Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Topic Author
Posts: 8481
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Mon Jul 06, 2020 4:44 pm

So, the case has been decided and WA and CO (and other states) are free to impose penalties to electors for defying the will of voters even though they pledged to follow through.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states may require states to support the winner of their state.

This requires a lot of thought. On the one hand, it's heartening to see that state penalties will be allowed to stand. If my state awards its votes to the winner of the state and it's a WTA, I want the electors to follow through. However, you'll have the strict constitutionalists who will say that this goes against everything our Founding Fathers wanted because the electors should be free to cast their votes as they please (note: the ruling doesn't forbid them from casting a vote in any other fashion...rather, it says that states can punish them if they do not vote how they pledged to do).

Which brings about the question: why even keep the EC? If it's meant to be a rubber stamp of the states, why have a kabuki theater act where X people go to the state capital and cast a vote and then send a paper in a chest to Congress to be counted after Congress convenes in the new year? And if faithless electors are discouraged, then why have a system that pretends to care about electing the right person?

On the bright side, this means that the NPVIC can proceed. If the states adopt this and award their electors based on the national popular vote winner, the states can replace/punish the electors (the jsutices have implicitly held up the fact that when it comes to presidential elections, states decide how the votes are awarded, who gets to be an elector, and what happens if they don't follow through).
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6076
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:09 pm

You might read Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 on interstate compacts which NPVIC clearly is one. A state might choose to use NPV, but agreeing to do so in a compact requires the Congress to approve. Bad idea in any case, NY voters vote for Candidate X, but because other states voting for Candidate Y, NY voters get to see their electors go for Y. Really?
 
Ken777
Posts: 10085
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:12 pm

I am a strong believer that the EC should be killed. If the Founding Fathers were told that an orange freak would loose the election be around 3,000,000 votes and still named President they would all gag at the thought - and jerked the EC out of the Constitution before the ink was dry.

Obviously Trump will go down in history as the "Unwanted President" (among other bad things) so we are left with the need to clean up the EC disaster. Shouldn't be too hard - a simple national majority is hard to argue against.
 
NIKV69
Posts: 13482
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:25 pm

Ken777 wrote:
I am a strong believer that the EC should be killed. If the Founding Fathers were told that an orange freak would loose the election be around 3,000,000 votes and still named President they would all gag at the thought - and jerked the EC out of the Constitution before the ink was dry.

Obviously Trump will go down in history as the "Unwanted President" (among other bad things) so we are left with the need to clean up the EC disaster. Shouldn't be too hard - a simple national majority is hard to argue against.


Thankfully the founding fathers thought well enough ahead and prevented California from picking the leader for the other states.
I am the Googlizer!!!
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2985
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:46 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
However, you'll have the strict constitutionalists who will say that this goes against everything our Founding Fathers wanted because the electors should be free to cast their votes as they please (note: the ruling doesn't forbid them from casting a vote in any other fashion...rather, it says that states can punish them if they do not vote how they pledged to do).

Not really. From a strict constitutionalist perspective, the presidential election is 50 separate state elections, and states are more or less free to conduct their elections and apportion or use their electors however they want.

einsteinboricua wrote:
Which brings about the question: why even keep the EC? If it's meant to be a rubber stamp of the states, why have a kabuki theater act where X people go to the state capital and cast a vote and then send a paper in a chest to Congress to be counted after Congress convenes in the new year? And if faithless electors are discouraged, then why have a system that pretends to care about electing the right person?

In my opinion, by putting some weight into the election of needing to win not only a simple majority popular vote, but also in needing to carry the elections in individual states, it creates important incentives to have presidential candidates campaign and have appeal in states beyond just the most populous. A president is president of all 50 states, so in general I think it's important that he/she be expected to carry and win election in a large enough number of the states versus a straight popular vote, and I think the electoral college is a quite clever mechanism for striking that balance.
 
apodino
Posts: 3925
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:50 pm

I am not surprised by the ruling but I am a little bit surprised the ruling was unanimous. As I understand my history, one of the reasons for the Electoral college is that the founding fathers felt that Electors would have much better information and a grasp on who should be president. Based on this, I would have thought some of the originalists on the Court (Alito and Thomas noteably), might have dissented in this case.

Of course, the other main reason for the Electoral college still applies, which is that without it, the Big states and population centers would have outsized influence over the more rural areas and smaller states.

This also eliminates this as a factor in this election. I thought that if the court did rule for the faithless electors in this case, we could have major issues after the election with trying to figure out the president. (We still might depending on an individual states Faithless elector laws), but this ruling takes that out of it.
 
User avatar
Jetsgo
Posts: 2784
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:31 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Mon Jul 06, 2020 11:10 pm

Ken777 wrote:
I am a strong believer that the EC should be killed. If the Founding Fathers were told that an orange freak would loose the election be around 3,000,000 votes and still named President they would all gag at the thought - and jerked the EC out of the Constitution before the ink was dry.

Obviously Trump will go down in history as the "Unwanted President" (among other bad things) so we are left with the need to clean up the EC disaster. Shouldn't be too hard - a simple national majority is hard to argue against.


Surly you understand the EC worked as designed in 2016. Do you refer to Obama as a black whatever... or is that different?
Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
 
bennett123
Posts: 9737
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:45 am

Seems little point having elections, if your Elector can just ignore the outcome.

Secondly, you can’t bribe or blackmail millions of voters. One or two Electors possibly.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12968
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:59 am

NIKV69 wrote:
Ken777 wrote:
I am a strong believer that the EC should be killed. If the Founding Fathers were told that an orange freak would loose the election be around 3,000,000 votes and still named President they would all gag at the thought - and jerked the EC out of the Constitution before the ink was dry.

Obviously Trump will go down in history as the "Unwanted President" (among other bad things) so we are left with the need to clean up the EC disaster. Shouldn't be too hard - a simple national majority is hard to argue against.


Thankfully the founding fathers thought well enough ahead and prevented California from picking the leader for the other states.


You do realise that California is but one state out of 50, wasn't even around when the constitution was written and one person one vote is about as democratic as it gets. One state of 40m does not make a majority.

If the EC is so important why even go through the pretense of having a popular vote, if the will of the people isn't acted on just let the EC decide and stop wasting billion of elections every 4 years.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:52 am

Kiwirob wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
Ken777 wrote:
I am a strong believer that the EC should be killed. If the Founding Fathers were told that an orange freak would loose the election be around 3,000,000 votes and still named President they would all gag at the thought - and jerked the EC out of the Constitution before the ink was dry.

Obviously Trump will go down in history as the "Unwanted President" (among other bad things) so we are left with the need to clean up the EC disaster. Shouldn't be too hard - a simple national majority is hard to argue against.


Thankfully the founding fathers thought well enough ahead and prevented California from picking the leader for the other states.


You do realise that California is but one state out of 50, wasn't even around when the constitution was written and one person one vote is about as democratic as it gets. One state of 40m does not make a majority.

If the EC is so important why even go through the pretense of having a popular vote, if the will of the people isn't acted on just let the EC decide and stop wasting billion of elections every 4 years.


There is only pretense of a popular vote for people in this country that can’t seem to wrap their heads around (or ignored their education) how this country and it’s form of governance is structured. Clintons margin of victory in California represents nearly the entire vote delta between Trump and Clinton. Add in New York and it’s not even close. The EC is about every state having a part in the election of the President to represent all States, not just a handful of States.

There is popular vote representation.... It’s called the House and Senate which has seats by population in the House and two Senators from each State which equals the number of Electors. States have am identical structure with some small variations, if any. The President reflects the will of the Union of States in signing something into law or vetoing it, not just large population centers. Congress is the direct representation at the Federal level along with a given State Government. The SCOTUS determines the constitutionality of something that comes out of a State, an act by Congress or an executive action taken by a President that has an impact on all States where a conflict with the Constitution exists.

Think of US States in the context individual countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... ted_States
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13254
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:30 am

Jetsgo wrote:
Ken777 wrote:
I am a strong believer that the EC should be killed. If the Founding Fathers were told that an orange freak would loose the election be around 3,000,000 votes and still named President they would all gag at the thought - and jerked the EC out of the Constitution before the ink was dry.

Obviously Trump will go down in history as the "Unwanted President" (among other bad things) so we are left with the need to clean up the EC disaster. Shouldn't be too hard - a simple national majority is hard to argue against.


Surly you understand the EC worked as designed in 2016. Do you refer to Obama as a black whatever... or is that different?


The EC was *intended* to make someone President that a fairly large majority of voters don´t want to be President? Have some founding father diaries/letter/federalists papers to back that up?

NIKV69 wrote:
Ken777 wrote:
I am a strong believer that the EC should be killed. If the Founding Fathers were told that an orange freak would loose the election be around 3,000,000 votes and still named President they would all gag at the thought - and jerked the EC out of the Constitution before the ink was dry.

Obviously Trump will go down in history as the "Unwanted President" (among other bad things) so we are left with the need to clean up the EC disaster. Shouldn't be too hard - a simple national majority is hard to argue against.


Thankfully the founding fathers thought well enough ahead and prevented California from picking the leader for the other states.


But its ok if Texas picks the leader for the other states? ave some founding father diaries/letter/federalists papers to back up that Texas as sole decider is ok, but California isn´t`?

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Olddog
Posts: 1519
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:42 am

The founding fathers were not magicians and had no idea what the US could become 250 years ago. Do you think that a november election and a sworn in late january makes still sense in 2020 ?
Sentence from Belgian PM at press conference forbidden due to new rules
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11815
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:55 am

No matter how little sense the EC makes, it will not be changed any time soon, why would you change a system which got you elected in the first place?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13254
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 07, 2020 7:57 am

Olddog wrote:
The founding fathers were not magicians and had no idea what the US could become 250 years ago. Do you think that a november election and a sworn in late january makes still sense in 2020 ?


According to the EC fan Club that is exactly what they where... omniscient magicians...

Until of course the EC structural advantage swings to the other side, in which case the founding father retroactively change their mind of course.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2985
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:04 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Jetsgo wrote:
Ken777 wrote:
I am a strong believer that the EC should be killed. If the Founding Fathers were told that an orange freak would loose the election be around 3,000,000 votes and still named President they would all gag at the thought - and jerked the EC out of the Constitution before the ink was dry.

Obviously Trump will go down in history as the "Unwanted President" (among other bad things) so we are left with the need to clean up the EC disaster. Shouldn't be too hard - a simple national majority is hard to argue against.


Surly you understand the EC worked as designed in 2016. Do you refer to Obama as a black whatever... or is that different?


The EC was *intended* to make someone President that a fairly large majority of voters don´t want to be President? Have some founding father diaries/letter/federalists papers to back that up?

The EC is *intended* to ensure the winner of the presidency is the winner of a substantial number of the popular votes held in all 50 states. Most of the time this means the winner of the national popular vote takes the prize, on rare occasions not. If states have a problem with winner-take-all apportionment of their electors that can contribute to that happening, they're free to re-apportion accordingly, but that prerogative lies with the state and its people.
 
User avatar
lugie
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:11 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 07, 2020 8:49 am

Jetsgo wrote:
Ken777 wrote:
I am a strong believer that the EC should be killed. If the Founding Fathers were told that an orange freak would loose the election be around 3,000,000 votes and still named President they would all gag at the thought - and jerked the EC out of the Constitution before the ink was dry.

Obviously Trump will go down in history as the "Unwanted President" (among other bad things) so we are left with the need to clean up the EC disaster. Shouldn't be too hard - a simple national majority is hard to argue against.


Surly you understand the EC worked as designed in 2016. Do you refer to Obama as a black whatever... or is that different?


No, actually the EC failed to work as designed (or maybe not failed to work as "designed", but failed to work as intended) in 2016.

The intention of the EC was to prevent a "tyranny of the majority", as back in the day democracy was seen as in danger of tethering on the edge of ochlocracy (mob rule). Therefore, the Founding Fathers included a provision that could prevent a simple majority of voters to swing the election in their favor if such a win entailed massive repression for the losing parties or even putting the democratic foundations of the Republic at risk.

Trump's election and presidency is a tyranny of the minority which is definitely not what the Founding Fathers had envisioned when drafting the voting system. He is repressive (using the military on protestors, calling the press enemies of the people) and most importantly, he doesn't even begin to try appealing to all American voters.
His race-baiting rhetoric caters only to his narrow base of deplorable whites and his economic policies benefit the 1%.

He flipped the safeguards of the EC on their head and provided a decisive point for why the EC is absolutely outdated in the 21st century.
Q400 E175 E190 CRJ7 CRJ9 CRJX MD88 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A359 B733 B73G B738 B739 B748 B764 B772 B77W B788 B789
FRA STR HAM TXL MUC ZRH ACE BRU BLL DUB MAN ARN MAD OPO LIS FNC AMS PHL RDU LGA CLT EWR ORD ATL SFO MDW IAD YYZ SJO PTY
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12968
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:07 am

DL717 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:

Thankfully the founding fathers thought well enough ahead and prevented California from picking the leader for the other states.


You do realise that California is but one state out of 50, wasn't even around when the constitution was written and one person one vote is about as democratic as it gets. One state of 40m does not make a majority.

If the EC is so important why even go through the pretense of having a popular vote, if the will of the people isn't acted on just let the EC decide and stop wasting billion of elections every 4 years.


There is only pretense of a popular vote for people in this country that can’t seem to wrap their heads around (or ignored their education) how this country and it’s form of governance is structured. Clintons margin of victory in California represents nearly the entire vote delta between Trump and Clinton. Add in New York and it’s not even close. The EC is about every state having a part in the election of the President to represent all States, not just a handful of States.

There is popular vote representation.... It’s called the House and Senate which has seats by population in the House and two Senators from each State which equals the number of Electors. States have am identical structure with some small variations, if any. The President reflects the will of the Union of States in signing something into law or vetoing it, not just large population centers. Congress is the direct representation at the Federal level along with a given State Government. The SCOTUS determines the constitutionality of something that comes out of a State, an act by Congress or an executive action taken by a President that has an impact on all States where a conflict with the Constitution exists.

Think of US States in the context individual countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... ted_States


If it's one person one vote then everyone's vote counts, at the moment because the EC isn't proportional if you're a republican and live in California then what's the point in voting, you vote is meaningless. At the very least the US needs to reform the EC so that it's proportional to the popular vote in the state.

If they are individual countries as you like to call them, then they should have the ability to leave the union if they so desire, as they can't that statement of yours is false.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13154
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:28 am

The senators should be enough for small states to matter. Big states generate most of the money funding the federation and poor states, why should the individual votes of their citizens matter less than a vote of someone in a state nobody would notice if it disappeared ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Topic Author
Posts: 8481
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:03 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
You might read Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 on interstate compacts which NPVIC clearly is one. A state might choose to use NPV, but agreeing to do so in a compact requires the Congress to approve. Bad idea in any case, NY voters vote for Candidate X, but because other states voting for Candidate Y, NY voters get to see their electors go for Y. Really?

1. Read Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
I believe this allows the state to appoint its electors as it deems fit. As the compact carries no legal weight and there's no way to enforce it, it wouldn't run afoul of the interstate compact clause. CA doesn't have to approve of further states to come to the same agreement and has no means to enforce it in those that have signed.

2. If I were a Republican in CA, I'd be thrilled knowing that my vote CAN determine who the president will be, as opposed to the current system where I'm drowned out by Democrats in my state. I don't see New Yorkers clamoring for an exit of the compact and polls show a majority supports popular vote. Of note is that Republican voters also supported the idea...until Trump won in 2016, and because the EC favored him, now they love the EC.

flyguy89 wrote:
The EC is *intended* to ensure the winner of the presidency is the winner of a substantial number of the popular votes held in all 50 states.

Except if that if this was the intent, then either the the system was not thoroughly thought out or someone could exploit it and become president without a majority of voters or a majority of states.

Assuming that states are not polarized by party and are open to voting to all candidates, a candidate can win just the 11 largest states (CA down to NJ) by a bare minimum and forget the rest of the 39 states. Another candidate can capitalize on that and win a bare plurality in the smallest 40 states (NJ being the tipping point state in both scenarios) and ignore the biggest ones, which will give them a majority in the EC, even though less than 20% of Americans will have voted for that person.

If the EC is supposed to bar either person from assuming the presidency, then there's no point in elections.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
DLFREEBIRD
Posts: 1482
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2015 6:07 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:41 pm

DL717 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:

Thankfully the founding fathers thought well enough ahead and prevented California from picking the leader for the other states.


You do realise that California is but one state out of 50, wasn't even around when the constitution was written and one person one vote is about as democratic as it gets. One state of 40m does not make a majority.

If the EC is so important why even go through the pretense of having a popular vote, if the will of the people isn't acted on just let the EC decide and stop wasting billion of elections every 4 years.


There is only pretense of a popular vote for people in this country that can’t seem to wrap their heads around (or ignored their education) how this country and it’s form of governance is structured. Clintons margin of victory in California represents nearly the entire vote delta between Trump and Clinton. Add in New York and it’s not even close. The EC is about every state having a part in the election of the President to represent all States, not just a handful of States.

There is popular vote representation.... It’s called the House and Senate which has seats by population in the House and two Senators from each State which equals the number of Electors. States have am identical structure with some small variations, if any. The President reflects the will of the Union of States in signing something into law or vetoing it, not just large population centers. Congress is the direct representation at the Federal level along with a given State Government. The SCOTUS determines the constitutionality of something that comes out of a State, an act by Congress or an executive action taken by a President that has an impact on all States where a conflict with the Constitution exists.

Think of US States in the context individual countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... ted_States




No we shouldn't think of the US in the context of individual countries. Cause that's not reality.

Your still not addressing, the problems with the EC, which is the winner takes all, canceling out the other votes. States with smaller populations like Wyoming and Alaska are over-represented.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2985
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 07, 2020 6:08 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
If I were a Republican in CA, I'd be thrilled knowing that my vote CAN determine who the president will be, as opposed to the current system where I'm drowned out by Democrats in my state.

What exactly is stopping CA and NY from scrapping winner-takes-all then and apportioning their electors by percent of the vote like Maine does?

einsteinboricua wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
The EC is *intended* to ensure the winner of the presidency is the winner of a substantial number of the popular votes held in all 50 states.

Except if that if this was the intent, then either the the system was not thoroughly thought out or someone could exploit it and become president without a majority of voters or a majority of states.

Assuming that states are not polarized by party and are open to voting to all candidates, a candidate can win just the 11 largest states (CA down to NJ) by a bare minimum and forget the rest of the 39 states. Another candidate can capitalize on that and win a bare plurality in the smallest 40 states (NJ being the tipping point state in both scenarios) and ignore the biggest ones, which will give them a majority in the EC, even though less than 20% of Americans will have voted for that person.

If the EC is supposed to bar either person from assuming the presidency, then there's no point in elections.

Neither are realistic scenarios. In over 230 years, the only 4 times where the candidate who won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote are instances where the popular votes were exceedingly close (from 0.05 to 2.2%). The popular vote is not unimportant or irrelevant, which is why each state's electoral delegation is tied to its congressional representation, but it's not the only consideration in a system as ours as a federated republic of 50 sovereign entities.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6076
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Tue Jul 07, 2020 11:20 pm

But, the SCOTUS missed this wording in the 12th Amendment,

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;


By vote, certainly indicates the Electors chose the President and Vice-President, voting being a discretionary act. Punishing the electors, as seen in the SCOTUS opinion, implies they can be compelled to vote for a certain candidate by theIr legislatures.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:33 am

lugie wrote:
Jetsgo wrote:
Ken777 wrote:
I am a strong believer that the EC should be killed. If the Founding Fathers were told that an orange freak would loose the election be around 3,000,000 votes and still named President they would all gag at the thought - and jerked the EC out of the Constitution before the ink was dry.

Obviously Trump will go down in history as the "Unwanted President" (among other bad things) so we are left with the need to clean up the EC disaster. Shouldn't be too hard - a simple national majority is hard to argue against.


Surly you understand the EC worked as designed in 2016. Do you refer to Obama as a black whatever... or is that different?


No, actually the EC failed to work as designed (or maybe not failed to work as "designed", but failed to work as intended) in 2016.

The intention of the EC was to prevent a "tyranny of the majority", as back in the day democracy was seen as in danger of tethering on the edge of ochlocracy (mob rule). Therefore, the Founding Fathers included a provision that could prevent a simple majority of voters to swing the election in their favor if such a win entailed massive repression for the losing parties or even putting the democratic foundations of the Republic at risk.

Trump's election and presidency is a tyranny of the minority which is definitely not what the Founding Fathers had envisioned when drafting the voting system. He is repressive (using the military on protestors, calling the press enemies of the people) and most importantly, he doesn't even begin to try appealing to all American voters.
His race-baiting rhetoric caters only to his narrow base of deplorable whites and his economic policies benefit the 1%.

He flipped the safeguards of the EC on their head and provided a decisive point for why the EC is absolutely outdated in the 21st century.


There is no such thing as Tyranny of the Minority. The EC worked exactly as designed and intended. If protected the rights of all States.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:36 am

flyguy89 wrote:
What exactly is stopping CA and NY from scrapping winner-takes-all then and apportioning their electors by percent of the vote like Maine does?


Fear. If they split their votes, Democrats would lose close to half of the Californias electors.

einsteinboricua wrote:
The EC is *intended* to ensure the winner of the presidency is the winner of a substantial number of the popular votes held in all 50 states.


Nope.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
Kent350787
Posts: 1408
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:06 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:49 am

DL717 wrote:
Fear. If they split their votes, Democrats would lose close to half of the Californias electors.


Pretty true. Maine may already do it, but, the populations of CA and NY are already underrepresented in the EC. Unless the move occurred nationally, it would potentially be even worse.
S340/J31/146-300/F27/F50/Nord 262/Q100/200/E195/733/734/738/744/762/763/77W/788/789/320/321/332/333/345/359
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:04 am

Kiwirob wrote:
DL717 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

You do realise that California is but one state out of 50, wasn't even around when the constitution was written and one person one vote is about as democratic as it gets. One state of 40m does not make a majority.

If the EC is so important why even go through the pretense of having a popular vote, if the will of the people isn't acted on just let the EC decide and stop wasting billion of elections every 4 years.


There is only pretense of a popular vote for people in this country that can’t seem to wrap their heads around (or ignored their education) how this country and it’s form of governance is structured. Clintons margin of victory in California represents nearly the entire vote delta between Trump and Clinton. Add in New York and it’s not even close. The EC is about every state having a part in the election of the President to represent all States, not just a handful of States.

There is popular vote representation.... It’s called the House and Senate which has seats by population in the House and two Senators from each State which equals the number of Electors. States have am identical structure with some small variations, if any. The President reflects the will of the Union of States in signing something into law or vetoing it, not just large population centers. Congress is the direct representation at the Federal level along with a given State Government. The SCOTUS determines the constitutionality of something that comes out of a State, an act by Congress or an executive action taken by a President that has an impact on all States where a conflict with the Constitution exists.

Think of US States in the context individual countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... ted_States


If it's one person one vote then everyone's vote counts, at the moment because the EC isn't proportional if you're a republican and live in California then what's the point in voting, you vote is meaningless. At the very least the US needs to reform the EC so that it's proportional to the popular vote in the state.

If they are individual countries as you like to call them, then they should have the ability to leave the union if they so desire, as they can't that statement of yours is false.


It’s fine that you don’t understand how our Presidential elections work, but at least we get to decide at the State level where our apportioned electors are assigned to. Unlike parliament structures.

There is nothing false about what I said. It’s simply a means to help you try and understand how the States form the Union. They do not have full sovereignty, but there is some level of sovereignty. Examples of this.... Air Transportation crosses state lines and is therefore preempted. States can not impose their own restrictions on aviation. There used to be Federal speed limits for highways of 55 mph and then 65 mph. This was repealed in 1995 and each State is permitted to set their own speed limits or have no speed limit. John in Florida isn’t at risk of being impacted on a daily basis by Tom who lives in Montana where there used to be no speed limits. If Tom goes to visit John, then Tom needs to abide by Florida’s speed limit which is no different than driving around in another country. If John goes to visit Tom, he would have welcomed to have the opportunity to drive as fast as he wanted to until 1998. Examples like this go on and on for everything from soup to nuts.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12968
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:01 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
But, the SCOTUS missed this wording in the 12th Amendment,

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;


By vote, certainly indicates the Electors chose the President and Vice-President, voting being a discretionary act. Punishing the electors, as seen in the SCOTUS opinion, implies they can be compelled to vote for a certain candidate by theIr legislatures.


What if the EC votes for people not even in the running for the job as per the last election, shouldn't they be punished for making a mockery of the system?

The five Democratic electors who voted for people other than Clinton included three from Washington State who chose Colin Powell and another who chose Yankton Sioux tribal elder Faith Spotted Eagle, and one from Hawaii who voted for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival in the primaries. In addition, the two Texas electors who spurned Trump voted instead for Ohio Gov. John Kasich (whom Trump had defeated in the primaries) and former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12968
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:03 am

DL717 wrote:
lugie wrote:
Jetsgo wrote:

Surly you understand the EC worked as designed in 2016. Do you refer to Obama as a black whatever... or is that different?


No, actually the EC failed to work as designed (or maybe not failed to work as "designed", but failed to work as intended) in 2016.

The intention of the EC was to prevent a "tyranny of the majority", as back in the day democracy was seen as in danger of tethering on the edge of ochlocracy (mob rule). Therefore, the Founding Fathers included a provision that could prevent a simple majority of voters to swing the election in their favor if such a win entailed massive repression for the losing parties or even putting the democratic foundations of the Republic at risk.

Trump's election and presidency is a tyranny of the minority which is definitely not what the Founding Fathers had envisioned when drafting the voting system. He is repressive (using the military on protestors, calling the press enemies of the people) and most importantly, he doesn't even begin to try appealing to all American voters.
His race-baiting rhetoric caters only to his narrow base of deplorable whites and his economic policies benefit the 1%.

He flipped the safeguards of the EC on their head and provided a decisive point for why the EC is absolutely outdated in the 21st century.


There is no such thing as Tyranny of the Minority. The EC worked exactly as designed and intended. If protected the rights of all States.


But it didn't in the last election where the minority won.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:05 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
DL717 wrote:
lugie wrote:

No, actually the EC failed to work as designed (or maybe not failed to work as "designed", but failed to work as intended) in 2016.

The intention of the EC was to prevent a "tyranny of the majority", as back in the day democracy was seen as in danger of tethering on the edge of ochlocracy (mob rule). Therefore, the Founding Fathers included a provision that could prevent a simple majority of voters to swing the election in their favor if such a win entailed massive repression for the losing parties or even putting the democratic foundations of the Republic at risk.

Trump's election and presidency is a tyranny of the minority which is definitely not what the Founding Fathers had envisioned when drafting the voting system. He is repressive (using the military on protestors, calling the press enemies of the people) and most importantly, he doesn't even begin to try appealing to all American voters.
His race-baiting rhetoric caters only to his narrow base of deplorable whites and his economic policies benefit the 1%.

He flipped the safeguards of the EC on their head and provided a decisive point for why the EC is absolutely outdated in the 21st century.


There is no such thing as Tyranny of the Minority. The EC worked exactly as designed and intended. If protected the rights of all States.


But it didn't in the last election where the minority won.


The majority of States won based of the electors they are provided with. That’s exactly how it works. Congressional representation is apportioned based on census population and EC electors are based on that count. Each State receives an additional two electors for each Senate seat.
Last edited by DL717 on Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:13 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
But, the SCOTUS missed this wording in the 12th Amendment,

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;


By vote, certainly indicates the Electors chose the President and Vice-President, voting being a discretionary act. Punishing the electors, as seen in the SCOTUS opinion, implies they can be compelled to vote for a certain candidate by theIr legislatures.


What if the EC votes for people not even in the running for the job as per the last election, shouldn't they be punished for making a mockery of the system?

The five Democratic electors who voted for people other than Clinton included three from Washington State who chose Colin Powell and another who chose Yankton Sioux tribal elder Faith Spotted Eagle, and one from Hawaii who voted for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival in the primaries. In addition, the two Texas electors who spurned Trump voted instead for Ohio Gov. John Kasich (whom Trump had defeated in the primaries) and former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.


The SCOTUS just ruled on the issue you’re are referring to in a unanimous decision which will prevent this in future elections:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/politics ... index.html
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13154
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:23 pm

DL717 wrote:
at least we get to decide at the State level where our apportioned electors are assigned to. Unlike parliament structures.


You get to decide only if you vote like the majority, in most states. If you don't, your vote is worthless.

In a parliament elected proportionally, like in several European countries, every (or most) votes really matter.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:25 pm

Aesma wrote:
DL717 wrote:
at least we get to decide at the State level where our apportioned electors are assigned to. Unlike parliament structures.


You get to decide only if you vote like the majority, in most states. If you don't, your vote is worthless.

In a parliament elected proportionally, like in several European countries, every (or most) votes really matter.


We didn’t want a parliament. If we did, we’d have one.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2985
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:25 pm

DL717 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
But, the SCOTUS missed this wording in the 12th Amendment,



By vote, certainly indicates the Electors chose the President and Vice-President, voting being a discretionary act. Punishing the electors, as seen in the SCOTUS opinion, implies they can be compelled to vote for a certain candidate by theIr legislatures.


What if the EC votes for people not even in the running for the job as per the last election, shouldn't they be punished for making a mockery of the system?

The five Democratic electors who voted for people other than Clinton included three from Washington State who chose Colin Powell and another who chose Yankton Sioux tribal elder Faith Spotted Eagle, and one from Hawaii who voted for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s rival in the primaries. In addition, the two Texas electors who spurned Trump voted instead for Ohio Gov. John Kasich (whom Trump had defeated in the primaries) and former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.


The SCOTUS just ruled on the issue you’re are referring to in a unanimous decision which will prevent this in future elections:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/politics ... index.html

To add to that, the votes Kiwirob is referring to from 2016 were purely theatrical. The votes had already been tallied and the winner of the states' elections was known. The votes of those electors were cast purely because they knew it wasn't going to make a difference in the election outcome. But of course states have always been allowed to set up penalties/mechanisms to ensure their electors vote in accordance with what's outlined in their respective constitutions.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:36 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
DL717 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

What if the EC votes for people not even in the running for the job as per the last election, shouldn't they be punished for making a mockery of the system?



The SCOTUS just ruled on the issue you’re are referring to in a unanimous decision which will prevent this in future elections:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/politics ... index.html

To add to that, the votes Kiwirob is referring to from 2016 were purely theatrical. The votes had already been tallied and the winner of the states' elections was known. The votes of those electors were cast purely because they knew it wasn't going to make a difference in the election outcome. But of course states have always been allowed to set up penalties/mechanisms to ensure their electors vote in accordance with what's outlined in their respective constitutions.


The simplest solution to getting more people involved in voting is for the popular vote in a congressional district to net an elector. This would also give value to third party candidates that don’t have a snowballs change in hell of gaining an elector in a typical race. Even as popular as Ross Perot was in grabbing nearly 20 million votes, he didn’t net a single elector. Who knows how things would have shaken out with that. There would need to be Federal oversight to eliminate gerrymandering because of the Federal implications. Senate based electors go to the winner of a State if they get 50% +1. If no one gets 50%, then one Senate based elector is assigned to each of the top two vote getters. If people in an individual district believed their district had value relative to the rest of the State they would be more inclined to vote when they feel there district has greater value in the outcome. It would sure as hell make election night a bit more fun.
Last edited by DL717 on Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:42 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2985
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Wed Jul 08, 2020 5:37 pm

Aesma wrote:
DL717 wrote:
at least we get to decide at the State level where our apportioned electors are assigned to. Unlike parliament structures.


You get to decide only if you vote like the majority, in most states. If you don't, your vote is worthless.

It's certainly not worthless. Just because the side you voted for lost doesn't mean your vote is worthless. By that measure, the losing side even of popular votes would be considered worthless. And again, if this is such a concern, states are wholly able to reapportion their electoral votes accordingly.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8510
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Wed Jul 08, 2020 6:55 pm

DLFREEBIRD wrote:
DL717 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:

You do realise that California is but one state out of 50, wasn't even around when the constitution was written and one person one vote is about as democratic as it gets. One state of 40m does not make a majority.

If the EC is so important why even go through the pretense of having a popular vote, if the will of the people isn't acted on just let the EC decide and stop wasting billion of elections every 4 years.


There is only pretense of a popular vote for people in this country that can’t seem to wrap their heads around (or ignored their education) how this country and it’s form of governance is structured. Clintons margin of victory in California represents nearly the entire vote delta between Trump and Clinton. Add in New York and it’s not even close. The EC is about every state having a part in the election of the President to represent all States, not just a handful of States.

There is popular vote representation.... It’s called the House and Senate which has seats by population in the House and two Senators from each State which equals the number of Electors. States have am identical structure with some small variations, if any. The President reflects the will of the Union of States in signing something into law or vetoing it, not just large population centers. Congress is the direct representation at the Federal level along with a given State Government. The SCOTUS determines the constitutionality of something that comes out of a State, an act by Congress or an executive action taken by a President that has an impact on all States where a conflict with the Constitution exists.

Think of US States in the context individual countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... ted_States




No we shouldn't think of the US in the context of individual countries. Cause that's not reality.

Your still not addressing, the problems with the EC, which is the winner takes all, canceling out the other votes. States with smaller populations like Wyoming and Alaska are over-represented.


As previously stated, two states already eliminated “winner takes all” because WTA has nothing to do with federal law. It is not part of the EC despite being a reality of the federal elections.

However it may be possible to change US law to make it a federal thing, thereby specifying how electors will be allocated.

Currently however, federal law simply does not regulate how states allocate electors. Federal determines how many electors not who gets them. I am not aware of any principled reasoning for this, I think some smarty pants at some point in US history took advantage of this loophole for the sake of his political party, and everybody ended up copying.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2985
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:21 pm

PPVRA wrote:
However it may be possible to change US law to make it a federal thing, thereby specifying how electors will be allocated.

Currently however, federal law simply does not regulate how states allocate electors. Federal determines how many electors not who gets them. I am not aware of any principled reasoning for this, I think some smarty pants at some point in US history took advantage of this loophole for the sake of his political party, and everybody ended up copying.

It would require an amendment to the constitution as to how a state's electors would be apportioned among winners. The amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states anyhow which, at that point, if at least 3/4ths of the states are on board, it would probably just be quicker and easier for them to make the changes themselves all at once.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12968
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Thu Jul 09, 2020 5:42 am

DL717 wrote:
Aesma wrote:
DL717 wrote:
at least we get to decide at the State level where our apportioned electors are assigned to. Unlike parliament structures.


You get to decide only if you vote like the majority, in most states. If you don't, your vote is worthless.

In a parliament elected proportionally, like in several European countries, every (or most) votes really matter.


We didn’t want a parliament. If we did, we’d have one.


Which is a shame because depending on where you live if you vote for the other person your vote is completely worthless. I find it amusing that people try to defend a system which is indefensible. If you were starting from scratch today you would not use this system.
 
User avatar
lugie
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:11 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:10 am

DL717 wrote:

There is no such thing as Tyranny of the Minority. The EC worked exactly as designed and intended. If protected the rights of all States.


Except for those states that are vastly underrepresented in their electoral college votes. I don't think they see their rights as particularly "protected".

Citizens of California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois have the weight of their votes diluted by a factor of somewhere between 3 and 4 compared to the baseline of Wyoming with its 3 electors.

Tell me again how their rights are protected and how this doesn't blatantly violate "one person one vote".


Also, Tyranny of the Minority is very much a thing. Most tyrannical ruling coalitions in history were made up by small groups vs the general populace and even outside of outright dictatorships it is a real phenomenon, look up the term Minoritarianism.
Q400 E175 E190 CRJ7 CRJ9 CRJX MD88 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A359 B733 B73G B738 B739 B748 B764 B772 B77W B788 B789
FRA STR HAM TXL MUC ZRH ACE BRU BLL DUB MAN ARN MAD OPO LIS FNC AMS PHL RDU LGA CLT EWR ORD ATL SFO MDW IAD YYZ SJO PTY
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:01 pm

lugie wrote:
DL717 wrote:

There is no such thing as Tyranny of the Minority. The EC worked exactly as designed and intended. If protected the rights of all States.


Except for those states that are vastly underrepresented in their electoral college votes. I don't think they see their rights as particularly "protected".

Citizens of California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois have the weight of their votes diluted by a factor of somewhere between 3 and 4 compared to the baseline of Wyoming with its 3 electors.

Tell me again how their rights are protected and how this doesn't blatantly violate "one person one vote".


Also, Tyranny of the Minority is very much a thing. Most tyrannical ruling coalitions in history were made up by small groups vs the general populace and even outside of outright dictatorships it is a real phenomenon, look up the term Minoritarianism.


Once again, there is no tyranny of the minority. If you don’t understand the Presidential Election process, then your teachers failed you. Big time. Or had an agenda to convince you otherwise.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:02 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
DL717 wrote:
Aesma wrote:

You get to decide only if you vote like the majority, in most states. If you don't, your vote is worthless.

In a parliament elected proportionally, like in several European countries, every (or most) votes really matter.


We didn’t want a parliament. If we did, we’d have one.


Which is a shame because depending on where you live if you vote for the other person your vote is completely worthless. I find it amusing that people try to defend a system which is indefensible. If you were starting from scratch today you would not use this system.


We left a Parliamentary system, those are born out of Monarchy. We didn’t want it, and we wouldn’t want it today.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6076
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:04 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
DL717 wrote:
Aesma wrote:

You get to decide only if you vote like the majority, in most states. If you don't, your vote is worthless.

In a parliament elected proportionally, like in several European countries, every (or most) votes really matter.


We didn’t want a parliament. If we did, we’d have one.


Which is a shame because depending on where you live if you vote for the other person your vote is completely worthless. I find it amusing that people try to defend a system which is indefensible. If you were starting from scratch today you would not use this system.



Yes, we would, I’d hope anyway. It’s better to have 50 mobs electing the president than one huge mob.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:09 pm

PPVRA wrote:
DLFREEBIRD wrote:
DL717 wrote:

There is only pretense of a popular vote for people in this country that can’t seem to wrap their heads around (or ignored their education) how this country and it’s form of governance is structured. Clintons margin of victory in California represents nearly the entire vote delta between Trump and Clinton. Add in New York and it’s not even close. The EC is about every state having a part in the election of the President to represent all States, not just a handful of States.

There is popular vote representation.... It’s called the House and Senate which has seats by population in the House and two Senators from each State which equals the number of Electors. States have am identical structure with some small variations, if any. The President reflects the will of the Union of States in signing something into law or vetoing it, not just large population centers. Congress is the direct representation at the Federal level along with a given State Government. The SCOTUS determines the constitutionality of something that comes out of a State, an act by Congress or an executive action taken by a President that has an impact on all States where a conflict with the Constitution exists.

Think of US States in the context individual countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... ted_States




No we shouldn't think of the US in the context of individual countries. Cause that's not reality.

Your still not addressing, the problems with the EC, which is the winner takes all, canceling out the other votes. States with smaller populations like Wyoming and Alaska are over-represented.


As previously stated, two states already eliminated “winner takes all” because WTA has nothing to do with federal law. It is not part of the EC despite being a reality of the federal elections.

However it may be possible to change US law to make it a federal thing, thereby specifying how electors will be allocated.

Currently however, federal law simply does not regulate how states allocate electors. Federal determines how many electors not who gets them. I am not aware of any principled reasoning for this, I think some smarty pants at some point in US history took advantage of this loophole for the sake of his political party, and everybody ended up copying.


It’s a Right left to States due to the sovereignty component of how we are structure as a country. States can do whatever they want to determine how their Electors are allocated, be it all in or splitting them up. Electors assigned to a State are based on census population, plus one for each Senator. It’s why places like California want widespread citizenship for illegals. More electors.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
Olddog
Posts: 1519
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 4:41 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:17 pm

I think your problem is that you dont have studied constitutional laws around the world. The US was created this way due to your history, but I very much doubt that it was created to be frozen this way until the end of time.

Have a look to what was done around the world and you will see that most countries constitutions evolved with time, mostly for more direct representation.
Sentence from Belgian PM at press conference forbidden due to new rules
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22538
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:06 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
DL717 wrote:

We didn’t want a parliament. If we did, we’d have one.


Which is a shame because depending on where you live if you vote for the other person your vote is completely worthless. I find it amusing that people try to defend a system which is indefensible. If you were starting from scratch today you would not use this system.



Yes, we would, I’d hope anyway. It’s better to have 50 mobs electing the president than one huge mob.


Political scientists have concluded that Palm Beach County in Florida decided the presidency for the entire nation in 2000 and a small number of counties in PA, WI, and OH decided the presidency in 2016. If states like KS and ND want their voice to be heard for president, maybe they should put up candidates everyone will actually get behind.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6076
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Thu Jul 09, 2020 8:43 pm

Discount the Clinton margin of victory and Trump wins the popular vote by 1.4 million. So?
 
User avatar
lugie
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 4:11 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:14 pm

DL717 wrote:

Once again, there is no tyranny of the minority. If you don’t understand the Presidential Election process, then your teachers failed you. Big time. Or had an agenda to convince you otherwise.


I truly (not in a baiting way, but really being confused) do not understand how you can say that when, repeatedly in just the past 20 years, presidents have won the presidency and all the powers it entails while being supported only by a minority of those that voted (translating to an even smaller minority of Americans eligible to vote but that's a moot point.

Now, regardless of whether you consider Trump or Bush 43's policies tyrannical, those empirical results show that there is a path to victory for a hypothetical "actual tyrant" which sees them get to office without the backing of a majority in a constitutionally sound process.
And once elected, that person would be exerting a tyranny of the minority against the majority of people who voted against them.
Q400 E175 E190 CRJ7 CRJ9 CRJX MD88 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A359 B733 B73G B738 B739 B748 B764 B772 B77W B788 B789
FRA STR HAM TXL MUC ZRH ACE BRU BLL DUB MAN ARN MAD OPO LIS FNC AMS PHL RDU LGA CLT EWR ORD ATL SFO MDW IAD YYZ SJO PTY
 
User avatar
CitizenJustin
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 10:12 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Fri Jul 10, 2020 3:41 am

Ken777 wrote:
I am a strong believer that the EC should be killed. If the Founding Fathers were told that an orange freak would loose the election be around 3,000,000 votes and still named President they would all gag at the thought - and jerked the EC out of the Constitution before the ink was dry.

Obviously Trump will go down in history as the "Unwanted President" (among other bad things) so we are left with the need to clean up the EC disaster. Shouldn't be too hard - a simple national majority is hard to argue against.


He actually lost by significantly more than 3 million. Add in all the votes for other, less known candidates and the gap grows much much wider. Millions in fact.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2985
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Fri Jul 10, 2020 5:22 am

Kiwirob wrote:
I find it amusing that people try to defend a system which is indefensible. If you were starting from scratch today you would not use this system.

It's perfectly defensible when you consider the way the government is structured in the US.

lugie wrote:
Except for those states that are vastly underrepresented in their electoral college votes. I don't think they see their rights as particularly "protected".

They're not really underrepresented in the Electoral College however since the number of their electoral votes is tied to their population.

Olddog wrote:
I think your problem is that you dont have studied constitutional laws around the world. The US was created this way due to your history, but I very much doubt that it was created to be frozen this way until the end of time.

It certainly wasn't, which is why there is an amendment process built in and has indeed been amended 27 times in its 232 years of existence.

lugie wrote:
Now, regardless of whether you consider Trump or Bush 43's policies tyrannical, those empirical results show that there is a path to victory for a hypothetical "actual tyrant" which sees them get to office without the backing of a majority in a constitutionally sound process.
And once elected, that person would be exerting a tyranny of the minority against the majority of people who voted against them.

Which is why you have an entire co-equal branch of the government directly elected by the people. The President, on paper, is not supposed to be a particularly power person. He can't vote on legislation, can't levy taxes, can't go to war, etc. Now the fact that in recent decades Congress has been steadily ceding its own power to the executive branch is an area of much more concern IMO, but for a separate thread.
 
User avatar
northstardc4m
Posts: 3393
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

Re: SCOTUS unanimous: electors must vote how states want them to

Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:06 pm

flyguy89 wrote:

lugie wrote:
Except for those states that are vastly underrepresented in their electoral college votes. I don't think they see their rights as particularly "protected".

They're not really underrepresented in the Electoral College however since the number of their electoral votes is tied to their population.


That's where many you are making a mistake...

Since 1929 the population of each state does NOT increase or decrease the EC power of that state proportionally.

If it did following the original plan, there would be a massive change in EC votes.

If you hold WY and VT and DC (the smallest population representative "states") would get a minimum of 2 EC votes... that makes each EC worth about 325000 averaged over those 3.

So now, with 325000 per EC... rounded down 3/4 up 1/4... (existing EC in brackets).... (just so we are clear= < or =1.74=1, > or =1.75=2)

Top 5 states by populations:

California: 121 (55)
Texas: 89 (38)
Florida: 66 (29)
New York: 59 (29)
Pennsylvania 39 (20)

And from the bottom up:
DC, Vermont, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska: 2 (they all have 3 now)
Delaware, Rhode Island, Montana 3 (3)
Maine, New Hampshire 4 (4)
Idaho 5 (4)
West Virginia 5 (5)
Nebraska, New Mexico 6 (5)
Kansas 9 (6)

I think we see the problem... there should be about 1007 electoral college votes based on the minimum count method... assuming no one really pushes for PR, USVI American Samoa and the other territories to have proper representation...

Worse, if you follow George Washington's insistence... 30000/representative and vote... well multiply by 100.

Now if you reapportion the existing number (538) based on population under the *recommended* approtionment formula in the constitution... (14th amendment, but not required by law to follow the formula)

California gets 65
Texas gets 44
Florida gets 34

...

DC, Vermont, North Dakota and Wyoming get 1.

Interestingly that method does not change the outcome of the 2016 election, it just moves 3 EC from Trump to Clinton, not enough.

The apportionment was supposed to be done by every congress... until 1929 when they capped the total number and stopped following the formula laid out.


And here you are USA... call it anyway you want the Electoral College is NOT working as intended by your founders.

Is it working the way you want it to really today... that's up to you.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: N583JB, reddevl442 and 53 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos