What if we had a CONSTITUTIONAL Presidential Election?

[Oddball]

One of the scenarios that I've not seen fleshed out is the one where the courts declare that the election operations in PA, MI, WI, and GA to be so corrupted that they're declared null and void, and throw the onus onto the assemblies of those states.

Not any less likely than anything else.

The problem with that is a split congress. It takes both the house and the senate to throw out the EC votes from a state. And they will never reach an agreement. An example of divided government in (in)action.

If there's evidence of criminality that could cast doubt upon the legitemacy of the election, the votes can be thrown out by the courts.

 

[postman]

Well stated. I'd like to add that had either Jefferson, Hamilton or Madison, etc. considered someone like McConnell's abuse of the power as he has, the rules in the senate must be affirmed by We the People. I also believe We the People ought to require an up or down vote on each member of the Supreme Court in the General Election post their ten years in this current live appointment. If the Justice is not supported by a majority of the voters, s/he will be required to once more appear before the Senate as any new nomination has been put forth by POTUS.

The best solution is simple. Require that supreme court justices be confirmed like a treaty.

The Constitution gives to the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds vote, treaties negotiated by the executive branch.

Just raise the bar for how many votes a supreme court justice needs, and you'll get better qualified, less partisan judges. Just look at the votes for justices (from either party), pretty much independent of their positions, the legal abilities are exemplified by the number of votes from both sides they garnered.

Thurgood Marshall 69 - 11
Warren Burger 74 - 3
John Roberts 78 - 22
Harry Blackmun 94 - 0
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 96 - 3
Anthony Kennedy 97 - 0
John Paul Stevens 98 - 0
Antonin Scalia 98 - 0
Sandra Day O'Connor 99 - 0

 

[postman]

One of the scenarios that I've not seen fleshed out is the one where the courts declare that the election operations in PA, MI, WI, and GA to be so corrupted that they're declared null and void, and throw the onus onto the assemblies of those states.

Not any less likely than anything else.

The problem with that is a split congress. It takes both the house and the senate to throw out the EC votes from a state. And they will never reach an agreement. An example of divided government in (in)action.

If there's evidence of criminality that could cast doubt upon the legitemacy of the election, the votes can be thrown out by the courts.

The constitution is clear, only the congress has control over federal elections.
The courts have no control over the actions of congress, when it acts within its constitutional limits. And any action by congress, as the sole judge of legitimacy of the election, can not be under the courts jurisdiction (separation of powers)

 

[TheParser]

The state legislatures would choose Electors equal in number to their combined total of senators and congresspersons, then those electors would vote according to their best judgment. Those 50 sets of votes would be sent to the Senate, tallied up, and the winner(s) named: President and Vice President. If possible, the Electors would NOT reveal their choices in advance, but merely be people in whom the legislators place a bit of trust. That's a pipe-dream, eh?

The idea of giving all of the States' votes to the person who wins the popular vote in that state is non-Constitutional, though not UN-Constitutional. In fact, it is an abrogation of the obligation of the state legislators to exercise THEIR OWN judgment in the matter.

The Founding Fathers abhorred democracy, placing no actual decision making authority in the hands of The People - only the election of those would actually make the difficult decisions. They knew that The People are largely ignorant, and would be swayed by passions of the moment, charlatans promising who-knows-what, and personalities, good and bad - all tendencies that were exacerbated by the dreadful decision to give women the right to vote. And don't get me started with the stupid decision to allow 18's to vote.

Any guesses on what would happen if we had an election that was held as the Founders conceived it?

If the 538 Electors made the decision without being puppets of the people in their states, (a) we would probably have more competent Presidents, and (b) fraud would be impossible.

But that new-fangled idea of "democracy" has ruined the beautiful framework designed by our idealistic Founding Fathers.

 

[postman]

If the 538 Electors made the decision without being puppets of the people in their states, (a) we would probably have more competent Presidents, and (b) fraud would be impossible.

But that new-fangled idea of "democracy" has ruined the beautiful framework designed by our idealistic Founding Fathers.

State legislatures would merely chose hyper-partisan electors, matching their party. They wouldn't chose open minded centerists. You can bet on that.

 

[AZrailwhale]

One of the scenarios that I've not seen fleshed out is the one where the courts declare that the election operations in PA, MI, WI, and GA to be so corrupted that they're declared null and void, and throw the onus onto the assemblies of those states.

Not any less likely than anything else.

One reason might be the heroism of everyday Pennsylvanians on 9/11. They chose a certain death for themselves rather than to allow brainwashed terrorists to take the plane and destroy another major political target filled with hundreds if not thousands of their fellow countrymen. There are heroes just like them in every state in this union who believe in God and each other with only one difference: it was Pennsylvanians who proved intelligence and no greater love has any man than he that lays down his life to save another.

How could we deny a single one of their children or family, friend or other of their vote? Our dear Democrats have replaced their common sense with failing to exercise respect for how it came to be that they can behave like 2-year olds in a room filled with experienced adults? We need to watch over them, and discipline them harshly if they resume murdering strangers on the street just because someone like Maxine Waters tells them to go for it,?

If the Democrats need tough love or else let them continue murdering cops and people wearing red hats, then tough love it should be. They're playing with fire and they force others to put out the fire while they go home safe. Never again.

Flight 93 originated at Newark NJ and was bound for San Francisco CA. I doubt that there were more than a handful of PA residents on board.

 

[beautress]

One of the scenarios that I've not seen fleshed out is the one where the courts declare that the election operations in PA, MI, WI, and GA to be so corrupted that they're declared null and void, and throw the onus onto the assemblies of those states.

Not any less likely than anything else.

One reason might be the heroism of everyday Pennsylvanians on 9/11. They chose a certain death for themselves rather than to allow brainwashed terrorists to take the plane and destroy another major political target filled with hundreds if not thousands of their fellow countrymen. There are heroes just like them in every state in this union who believe in God and each other with only one difference: it was Pennsylvanians who proved intelligence and no greater love has any man than he that lays down his life to save another.

How could we deny a single one of their children or family, friend or other of their vote? Our dear Democrats have replaced their common sense with failing to exercise respect for how it came to be that they can behave like 2-year olds in a room filled with experienced adults? We need to watch over them, and discipline them harshly if they resume murdering strangers on the street just because someone like Maxine Waters tells them to go for it,?

If the Democrats need tough love or else let them continue murdering cops and people wearing red hats, then tough love it should be. They're playing with fire and they force others to put out the fire while they go home safe. Never again.

Flight 93 originated at Newark NJ and was bound for San Francisco CA. I doubt that there were more than a handful of PA residents on board.

Flight 93 crashed in Western PA after 10 am when people on the flight went after the terrorists threatened them with blades they slipped through security gates. Box cutters are quite lethal when severing the carotid artery. The man who led the counter attack was PA native if my memory serves me right, and several men on the flight helped overwhelm the terrorists in the passenger area. The terrorist pilots murdered the pilots and locked the pilot area from the inside. As soon as the terrorist pilots heard the clamor, they did a 90 degree turndown, rather than be overwhelmed. The crash site was a mess of body parts someone said. That is what I remember of hearing what happened 19 years two months and one day hence. That's a long time ago, but if I see a show on that sad flight, I tune in. It seems to occur once a year on or around Sept. The 11th. Those people were very brave wherever they were from.

