bernie Sanders campaign employee advocating Gulags and reeducation camps for conservatives.) They have the answers, we’re just too stupid to allow them to impose those solutions. It’s the cornerstone of the progressive political philosophy – our moral and intellectual betters need to be empowered to shape our lives so they can make the world a better place. Hitler believed this, as did Stalin, Mao, and every other left-wing dictator who helped rack up 100 million dead human beings in pursuit of this Utopian ideal in the 20th century."
Democrats And The ‘Reeducation’ Of The American People

 

[Circe]

Your reading is correct, and no we haven't been voting for centuries. As late as 1860 South Carolina had no election day. It simply appointed electors, as had other states before that.

Again, there is LITERALLY no Constitutional requirement for any kind of POTUS election day at all. Anywhere.

Well, maybe you are right ---- my husband still believes we should go back to state legislature voting in Senators, as it was till ---- I forget when, 1800s sometime. And I happen to know (THREE books on 1859-1860 during the summer of 2016: I was worried) that Lincoln was literally not on the ballot in any of the Southern states. They just weren't having any. I don't think anybody now knows that! But it shows what you are saying. And a lot of people seem to think that primary elections have legal force, somehow, so that candidates who don't participate (like Bloomberg, others) can't get into the presidential election. But I can literally remember "drafts" (I think -- don't call me on this: it was middle 20th, IIRC) and there is no reason that can't happen again. A Dark Horse president. Which is exactly what Bloomberg is hoping for.

I guess it's like money: pure faith and tradition, nothing else underlies it. Electors used to vote as the people voted, representing the people. Now things are getting weird and we'd better fix that situation in law, some way.

 

[Pogo]

Actually I believe that the state is bound to have their electoral votes by the will of its people. If it decides to go with the so called popular vote then it is negating the votes of its citizens.
A faithless electorate should not be allowed. That person has promised to cast a vote for whoever was voted for by the citizenry of the state. Their vote was counted as well as everyone else. Once they are chosen to vote in the electoral college the become an arm of the people. Their pledge, promise should mean more then their personal beliefs or feelings.
I have no problem with virtual virtual electors.

Whelp, you're wrong, simple as that. Number one, each state gets to decide how it chooses its electors and NONE of them are even required to hold an election at all; 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); number three if the elector's vote is FORCED then he or she is no longer an elector. If you're running a proxy system like this what's the POINT of naming any electors at all? And if you're NOT naming electors, then you have no Electoral College ---- which is what the Constitution calls for.

Can't have it both ways. Either you have an Electoral College, or you don't.

 

[Thinker101]

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 at all, our entire nation will become a shithole...like California, dumbass.

 

[kyzr]

IMHO the EC is a good thing, but living "electors" is not.
The States should adopt ways of counting EC votes that are both automatic and constitutional.
We need to eliminate the possibility of "faithless electors"
The basis for electors was as someone said, back in the 1780s there was no instant mass-media coverage of events.
Information is so available now that we no longer need real electors to change the popular state votes.

 

[Pogo]

Your reading is correct, and no we haven't been voting for centuries. As late as 1860 South Carolina had no election day. It simply appointed electors, as had other states before that.

Again, there is LITERALLY no Constitutional requirement for any kind of POTUS election day at all. Anywhere.

Well, maybe you are right ---- my husband still believes we should go back to state legislature voting in Senators, as it was till ---- I forget when, 1800s sometime. And I happen to know (THREE books on 1859-1860 during the summer of 2016: I was worried) that Lincoln was literally not on the ballot in any of the Southern states. They just weren't having any. I don't think anybody now knows that! But it shows what you are saying. And a lot of people seem to think that primary elections have legal force, somehow, so that candidates who don't participate (like Bloomberg, others) can't get into the presidential election. But I can literally remember "drafts" (I think -- don't call me on this: it was middle 20th, IIRC) and there is no reason that can't happen again. A Dark Horse president. Which is exactly what Bloomberg is hoping for.

I guess it's like money: pure faith and tradition, nothing else underlies it. Electors used to vote as the people voted, representing the people. Now things are getting weird and we'd better fix that situation in law, some way.

You are correct, Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in the states that would become the Confederacy. Wasn't even on the ballot in his birth state of Kentucky until 1864. I've mentioned this many times. In that time ballots were printed up by the political party, not some board of elections. If you wanted to vote for (for example) the Whigs, you'd pick up a Whig ballot from them and turn it in. The Republican Party was six years old and didn't bother to organize in the South or print ballots, figuring (correctly) that their support was going to come from the north, midwest and west. That's why he wasn't on Southern ballots. Neither was the first Republican candidate John C. Frémont in 1856.

You are also correct about primary elections. That's all bread and circus to make the public think it has a voice but the party is going to pick whoever it wants regardless of any primaries. Perfect example is 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt came to the convention with a dominating delegate lead from the primaries in challenging the incumbent Taft. The party ignored that and went with the corporate guy from Ohio, whereupon TR went literally down the street and formed his own party to run in the election, which sent Taft to a third-place finish and put Woodrow Wilson into office with 41% of the popular vote.