• 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!

The Electoral College just got expanded, per U.S Court of Appeals. Your thoughts?

BrotherFease

BrotherFease

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 15, 2019
Messages
5,729
Reaction score
3,831
Location
Western New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You guys are going to love this ruling. The 10th Circuit in the Court of Appeals just ruled that electors are free to vote for whoever they want, regardless of state laws.

Here's the story: Back in December of 2016, a Democrat elector in Colorado named Michael Baca cast his presidential vote for John Kasich. The state of Colorado disqualified him, because he was suppose to vote for Hilary Clinton, the popular vote winner in Colorado. The courts ruled that the state of Colorado overstepped their boundaries and should have never disqualified him. In other words, electors have a constitutional right to vote for whoever they want.

If this ruling continues to stick, I would prefer if we the people choose the electors for our assigned political party or have the presidential candidate pick their electors.

Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules - The New York Times
 
BrotherFease said:
You guys are going to love this ruling. The 10th Circuit in the Court of Appeals just ruled that electors are free to vote for whoever they want, regardless of state laws.

Here's the story: Back in December of 2016, a Democrat elector in Colorado named Michael Baca cast his presidential vote for John Kasich. The state of Colorado disqualified him, because he was suppose to vote for Hilary Clinton, the popular vote winner in Colorado. The courts ruled that the state of Colorado overstepped their boundaries and should have never disqualified him. In other words, electors have a constitutional right to vote for whoever they want.

If this ruling continues to stick, I would prefer if we the people choose the electors for our assigned political party or have the presidential candidate pick their electors.

Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules - The New York Times
Click to expand...

This is nothing new. Electors have always been free, once "elected/chosen" to vote as they saw fit. This despite some States requiring pledges, and "punishments" (like fines) for faithless Electors.

Most just typically honor the vote they "ran" on. But historically, some have not. :shrug:

Faithless Electors - Fairvote
 
Last edited:
BrotherFease said:
You guys are going to love this ruling. The 10th Circuit in the Court of Appeals just ruled that electors are free to vote for whoever they want, regardless of state laws.

Here's the story: Back in December of 2016, a Democrat elector in Colorado named Michael Baca cast his presidential vote for John Kasich. The state of Colorado disqualified him, because he was suppose to vote for Hilary Clinton, the popular vote winner in Colorado. The courts ruled that the state of Colorado overstepped their boundaries and should have never disqualified him. In other words, electors have a constitutional right to vote for whoever they want.

If this ruling continues to stick, I would prefer if we the people choose the electors for our assigned political party or have the presidential candidate pick their electors.

Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules - The New York Times
Click to expand...

That's the way we do it down in Georgia. Each presidential candidate on the ballot submit's his slate of electors to the Secretary of State prior to the election. Whomever wins the popular vote, that slate of electors casts their electoral votes for Georgia. In 1996 I was an elector for Perot. Had he won Georgia's popular vote, I would have cast my electoral vote for him.

I don't know how many states have laws stating an elector must cast their vote for whomever wins that state's popular vote. There were four faithless electors the 2016 election. The final electoral vote count was Trump 304, Clinton 227, others 4. Faithless electors or electors casting their electoral votes for candidates who didn't win their states has been going on since the inception.

Faithless elector - Wikipedia

The ruling I don't think will have any effect.
 
I was under the impression that a faithless elector could always have existed. That being said, I think this does set a bad precedent given the current political climate.
 
BrotherFease said:
You guys are going to love this ruling. The 10th Circuit in the Court of Appeals just ruled that electors are free to vote for whoever they want, regardless of state laws.

Here's the story: Back in December of 2016, a Democrat elector in Colorado named Michael Baca cast his presidential vote for John Kasich. The state of Colorado disqualified him, because he was suppose to vote for Hilary Clinton, the popular vote winner in Colorado. The courts ruled that the state of Colorado overstepped their boundaries and should have never disqualified him. In other words, electors have a constitutional right to vote for whoever they want.

If this ruling continues to stick, I would prefer if we the people choose the electors for our assigned political party or have the presidential candidate pick their electors.

Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules - The New York Times
Click to expand...

How do these people even become delegates?
 
I find this fascinating. I always assumed any given elector cast his or her vote for the popular vote winner in their state. Until 2016, when there was another layer added to attempting to thwart Trump's win by appealing to electors (brow beating) to not cast their vote for Trump.
 
This is one of the many reasons we don't actually have a democracy in America. The vote and will of the people can be completely ignored and decided instead by random unelected assholes. The EC, especially in its current form is completely contradictory to democracy.
 
Electoral College does two things.

1. It gives small states more power.

2. In case the voters go crazy and elect a literal Hitler, the EC can vote the Hitler out.
 
snakestretcher said:
I suspect, as with everything in US politics, that substantial amounts of cash changed hands.
Click to expand...

Buying delegates! An certain that has never even been considered by our honest politicians who will spend hundreds of millions on a campaign.
 
Captain Adverse said:
This is nothing new. Electors have always been free, once "elected/chosen" to vote as they saw fit. This despite some States requiring pledges, and "punishments" (like fines) for faithless Electors.

Most just typically honor the vote they "ran" on. But historically, some have not. :shrug:

Faithless Electors - Fairvote
Click to expand...

That's not correct. Some states have rules stating that electors must vote for their assigned candidate. Mr. Baca would have never run into legal issues, if the state of Colorado didn't see his vote as illegal under Colorado laws.
 
Acadia said:
I find this fascinating. I always assumed any given elector cast his or her vote for the popular vote winner in their state. Until 2016, when there was another layer added to attempting to thwart Trump's win by appealing to electors (brow beating) to not cast their vote for Trump.
Click to expand...


The irony here is that before the real election, there was debate about whether or not the electors would accept Trump as the President or would they force the congress to vote for the winner. It turns out there was more rebellion against CLINTON than Trump.
 
BrotherFease said:
The irony here is that before the real election, there was debate about whether or not the electors would accept Trump as the President or would they force the congress to vote for the winner. It turns out there was more rebellion against CLINTON than Trump.
Click to expand...

Ah, I seem to recall this! Thank you.
 
swing_voter said:
Electoral College does two things.

1. It gives small states more power.

2. In case the voters go crazy and elect a literal Hitler, the EC can vote the Hitler out.
Click to expand...

Both points are 100% correct. Congrats for staying awake during history class.

But I am going to expand on your points, agreeing with both of them:

1. EC was created partly as trying to please the big colonies and the small colonies. The "deal" was to create a system where both small state America and big state America have a seat at the table. Big states gets more electoral college votes, smaller states gets their vote weighed more.

2. The electors served as away of providing a check for the people. To give an example for the other posters here: Lets say for example that Joe Biden wins the Democratic nomination. In November, the majority of New Yorkers vote for Biden in the general. It would then be the job of each Democratic elector in NY to examine the record of Biden, and decide whether or not, he is the best choice for President and whether or not, he's mentally capable of being the next President. The check system, the elector, was inputted so we have an extra set of eyes. About 99% of the time, the electors will end up voting for the candidate they were originally assigned.
 
BrotherFease said:
That's not correct. Some states have rules stating that electors must vote for their assigned candidate. Mr. Baca would have never run into legal issues, if the state of Colorado didn't see his vote as illegal under Colorado laws.
Click to expand...

Again, States can do whatever they wish in regard to how they treat a "faithless" elector.

However, Constitutionally each elector remains free to vote as he sees fit.

What happens to that elector if he chooses to vote differently is up to those States who have laws on the subject. As I understand it, that does not serve to negate the vote once cast.

BTW, do you not recall the efforts by some Democrats in 2016 to lobby/compel electors to be "faithless?"

The 10th Circuit is just following the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
BrotherFease said:
If this ruling continues to stick, I would prefer if we the people choose the electors for our assigned political party or have the presidential candidate pick their electors. ]
Click to expand...

Or maybe just get rid of the Electoral College altogether and go off straight popular vote. There is no rational basis for maintaining this system whatsoever. I really hope that somehow in the next election Democrats win the EC and Republicans some how sneak out the popular vote. Maybe then we can finally do away with this ****ty system.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Again, States can do whatever they wish in regard to how they treat a "faithless" elector.

However, Constitutionally each elector remains free to vote as he sees fit.

What happens to that elector if he chooses to vote differently is up to those States who have laws on the subject. As I understand it, that does not serve to negate the vote once cast.

BTW, do you not recall the efforts by some Democrats in 2016 to lobby/compel electors to be "faithless?"

The 10th Circuit is just following the Constitution.
Click to expand...

We would not be in this situation, if Colorado didn't pass a law stating that electors have to vote for their party's nominee. The Colorado elector voted for the candidate he wanted, and ended up getting disqualified.
 
MrWonka said:
Or maybe just get rid of the Electoral College altogether and go off straight popular vote. There is no rational basis for maintaining this system whatsoever. I really hope that somehow in the next election Democrats win the EC and Republicans some how sneak out the popular vote. Maybe then we can finally do away with this ****ty system.
Click to expand...

That will never happen, or should I say should never happen.
 
MrWonka said:
Or maybe just get rid of the Electoral College altogether and go off straight popular vote. There is no rational basis for maintaining this system whatsoever. I really hope that somehow in the next election Democrats win the EC and Republicans some how sneak out the popular vote. Maybe then we can finally do away with this ****ty system.
Click to expand...

Good luck getting a constitutionally amendment passed in the 21st century, where everybody votes based on what color hat they wear.

Going toward the national popular vote would greatly benefit California, NY, Florida, and Texas, and hurt every where else. You would also need to reform the primary/caucus system as well.
 
MrWonka said:
Or maybe just get rid of the Electoral College altogether and go off straight popular vote. There is no rational basis for maintaining this system whatsoever. I really hope that somehow in the next election Democrats win the EC and Republicans some how sneak out the popular vote. Maybe then we can finally do away with this ****ty system.
Click to expand...

If that happens, I GUARANTEE you that Republicans/conservatives/Trump voters will not strap on their diapers and cry like babies that we have to destroy the Constitution because we didn't get our way. There will be no ***** hats. No vagina tacos marching on the Mall. Nope. We will act like sane, respectful Americans and abide by our system, as we always have.
 
BrotherFease said:
You guys are going to love this ruling. The 10th Circuit in the Court of Appeals just ruled that electors are free to vote for whoever they want, regardless of state laws.

Here's the story: Back in December of 2016, a Democrat elector in Colorado named Michael Baca cast his presidential vote for John Kasich. The state of Colorado disqualified him, because he was suppose to vote for Hilary Clinton, the popular vote winner in Colorado. The courts ruled that the state of Colorado overstepped their boundaries and should have never disqualified him. In other words, electors have a constitutional right to vote for whoever they want.

If this ruling continues to stick, I would prefer if we the people choose the electors for our assigned political party or have the presidential candidate pick their electors.

Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules - The New York Times
Click to expand...

Proving once again that the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals opposes representative democracy and the will of the people in any and all of its forms.

Where do these jack wagons get their certifications?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
This is one of the many reasons we don't actually have a democracy in America. The vote and will of the people can be completely ignored and decided instead by random unelected assholes. The EC, especially in its current form is completely contradictory to democracy.
Click to expand...
Sort of like the law some states have passed saying their EC votes are supposed to go to who wins the national popular vote. Which means the state could 100% vote Republican (random choice) but if the Democrat got the national popular vote, not a single vote within the state counted.

That said, I much prefer a system that give smaller states weight equal or close to that of larger states. Otherwise, one only has to worry about the large population states and tell ones like MD, DE, RI AND MT to nick off.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
 
A fact and a thought.

First, the fact. The Electoral College was created with the understanding that the Electors would be free to vote their choice. If not, it would serve no purpose.

Next, the comment. The inclusion of the Electoral College in the Constitution of the United States of America records the faith of the founders of the document in the ability of the men of the nation to make consistently wise choices. Or, if you wish, a democracy of the people, by the people and for the people.
 
maquiscat said:
Sort of like the law some states have passed saying their EC votes are supposed to go to who wins the national popular vote. Which means the state could 100% vote Republican (random choice) but if the Democrat got the national popular vote, not a single vote within the state counted.

That said, I much prefer a system that give smaller states weight equal or close to that of larger states. Otherwise, one only has to worry about the large population states and tell ones like MD, DE, RI AND MT to nick off.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

100% agree on this issue.

People seem to miss the point that the EC gives both big state and small state superpowers. You go with the national popular vote, and only large states have superpowers.
 
Scorps2000 said:
That will never happen, or should I say should never happen.
Click to expand...

My beefs with the EC stems from the non-transparency of the electors and the fact that 49/51 presidential contests are winner-take-all. This creates a situation where somebody can lose the popular vote by at least 2 million and win the electoral college. Dividing by proportionality, is more reflective of the views of the state's population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom