• 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!

Are Electors still relevant?

BrotherFease said:
I perfectly understand the arguments for the popular vote. If the popular vote went away, I wouldn't be sad about it. I just think founders wanted to make both the large and small colonies happy and create a system where demagogues get weeded out. We have been a country for over 200 years and never had a dictatorship. Political powers have been pretty well spread out. Electors about 99% of the time, go with their assigned candidate.
Click to expand...

The rural areas and the minorities are always a victim of the popular vote or mob rule. I have seen it in PA where I live. A casino opened in my town just down the street. Oh we were told by the state it would lower our school taxes. After it was built our taxes were raised to pay for extra police protection and the tax money went to the big cities. The taxes on the oil and gas the same thing. The tax money goes to the big cities we get the damaged roads and and polluted water. I go could on for hours about the abuse by mob rule over the minority and the individual. The mob is constantly voting that the minority pay more while they get more. We might as well have a king.
 
Helix said:
Right wingers benefit more when empty real estate votes.
Click to expand...

Real estate, not being sentient, can't vote. The electors appointed by the several sovereign states vote for the president.
 
Samwise said:
Real estate, not being sentient, can't vote. The electors appointed by the several sovereign states vote for the president.
Click to expand...

Get more votes or lose.
 
Helix said:
Get more votes or lose.
Click to expand...

That's not what the constitution says though. The president is the one who receives the most votes by the state appointed electors.
 
Samwise said:
That's not what the constitution says though. The president is the one who receives the most votes by the state appointed electors.
Click to expand...

It's very sad that Republicans are afraid that their next nominee won't win if real estate is not allowed to vote. However, i don't care. Refer to earlier posts.
 
The Supreme Court should be issuing an opinion very soon about whether states can require electors to vote for the candidate to which they are pledged (the popular vote winner of that state). Some states even have penalties for electors. Colorado removed one of their electors in 2016 who did not vote for the winning candidates.

Most experts think the SC will rule states do have that power to bind electors.
 
Gator said:
The Supreme Court should be issuing an opinion very soon about whether states can require electors to vote for the candidate to which they are pledged (the popular vote winner of that state). Some states even have penalties for electors. Colorado removed one of their electors in 2016 who did not vote for the winning candidates.

Most experts think the SC will rule states do have that power to bind electors.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I think that faithless electors are a key dynamic to the electoral college.
 
Helix said:
It's very sad that Republicans are afraid that their next nominee won't win if real estate is not allowed to vote. However, i don't care. Refer to earlier posts.
Click to expand...

The system of choosing the president will never change. Never will 38 states agree to such an amendment.
 
Gator said:
The Supreme Court should be issuing an opinion very soon about whether states can require electors to vote for the candidate to which they are pledged (the popular vote winner of that state). Some states even have penalties for electors. Colorado removed one of their electors in 2016 who did not vote for the winning candidates.

Most experts think the SC will rule states do have that power to bind electors.
Click to expand...

Then they wouldn't actually be electors would they?
 
Samwise said:
The system of choosing the president will never change. Never will 38 states agree to such an amendment.
Click to expand...

maybe, and maybe not. i don't expect to see a change, but i support it.
 
Samwise said:
Then they wouldn't actually be electors would they?
Click to expand...

The Constitution gives the states the authority to select the electors, so that selection can mandate their qualifications which could include conditions on how they vote. It does not meet the original intent of the role of electors, but all that changed when states allowed voters to choose the electors; otherwise, there was no point in allowing a popular vote to choose electors.
 
Ikari said:
I don't know, I think that faithless electors are a key dynamic to the electoral college.
Click to expand...

They give it an interesting twist although they have never affected the outcome. Spotted Eagle has something he can claim for a lifetime.
 
Gator said:
The Constitution gives the states the authority to select the electors, so that selection can mandate their qualifications which could include conditions on how they vote. It does not meet the original intent of the role of electors, but all that changed when states allowed voters to choose the electors; otherwise, there was no point in allowing a popular vote to choose electors.
Click to expand...

So the states require that their appointed electors don't elect.
 
Samwise said:
So the states require that their appointed electors don't elect.
Click to expand...

They elect when they cast their electoral vote for the winning candidate of that state. That is the way it works now, anyway, without any state requirement. When the popular vote elects the D or R slate of electors to the electoral college, their vote is largely predetermined. They vote for their party's candidate--it is not like they actually consider anybody else.
 
Electors are relevant for purposes of

Geographic Democracy !


Electoral_College.webp



Geographic Democracy is Real
and a consideration of the Founding Fathers

Geography defeated Hillary! Si?
 
Gator said:
They elect when they cast their electoral vote for the winning candidate of that state. That is the way it works now, anyway, without any state requirement. When the popular vote elects the D or R slate of electors to the electoral college, their vote is largely predetermined. They vote for their party's candidate--it is not like they actually consider anybody else.
Click to expand...

"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;"

Should a state be permitted to forbid its appointed electors from voting, as they are required to do per the constitution?
 
Moi621 said:
Electors are relevant for purposes of

Geographic Democracy !


View attachment 67285442



Geographic Democracy is Real
and a consideration of the Founding Fathers

Geography defeated Hillary! Si?
Click to expand...

It was to insure some geographic representation but had nothing to do with some areas having more population since the founders put nothing in the Constitution regarding popular voters.

A person can be elected president by winning just 11 states; so, even the electoral college could result in a few areas choosing the president.
 
Samwise said:
"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;"

Should a state be permitted to forbid its appointed electors from voting, as they are required to do per the constitution?
Click to expand...

You omitted this important provision of the Constitution:

"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:"

I am not arguing for or against binding electors as I can see an argument for both sides. I just mentioned that based on the questions asked during the oral arguments of the case the court seemed to be leaning toward allowing states to bind their votes.
 
Helix said:
It's time for the EC to go.
Click to expand...

The EC does what it's intended to do. Keep the power from concentrating in two or three large populations.
 
Gator said:
You omitted this important provision of the Constitution:

"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:"

I am not arguing for or against binding electors as I can see an argument for both sides. I just mentioned that based on the questions asked during the oral arguments of the case the court seemed to be leaning toward allowing states to bind their votes.
Click to expand...

Then they aren't votes, and that violates the constitution.
 
Gator said:
It was to insure some geographic representation but had nothing to do with some areas having more population since the founders put nothing in the Constitution regarding popular voters.

A person can be elected president by winning just 11 states; so, even the electoral college could result in a few areas choosing the president.
Click to expand...

It was to ensure the geographic (economic) representation of eligible voters, at the time rich white men. Some States had more rich white men than others.

99% of people couldn't vote, so population itself didn't really matter.
 
Gator said:
It was to insure some geographic representation but had nothing to do with some areas having more population since the founders put nothing in the Constitution regarding popular voters.

A person can be elected president by winning just 11 states; so, even the electoral college could result in a few areas choosing the president.
Click to expand...

See #146
 
ecofarm said:
It was to ensure the geographic (economic) representation of eligible voters, at the time rich white men. Some States had more rich white men than others.

99% of people couldn't vote, so population itself didn't really matter.
Click to expand...

Not eligible voters for president since nothing in the Constitution (then or now) includes popular votes for choosing the president.

And nothing in the Constitution limited voting to males, whites, or rich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom