Will there be any Electoral College hanky-panky in the 2020 election?

[Lakhota]

Let's just hope our 2020 election truly reflects the will of the people.

It will reflect the Will of the People of each State as it was intended and not the Will of just Certain States that could swing an election while ignoring the reality that candidate lost the majority of States...

Paraphrasing from the OP:

The Electoral College gives outsize power to less-populated states, which mostly happen to be controlled by the Republicans who currently benefit from the electoral college’s bias toward those less-populated states.

 

[Lakhota]

The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to states, favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per person.

For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499. The difference between these two states of 537,943 is the largest in the Electoral College.

The Electoral College favors the smaller states with disproportionate voting power. Advocates of the system say that this uneven power forces politicians to pay attention to smaller states, which would otherwise be ignored.

Despite its intentions, the Electoral College does not encourage politicians to campaign in every state.

FairVote.org | Problems with the Electoral College

FairVote acts to transform our elections to achieve secure access to participation for all, a full spectrum of meaningful ballot choices and majority rule with fair representation. As a catalyst for change, we build support for innovative strategies to win a constitutionally protected right to...

archive3.fairvote.org

This is totally unfair.

 

[DJT for Life]

I've been hearing rumors. Have you heard anything?

There could be few better testaments to the lunacy of our electoral system than the fact that, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court, made up of the most august judges in the land, spent time considering whether one random guy somewhere should be able to decide who the next president is.

But that’s just what happened. And even if the judges take what might be the most practical course in this case — which concerns the question of “faithless electors” — it’s a good reminder that, because our system is so uniquely undemocratic, we could be heading for yet another election in which the person who gets the most votes is not the one who wins.
And that’s not even the most terrifying prospect.

This Supreme Court case asks whether, having been sent to the electoral college on the presumption they’d cast their votes for a particular candidate, electors are allowed under the Constitution to change their minds and act as free agents.

The electoral college is a ticking time bomb for November

Holy horse crap.. You ASKING electoral college abuse? You ever hear of the 14 largely BLUE states that signed a pact DEMANDING their electors IGNORE the will of their residents' votes and cast their votes for the Popular vote winner??

Seriously -- you this clueless ALL the time? This is gonna backfire on your asses like most of your schemes.. If Trump WINS the popular vote -- you'll see trainloads of lawyers running to court to REMOVE the legislation they all passed.. Otherwise NY. Cali.Illinois and 11 other Blue states would turn ALL RED on the official electoral college results..

How'd you miss this chief???

The Electoral College is a dinosaur. Popular vote reflects the real will of the people. People count - not acreage. BTW, what is wrong with BLUE states pushing for their electors to cast their votes for the Popular vote winner?

Because States re democracies that have to agree with the Constitution in our Constitutional Republic.

Three points for your red ass.

1- It will take a constitution amendment to remove the Electoral College.

2- This nonsense about democratic states giving their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote is
unconstitutional. (If the citizens of a state vote for a candidate that doesn't win the popular vote they cannot
give their state electoral votes to the candidate with the popular vote. The Supreme Court will follow the constitution
and award that state's electoral vote to the candidate that got the most votes in said state. They are not going
to allow Blue states to backdoor the electoral college.

3- This is the one you need to worry about. PA has stated that they will accept mail-in ballots for 14 days after
the election, irregardless of the postmark. There i only one election day in America...the first Tuesday of November
every four years. States have allowed early voting but NOT late voting. Every ballot received with a postmark later than
11/3/2020, will be tossed in the trash can by SCOTUS.

You need to go knit some blankets...your "season is rapidly approaching. No blankets...no pennies for firewater.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Let's just hope our 2020 election truly reflects the will of the people.

It will reflect the Will of the People of each State as it was intended and not the Will of just Certain States that could swing an election while ignoring the reality that candidate lost the majority of States...

Paraphrasing from the OP:

The Electoral College gives outsize power to less-populated states, which mostly happen to be controlled by the Republicans who currently benefit from the electoral college’s bias toward those less-populated states.

And if the Democrats controlled those less populated States you would be defending the Electoral College!

As Flacaltenn pointed out it would be funny to watch those States that signed that pact about forcing their Electoral College Voter to vote according to the National Vote outcome and if Trump win the Popular Vote because they ( Those States ) would try to void the pact between them seeing all of them were Blue States and you would of course agree with their flip flop on the issue!

The fact is you want California to have the only vote because you know California is the only reason why Hillary Clinton won the Popular Vote by three million!

So stop being such a sore loser and remember the Electoral College also elected Obama and did you think it was outdated then?

You must win States in this Republic that is called UNITED STATES of AMERICA and your actual voice in this Government is your House member and not the damn President!

 

[Devils_Advocate]

The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to states, favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per person.

For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499. The difference between these two states of 537,943 is the largest in the Electoral College.

The Electoral College favors the smaller states with disproportionate voting power. Advocates of the system say that this uneven power forces politicians to pay attention to smaller states, which would otherwise be ignored.

Despite its intentions, the Electoral College does not encourage politicians to campaign in every state.

FairVote.org | Problems with the Electoral College

FairVote acts to transform our elections to achieve secure access to participation for all, a full spectrum of meaningful ballot choices and majority rule with fair representation. As a catalyst for change, we build support for innovative strategies to win a constitutionally protected right to...

archive3.fairvote.org

This is totally unfair.

It is only unfair when your candidate loses, so if by some crazy ass way Trump win the Popular Vote and Biden win the Electoral College you then will proclaim Trump should be President, right?

or

You will back peddle and proclaim you were mistaken and Trump should not be President and Biden won fairly and that Blue State Pact about forcing their State to vote according to the National Popular vote should also be voided, right?

The President has been elected this way since you were born and only those like you feel it is unfair just because your candidate lost the election, so get over it!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Amy will block all that stupid shit you clowns are trying to pull. Nice fail trying to get out ahead of it though.

What "stupid shit" are Democrats trying to pull? We're not the ones engaged in voter suppression and trying to short-circuit the 2020 census.

You’re going to try to count votes all the way up until The electoral committee Has to show up with the votes you’re gonna cry that you need more time.. Amy will say to bad see ya punks

Really? So you think SCOTUS should pick our presidents?

SCOTUS has never picked a President. We believe SCOTUS should make decisions adhering to the laws as written, which is in direct opposition to you, who believes that SCOTUS should make decisions based on what the laws "should" be in order to give you your way.

Thank you for defining so clearly why no one should listen to your whining.

 

[Cecilie1200]

From the OP:

Here’s an even worse series of events. Biden wins a clear victory in the popular vote, but the electoral college has him up only 274 to 264, which could happen if Biden takes Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Arizona — but not Michigan. The Republican-led legislature of Wisconsin, convinced that their state suffered massive fraud in the form of too many Democrats voting, decides that since the Constitution says electors are appointed “in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” they will simply appoint Republican electors for their 10 electoral votes. Trump wins.

Yes, because repeating it will magically change it from ignorant bilge to brilliant commentary. NOT.

There's no number of times that you're going to tantrum about "How DARE you rubes and peons out there contradict the will of your betters in the city!!" that's going to make you sound less like a piece of shit, LaCooter. Accept it. The only freedom you're interested in is your freedom to force others into slavery, and the only "will of the people" you care about is the will of people who agree with you to crush their opponents. You are the tyrant you pretend - badly - to fight . . . or, at least, you're the brain-damaged puppet of the tyrant you pretend - badly - to fight.

 

[Cecilie1200]

From the OP:

The answer, of course, is to amend the Constitution to get rid of the electoral college so that, like every other democracy on Earth, we have a system in which we have an election, and the candidate who gets the most votes wins.

But, of course, we can’t do that because the amendment process itself gives outsize power to less-populated states, which mostly happen to be controlled by the Republicans who currently benefit from the electoral college’s bias toward those less-populated states. Check and mate.

So we’ll have to live with the very real possibility that, for the third time in six presidential elections, in 2020, the person who receives fewer votes could win the presidency.

Is this the right time to point out that picking your unwanted ass up and taking it to one of these countries you think are so wonderful and perfect is an alternative option to forcing everyone else to live with something they don't want because your arrogant ass has decided your preferences are what's best for everyone?

I can't imagine that those countries want you around any more than this one does, but hey, you're probably used to being a shunned pariah.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Constitution has evolved since ratification on "some" issues: Black people are now FULL humans and they can vote. Women can vote. So why hasn't the Electoral College dinosaur evolved?

Have you considered the possibility that everyone who isn't you thinks there are more important considerations than your crybaby rants of "It's not FAIR that I don't get my way all the time!"?

That could be why.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Constitution has evolved since ratification on "some" issues: Black people are now FULL humans and they can vote. Women can vote. So why hasn't the Electoral College dinosaur evolved?

Tell us what Democrats have done for you during your lifetime besides ensuring welfare checks.

Tell us what LaCooter NEEDS them to do beyond that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Constitution has evolved since ratification on "some" issues: Black people are now FULL humans and they can vote. Women can vote. So why hasn't the Electoral College dinosaur evolved?

Tell us what Democrats have done for you during your lifetime besides ensuring welfare checks.

This thread is about the Electoral College

The Constitution has evolved since ratification on "some" issues: Black people are now FULL humans and they can vote. Women can vote. So why hasn't the Electoral College dinosaur evolved?

Tell us what Democrats have done for you during your lifetime besides ensuring welfare checks.

This thread is about the Electoral College dinosaur - not welfare checks.

That's why I posted that.
You seem to think, quite erroneously, that the students should run the university.

You mean that the "people" should run the country? I agree!

Except that he thinks ALL the people should have a say, while you only want certain people to have a say, and everyone else to shut the fuck up and get back to serving their overlords.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's just hope our 2020 election truly reflects the will of the people.

It will reflect the Will of the People of each State as it was intended and not the Will of just Certain States that could swing an election while ignoring the reality that candidate lost the majority of States...

You're speaking an alien language to LaCooter. She thinks everyone in the country, regardless of where they are or what type of lifestyle they lead, should agree with her on what issues are important and what is the "right" view of them, and anyone who disagrees with her is only doing so because they are wrong and eeeeevil. Wrong and eeeeeevil people should not be allowed to say anything, let alone have a voice in politics, therefore there is no need to have a system that allows anyone to talk whatsoever except for the "good" people like her.

Naturally, the concept of different states existing in order to allow people there to do things differently than the decreed "wisdom" of LaCooter and her fellow elitist city vermin is as much anathema to her as would be allowing people to set up colonies to practice cannibalism. Probably more so, in fact.

In short, the Electoral College is a silly, eeeevil relic of an antiquated time when benighted fools like the Founding Fathers still adhered to superstitious concepts like freedom and state sovereignty to protect that freedom; the existence of states themselves, other than as meaningless region names on the map, is much the same in LaCooter's eyes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let's just hope our 2020 election truly reflects the will of the people.

It will reflect the Will of the People of each State as it was intended and not the Will of just Certain States that could swing an election while ignoring the reality that candidate lost the majority of States...

Paraphrasing from the OP:

The Electoral College gives outsize power to less-populated states, which mostly happen to be controlled by the Republicans who currently benefit from the electoral college’s bias toward those less-populated states.

"All you need to know is that I said this, and therefore it's true, so if you disagree, just refer to the first time I said it to understand that I'm right."

Uh huh.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to states, favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per person.

For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499. The difference between these two states of 537,943 is the largest in the Electoral College.

The Electoral College favors the smaller states with disproportionate voting power. Advocates of the system say that this uneven power forces politicians to pay attention to smaller states, which would otherwise be ignored.

Despite its intentions, the Electoral College does not encourage politicians to campaign in every state.

FairVote.org | Problems with the Electoral College

FairVote acts to transform our elections to achieve secure access to participation for all, a full spectrum of meaningful ballot choices and majority rule with fair representation. As a catalyst for change, we build support for innovative strategies to win a constitutionally protected right to...

archive3.fairvote.org

This is totally unfair.

You know why the Electoral College gives "disproportionate power" to less-populous states, LaCooter? That would be to counterbalance the disproportionate power already possessed by states with large cities. I get that you can't see your urban privilege, but it exists. I'm sure you think it should all be a numbers game rigged toward YOUR idea of fair, because that's what privileged oppressors always think when they're striving to keep the less fortunate down for their own greedy gain.

Once again, how does it feel, knowing that you're the evil shitbag tyrant you like to pretend you fight?

 

[beautress]

I've been hearing rumors. Have you heard anything?

There could be few better testaments to the lunacy of our electoral system than the fact that, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court, made up of the most august judges in the land, spent time considering whether one random guy somewhere should be able to decide who the next president is.

But that’s just what happened. And even if the judges take what might be the most practical course in this case — which concerns the question of “faithless electors” — it’s a good reminder that, because our system is so uniquely undemocratic, we could be heading for yet another election in which the person who gets the most votes is not the one who wins.
And that’s not even the most terrifying prospect.

This Supreme Court case asks whether, having been sent to the electoral college on the presumption they’d cast their votes for a particular candidate, electors are allowed under the Constitution to change their minds and act as free agents.

The electoral college is a ticking time bomb for November

Is that why the Democrats are saying that President Trump will notleave the WH if the Democrats cheat? Just curious.

 

[beautress]

The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to states, favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per person.

For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has three (3) electoral votes for a population of 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 Census Bureau estimates) and Texas has thirty-two (32) electoral votes for a population of almost 25 million. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has one "elector" for every 177,556 people and Texas has one "elector" for about every 715,499. The difference between these two states of 537,943 is the largest in the Electoral College.

The Electoral College favors the smaller states with disproportionate voting power. Advocates of the system say that this uneven power forces politicians to pay attention to smaller states, which would otherwise be ignored.

Despite its intentions, the Electoral College does not encourage politicians to campaign in every state.

FairVote.org | Problems with the Electoral College

FairVote acts to transform our elections to achieve secure access to participation for all, a full spectrum of meaningful ballot choices and majority rule with fair representation. As a catalyst for change, we build support for innovative strategies to win a constitutionally protected right to...

archive3.fairvote.org

This is totally unfair.

You know why the Electoral College gives "disproportionate power" to less-populous states, LaCooter? That would be to counterbalance the disproportionate power already possessed by states with large cities. I get that you can't see your urban privilege, but it exists. I'm sure you think it should all be a numbers game rigged toward YOUR idea of fair, because that's what privileged oppressors always think when they're striving to keep the less fortunate down for their own greedy gain.

Once again, how does it feel, knowing that you're the evil shitbag tyrant you like to pretend you fight?

What would truly be evil would be to guarantee small population states to have a say on national elections to get them to join, and then take that guarantee away later. Small population states have resources of gargantuan proportions. It would be mega evil to remove their one favor nationally which would place them as vassals to 3 or 4 states with large populations. I hope you do not carry this unpardonable evil idea to fruition. Thanks ahead of time for standing down to a broken promise to the other 40-something states of lesser population.

 

[sakinago]

I've been hearing rumors. Have you heard anything?

There could be few better testaments to the lunacy of our electoral system than the fact that, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court, made up of the most august judges in the land, spent time considering whether one random guy somewhere should be able to decide who the next president is.

But that’s just what happened. And even if the judges take what might be the most practical course in this case — which concerns the question of “faithless electors” — it’s a good reminder that, because our system is so uniquely undemocratic, we could be heading for yet another election in which the person who gets the most votes is not the one who wins.
And that’s not even the most terrifying prospect.

This Supreme Court case asks whether, having been sent to the electoral college on the presumption they’d cast their votes for a particular candidate, electors are allowed under the Constitution to change their minds and act as free agents.

The electoral college is a ticking time bomb for November

Hanky Panky? You mean the same system we’ve been using for 200 years now? “Yay, to the popular vote.” But “boo 50 simultaneous popular votes.” God forbid a candidate has to appeal to a plurality of all Americans across the country.

 

[mamooth]

Holy horse crap.. You ASKING electoral college abuse? You ever hear of the 14 largely BLUE states that signed a pact DEMANDING their electors IGNORE the will of their residents' votes and cast their votes for the Popular vote winner??

Yes. That's the pro-democracy proposal that triggers all of the "I DEMAND A TYRANNY OF MY CORRUPT MINORITY!" authoritarians.

Instead of trying to govern as the tyrannical minority, why not try supporting positions that the majority doesn't think are immoral dogshit?

Seriously -- you this clueless ALL the time?

Let's go over where you went full metal stupid here.

You're saying that if the will of the whole nation is overridden by a minority, that's a good thing. But that if a national majority overrides the will of a single minority state, that's a bad thing.

That is, you're telling us that minority rule rocks, and majority rule is evil. You sound crazy.

This is gonna backfire on your asses like most of your schemes.. If Trump WINS the popular vote --

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA.

you'll see trainloads of lawyers running to court to REMOVE the legislation they all passed..

Of course not.

Your problem is that you can't even imagine not being immoral yourself, so you can't imagine that anyone else isn't equally immoral. Get it through your head. We are not like you.

Otherwise NY. Cali.Illinois and 11 other Blue states would turn ALL RED on the official electoral college results..

And we'd be fine with that.

How'd you miss this chief???

In order to pull of the condescending act, you have to actually be smart. You're kind of slow, so you can't do it. When you try, you just sound pouty and butthurt.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I've been hearing rumors. Have you heard anything?

There could be few better testaments to the lunacy of our electoral system than the fact that, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court, made up of the most august judges in the land, spent time considering whether one random guy somewhere should be able to decide who the next president is.

But that’s just what happened. And even if the judges take what might be the most practical course in this case — which concerns the question of “faithless electors” — it’s a good reminder that, because our system is so uniquely undemocratic, we could be heading for yet another election in which the person who gets the most votes is not the one who wins.
And that’s not even the most terrifying prospect.

This Supreme Court case asks whether, having been sent to the electoral college on the presumption they’d cast their votes for a particular candidate, electors are allowed under the Constitution to change their minds and act as free agents.

The electoral college is a ticking time bomb for November

The guy who wins the most electoral votes will win.


What ticking timebomb?

 

[Lakhota]

GOP Won’t Endorse — Or Reject — Trump’s ‘Hail Mary’ Plan To Hijack Electoral College

Congressional Republicans didn’t want to talk about the idea of state legislatures overruling the will of the people, but they also didn’t shoot it down outright.

President Donald Trump’s legal team is reportedly considering a radical and last-ditch strategy aimed at overturning President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the Electoral College as part of their efforts seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the far-fetched plan involves positioning Republican-controlled state legislatures in states Biden won like Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia to ignore their voters and appoint pro-Trump electors who would then swing the Electoral College in Trump’s favor and install him in office for another four years.

The so-called Hail Mary option has been dismissed by legal experts in both parties as undemocratic and deeply dangerous, one that would directly subvert the will of the people. The move is viewed as an extreme long shot that would be subject to litigation and likely go all the way to the Supreme Court.

GOP Won’t Endorse — Or Reject — Trump’s ‘Hail Mary’ Plan To Hijack Electoral College

This has been one of my greatest fears regarding this election. Trump is certainly evil enough to try this. The Electoral College is a dinosaur that should quickly become extinct.