 

[Agit8r]

In a truly constitutional election no discriminatory voter purges would have been allowed to preceed it

 

[Agit8r]

The Founding Fathers abhorred democracy

That is a lie:

"we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it"
-- Federalist #39

There is an opposite position to that, but it is 100% unamerican and anyone who believes anything of the sort is a completely worthless traitor:

"I see two diametrically opposed principles: the principle of democracy which, wherever it is allowed practical effect is the principle of destruction: and the principle of the authority of personality which I would call the principle of achievement"
-- Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)

 

[beautress]

In a truly constitutional election no discriminatory voter purges would have been allowed to preceed it

View attachment 415350

At the time the Constitution was written, the Colonials knew there had to be a better way of running this nation of people than waiting for months or even years to settle new world affairs, and King Chas considered the men and women as ignorant peasants who owed him a wealth of assets while their taxes were never spent in their well being, but to be taxed into grovelling poverty while they had no way of having their taxes going further than hiring a punitive militia to force them into doing for the king while it was darn hard to put food on the table. Taxation sans representation was unbearable, and King Chas felt that the colonists owed him a living of unlimited finery without so much as receiving any one of them who made a trip to his palace to report a problem or a need. Yea, Founding fathers and mothers for breaking away from Chas. My grandmother once gave me a lesson on why Americans must never bow to royal tyrants. It didn't make sense to me until I took Mr Tiggeman's American History class at Aldine HS. God bless the Boston Tea Party. It tells you all you need to know about high taxes and men that paid for rule might get a little upset if they couldn't register a valid request now and then. Our great founders paid a huge price to the Brits to recieve nothing in return except grief.

Now we can take grievances to our representatives. Night all. Have a blessed weekend.

 

[Agit8r]

In a truly constitutional election no discriminatory voter purges would have been allowed to preceed it

View attachment 415350

At the time the Constitution was written, the Colonials knew there had to be a better way of running this nation of people than waiting for months or even years to settle new world affairs, and King Chas considered the men and women as ignorant peasants who owed him a wealth of assets while their taxes were never spent in their well being, but to be taxed into grovelling poverty while they had no way of having their taxes going further than hiring a punitive militia to force them into doing for the king while it was darn hard to put food on the table. Taxation sans representation was unbearable, and King Chas felt that the colonists owed him a living of unlimited finery without so much as receiving any one of them who made a trip to his palace to report a problem or a need. Yea, Founding fathers and mothers for breaking away from Chas. My grandmother once gave me a lesson on why Americans must never bow to royal tyrants. It didn't make sense to me until I took Mr Tiggeman's American History class at Aldine HS. God bless the Boston Tea Party. It tells you all you need to know about high taxes and men that paid for rule might get a little upset if they couldn't register a valid request now and then. Our great founders paid a huge price to the Brits to recieve nothing in return except grief.

Now we can take grievances to our representatives. Night all. Have a blessed weekend.

In today's post-Citizens United v. FEC America, the wealthy recieve all the representation, and the rest of the population is left with all the taxation

 

[Skylar]

The state legislatures would choose Electors equal in number to their combined total of senators and congresspersons, then those electors would vote according to their best judgment. Those 50 sets of votes would be sent to the Senate, tallied up, and the winner(s) named: President and Vice President. If possible, the Electors would NOT reveal their choices in advance, but merely be people in whom the legislators place a bit of trust. That's a pipe-dream, eh?

The idea of giving all of the States' votes to the person who wins the popular vote in that state is non-Constitutional, though not UN-Constitutional. In fact, it is an abrogation of the obligation of the state legislators to exercise THEIR OWN judgment in the matter.

The Founding Fathers abhorred democracy, placing no actual decision making authority in the hands of The People - only the election of those would actually make the difficult decisions. They knew that The People are largely ignorant, and would be swayed by passions of the moment, charlatans promising who-knows-what, and personalities, good and bad - all tendencies that were exacerbated by the dreadful decision to give women the right to vote. And don't get me started with the stupid decision to allow 18's to vote.

Any guesses on what would happen if we had an election that was held as the Founders conceived it?

The constitution says that the states can appoint electors in any manner they wish. If 270 electors worth of states decide that the national popular vote is how their states' electors are appointed, we have a president elected by popular vote.

And its explicitly constitutional.

At the moment the National Popular Vote Compact of states controls 196 electors. So....another 80 or so and its a done deal.