• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Blue states rally to upend Electoral College, with addition of Connecticut

Crovax said:
Actually it will end up in court, since no law can bind an electoral college elector on who to vote for. and the voters are supposed to be picking electors to vote for their side. I dont see a bunch of republican chosen electors voting for a democrat(or vice versa) because of an unenforceable law
Click to expand...

Is there something in the Constitution or some Federal law that says states must assign its electoral votes based on the popular vote of a state?
 
OrphanSlug said:
Well, this dives into the core of the debate on the Electoral College vs. the popular vote but if left to the courts they could be having that very argument. Intention comes into play, but so does likely result. If the idea is to nullify the Electoral College (even if by doing so the way these States are suggesting) then it makes 10-12 (‘ish) States that much more important when electing a President.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. States get to decide how their electoral votes are allocated. Some states ALREADY allocate them based upon the p% of the popular vote a candidate receives in their state (it isn't necessary to have a winner-take-all.) As such, there isn't much litigation to uphold the current system if the states decide to allocate differently.

From the Constitution:

Article II

Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
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.
Click to expand...
 
Crovax said:
Actually it will end up in court, since no law can bind an electoral college elector on who to vote for. and the voters are supposed to be picking electors to vote for their side. I dont see a bunch of republican chosen electors voting for a democrat(or vice versa) because of an unenforceable law
Click to expand...

It wouldn't make Republican electors vote for a Democrat. It would select the electors associated candidate who won the national popular vote. If a Democrat wins Connecticut, but a Republican wins the popular vote, CT would send the same electors that would have been chosen if that Republican had won.
 
Anagram said:
It wouldn't make Republican electors vote for a Democrat. It would select the electors associated candidate who won the national popular vote. If a Democrat wins Connecticut, but a Republican wins the popular vote, CT would send the same electors that would have been chosen if that Republican had won.
Click to expand...

But the voters are supposed to be voting for electors. If they aren’t then it’s essentially a non binding straw poll and then you don’t have to follow election laws. Not to mention there is no such thing as an official national vote total. That is done by adding all of the certified results together but if each state becomes a non binding straw poll with the state choosing electors as it wishes then there are no certified results. Seems like a catch-22 mess to me
 
Cardinal said:
Is there something in the Constitution or some Federal law that says states must assign its electoral votes based on the popular vote of a state?
Click to expand...

No but if the voters aren’t voting on electors then it’s not an election but a non binding straw poll and that’s a whole other mess
 
Rally away...and then get busy trying to amend the Constitution. Otherwise....you are just a bunch of sad pandas.
 
Crovax said:
But the voters are supposed to be voting for electors. If they aren’t then it’s essentially a non binding straw poll and then you don’t have to follow election laws. Not to mention there is no such thing as an official national vote total. That is done by adding all of the certified results together but if each state becomes a non binding straw poll with the state choosing electors as it wishes then there are no certified results. Seems like a catch-22 mess to me
Click to expand...

Voters aren't supposed to be voting for electors. Or, at least that's not required in the Constitution. Most states at the beginning had their legislature vote for electors. I imagine that since the Connecticut voters still make up part of the popular vote total they will be looking at, they would still be required to follow elections law. I'm not super familiar with the intricacies of election law though so I'm not entirely sure how it would work out, but I don't initially see a compelling logistical problem.

Constitutionally speaking though, the states are explicitly given the power to choose how their electors are selected. I don't think there's an issue there. They could probably even select them based on a coin flip if they wanted.
 
Roadvirus said:
The Electoral College was good enough for the Dems when it got Obama elected twice. But when their Queen loses, the EC is EVIL EVIL EVIL!
Click to expand...

Really? Obama lost the popular vote both times?
 
JacksinPA said:
Blue states rally to upend Electoral College, with addition of Connecticut | Fox News

Connecticut is joining a growing alliance of liberal states in a "pact" that would supposedly allow them to change the way presidents are picked -- by allocating each state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

The uphill campaign, which if ever brought to fruition would almost certainly face a court challenge, has gained renewed attention amid Democratic grumbling about the Electoral College in the wake of President Trump's 2016 win. While he defeated Hillary Clinton in the electoral vote, he lost the popular vote by 2.9 million ballots.
=========================================
Of course we all know that those 2.9 million votes were all fraudulent. Right?
Click to expand...

That was a dumb comment he made, but in the ned, the popular vote movement is scary bad, so unconstitutional and the end results would be bad for America.
 
Renae said:
That was a dumb comment he made, but in the ned, the popular vote movement is scary bad, so unconstitutional and the end results would be bad for America.
Click to expand...

Why is a popular vote bad? Every Western Democracy but the United States and Italy selects their heads of state in a popular vote.

Also, read Anagram's posts. None of these states are violating the Constitution.
 
Anagram said:
Voters aren't supposed to be voting for electors. Or, at least that's not required in the Constitution. Most states at the beginning had their legislature vote for electors. I imagine that since the Connecticut voters still make up part of the popular vote total they will be looking at, they would still be required to follow elections law. I'm not super familiar with the intricacies of election law though so I'm not entirely sure how it would work out, but I don't initially see a compelling logistical problem.

Constitutionally speaking though, the states are explicitly given the power to choose how their electors are selected. I don't think there's an issue there. They could probably even select them based on a coin flip if they wanted.
Click to expand...

Again I never said that sates can’t choose thier electors, I’m only saying that if people aren’t actually voting to elect someone then it’s a non binding straw poll and wouldn’t be governed by federal election laws
 
Crovax said:
Again I never said that sates can’t choose thier electors, I’m only saying that if people aren’t actually voting to elect someone then it’s a non binding straw poll and wouldn’t be governed by federal election laws
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it makes it a non-binding straw poll though. Each individual state's results are definitely part of the ultimate total which is determinative. Since it's part of the overall binding vote, it seems to me that's not really a non-binding straw poll.

But that's based on my guess of how those elections would work rather than any actual definitions in federal elections law or case-law, which I haven't looked into.
 
Cardinal said:
Why is a popular vote bad? Every Western Democracy but the United States and Italy selects their heads of state in a popular vote.

Also, read Anagram's posts. None of these states are violating the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Yes, they will be. We have an ELECTORAL COLLEGE for a reason. What they are doing is circumventing that, Anagram is dead wrong.
 
Anagram said:
I'm not sure it makes it a non-binding straw poll though. Each individual state's results are definitely part of the ultimate total which is determinative. Since it's part of the overall binding vote, it seems to me that's not really a non-binding straw poll.

But that's based on my guess of how those elections would work rather than any actual definitions in federal elections law or case-law, which I haven't looked into.
Click to expand...

Let’s go a little more extreme using your example

Like you said a state chose to select it’s electors by coin flip(which should be theoretically constitutional) then a vote for Trump or Hillary in that state isn’t an actual vote or election. So wouldn’t a person in that state be disenfranchised per the 14th amendment?
 
JacksinPA said:
Blue states rally to upend Electoral College, with addition of Connecticut | Fox News

Connecticut is joining a growing alliance of liberal states in a "pact" that would supposedly allow them to change the way presidents are picked -- by allocating each state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

The uphill campaign, which if ever brought to fruition would almost certainly face a court challenge, has gained renewed attention amid Democratic grumbling about the Electoral College in the wake of President Trump's 2016 win. While he defeated Hillary Clinton in the electoral vote, he lost the popular vote by 2.9 million ballots.
=========================================
Of course we all know that those 2.9 million votes were all fraudulent. Right?
Click to expand...

Too bad that you and the rest of the stupid liberals don't understand the reason for the electoral college.
 
i'd rather see political gerrymandering tossed out by the SCOTUS.

i've always been pro-Electoral College for two reasons.

1. it gives less densely populated states a bit more weight in an election. i'd hate to see an election in which candidates only concentrate on the concerns of highly populated areas.

2. it is one last firewall against an utterly unfit and potentially dangerous candidate from becoming president.

this past election taught me that #2 is no longer a consideration. given this, i'm still pro-Electoral College, but less so.
 
Crovax said:
Let’s go a little more extreme using your example

Like you said a state chose to select it’s electors by coin flip(which should be theoretically constitutional) then a vote for Trump or Hillary in that state isn’t an actual vote or election. So wouldn’t a person in that state be disenfranchised per the 14th amendment?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's how the 14th Amendment would be interpreted. For example the relevant part:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Click to expand...

First, this does not seem to require that each of those elections be held, just that if they are that you don't deny the right to vote to people. Although constitutionally, popular elections for Representatives and Senators are of course required. But most states don't hold any election at all for judicial officers in a state and there's no requirement that they hold them. Similarly, if a state doesn't hold a popular election at all for President, which is not required by any constitutional provision, it may well survive under this amendment.

Second, in the case of the NPVIC, assuming that for whatever reason my first argument failed, you are still allowing your people to vote for the President's electors. You aren't denying any eligible citizens the right to participate. It's just that your state's votes aren't the only ones that make up the decision.
 
Helix said:
i'd rather see political gerrymandering tossed out by the SCOTUS.

i've always been pro-Electoral College for two reasons.

1. it gives less densely populated states a bit more weight in an election. i'd hate to see an election in which candidates only concentrate on the concerns of highly populated areas.
Click to expand...

Candidates concentrate their campaigns based on important swing states now. There's no math or law that prevents candidates from focusing their campaigns on populations or their leaning.

2. it is one last firewall against an utterly unfit and potentially dangerous candidate from becoming president.
this past election taught me that #2 is no longer a consideration. given this, i'm still pro-Electoral College, but less so.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a firewall vis-a-vis the EC only works if the electors vote independently of the popular vote of the state. Sure, Hamilton said that the people are too stupid to elect a head of state, but that's pretty much how we ended up doing things anyway.

My primary argument against the electoral college is that it responds to the geographical distribution of voters rather than the number of voters itself, which can cause a permanent minority-power rule.
 
Last edited:
Anagram said:
I don't think that's how the 14th Amendment would be interpreted. For example the relevant part:



First, this does not seem to require that each of those elections be held, just that if they are that you don't deny the right to vote to people. Although constitutionally, popular elections for Representatives and Senators are of course required. But most states don't hold any election at all for judicial officers in a state and there's no requirement that they hold them. Similarly, if a state doesn't hold a popular election at all for President, which is not required by any constitutional provision, it may well survive under this amendment.

Second, in the case of the NPVIC, assuming that for whatever reason my first argument failed, you are still allowing your people to vote for the President's electors. You aren't denying any eligible citizens the right to participate. It's just that your state's votes aren't the only ones that make up the decision.
Click to expand...

Read your own quoted text, "the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States"

its very clear that choosing electors by coin flip would be disenfranchisement.

Now for weather or not these set of laws would be is a lot closer to constitutional but not clear by any means. I think you would have conservative justices overturning it because its not in the intent of the constitution and liberal justices while supporting a popular vote overturn it because they dont like end runs around the constitutions
 
JacksinPA said:
Blue states rally to upend Electoral College, with addition of Connecticut | Fox News

Connecticut is joining a growing alliance of liberal states in a "pact" that would supposedly allow them to change the way presidents are picked -- by allocating each state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

The uphill campaign, which if ever brought to fruition would almost certainly face a court challenge, has gained renewed attention amid Democratic grumbling about the Electoral College in the wake of President Trump's 2016 win. While he defeated Hillary Clinton in the electoral vote, he lost the popular vote by 2.9 million ballots.
=========================================
Of course we all know that those 2.9 million votes were all fraudulent. Right?
Click to expand...
Would that mean that states would no longer be in charge of their elections and it would fall under the feds auhtority?

One thing is certain it would be huge concession of power by the states to the feds and it would change campaghin strategies. Large city's would get all the attention and rural america would be virtually abandoned.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
JacksinPA said:
Blue states rally to upend Electoral College, with addition of Connecticut | Fox News

Connecticut is joining a growing alliance of liberal states in a "pact" that would supposedly allow them to change the way presidents are picked -- by allocating each state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

The uphill campaign, which if ever brought to fruition would almost certainly face a court challenge, has gained renewed attention amid Democratic grumbling about the Electoral College in the wake of President Trump's 2016 win. While he defeated Hillary Clinton in the electoral vote, he lost the popular vote by 2.9 million ballots.
=========================================
Of course we all know that those 2.9 million votes were all fraudulent. Right?
Click to expand...

Isn't this closing the barn door after the cow has escaped?

The election is over.
 
Mason66 said:
Isn't this closing the barn door after the cow has escaped?

The election is over.
Click to expand...

I believe there will be more elections in the coming years. For those of left over from the Rapture, that is.
 
JacksinPA said:
Blue states rally to upend Electoral College, with addition of Connecticut | Fox News

Connecticut is joining a growing alliance of liberal states in a "pact" that would supposedly allow them to change the way presidents are picked -- by allocating each state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

The uphill campaign, which if ever brought to fruition would almost certainly face a court challenge, has gained renewed attention amid Democratic grumbling about the Electoral College in the wake of President Trump's 2016 win. While he defeated Hillary Clinton in the electoral vote, he lost the popular vote by 2.9 million ballots.
=========================================
Of course we all know that those 2.9 million votes were all fraudulent. Right?
Click to expand...
No, not fraudulent, but popular vote is not how we elect our President. Sounds like liberal progressives know they are a BI coastal party at best.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 
Cardinal said:
The coalition of states allocating electoral votes aren't abolishing the electoral college, which is why what they're doing is Constitutional, and therefore unlikely to end up in court.

There is, however, a separate harm this coalition potentially leads to. If we assume that Republicans have a long term or even permanent demographic disadvantage, then we can project that they will be increasingly unlikely to win the popular vote into the foreseeable future. So if a state can be known to allocate its votes based on an outcome the Republican candidate couldn't possibly hope to win, that would cause him to ignore those states to a level that far exceeds anything you see today. Yes, the "hard blue state red state" issue already does that to a degree, but the new system would make it even more extreme. Right now I see a situation where Trump barely acknowledges blue state citizens as even being American. He treats these states more like client states than legitimate states of the union. The new situation might magnify that greatly.
Click to expand...

What you say is correct except for this part: "and therefore unlikely to end up in court". I'd suggest that it is very likely to end up in state court for any state in which a different candidate won the popular vote in that state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom