Are Electors still relevant?

[Perotista]

In New York, the Democratic Party and Working Families Party select the electors. If the state ever went Republican, then NY Republican party would choose the electors.

And yes, originally the state legislators picked the electors.

The problem with the EC today is that about half the states mandate their electors vote for their assigned candidate. These people were suppose to be independent thinkers and suppose to detect if their assigned candidate was a tyrant, demagogue, or a foreign agent.

Yes, true. Having the candidates and or state parties choose their own electors does away with independent thinking. Although I'd like to keep the electoral college, I think a change is needed. My problem with the electoral college is 48 states have a winner take all, it doesn't matter whether a candidate receives a majority or a plurality of the vote. Taking a page from Maine and Nebraska, my change would retain the voter take all for the candidate receiving a majority of the vote, 50% plus one. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, then each congressional district would award their electoral vote to the winner of that district, plus the state last two electoral votes would go to the plurality winner.

Now it's like I said, I'd like to keep it with this change. If no change, then going to a popular vote wouldn't cause an objection from me. Seeing a candidate receive all of a states electoral votes while getting only 45% of that states popular vote just seems wrong. Kind of like a pet peeve.

 

[BrotherFease]

Yes, true. Having the candidates and or state parties choose their own electors does away with independent thinking. Although I'd like to keep the electoral college, I think a change is needed. My problem with the electoral college is 48 states have a winner take all, it doesn't matter whether a candidate receives a majority or a plurality of the vote. Taking a page from Maine and Nebraska, my change would retain the voter take all for the candidate receiving a majority of the vote, 50% plus one. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, then each congressional district would award their electoral vote to the winner of that district, plus the state last two electoral votes would go to the plurality winner.

Now it's like I said, I'd like to keep it with this change. If no change, then going to a popular vote wouldn't cause an objection from me. Seeing a candidate receive all of a states electoral votes while getting only 45% of that states popular vote just seems wrong. Kind of like a pet peeve.

I have no disagreement there. I definitely think they should be divided out proportional of the state's popular vote, and there should be multiple rounds if one candidate doesn't get 270.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Then do it because it eliminates mob rule and is not democratic

Do it because the US government is the worst planned governments in the developed world (name a single developed country with a worse planned government than the USA)





When and where ?


Examples please




Calling Comcast is sometimes like that





So no need to have the FAA, the FCC, Dept of Agriculture, DoJ, Dept of Labor, Veteran Affairs, Dept of Defense, Treasury, Environment, State Dept, FBI, CDC....etc

Should we let airlines decide amongt themselves who to run aviation, an FBI deciding priorities based on the profit and loss sheet, cable companies deciding what to do for themselves...


What exactly do you have in mind to turning over from the government to the private sector ?

That is why so many people are sneaking and lying their way into our country because of the terrible government we have and the wonderful government they have unleashed upon themselves.

 

[jamesbyoung]

NPV is unconstitutional.

Your opinion does not matter. It has passed in a number of states and will have passed in enough states to be effective for 2024.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

What exactly do you have in mind to turning over from the government to the private sector ?

Government needs to govern. Everything else can be done by the private sector. All these government workers can do their job just as well and in most cases better without being employed by the government. The government represents the people and governs. Everyone else works for the private sector.

 

[Dayton3]

Your opinion does not matter. It has passed in a number of states and will have passed in enough states to be effective for 2024.

My opinion matters more than most people posting here given than I'm a permanent member of Gallups polling group.

 

[jamesbyoung]

My opinion matters more than most people posting here given than I'm a permanent member of Gallups polling group.

So what. You are one person only, period, no more important than anyone else.

NPV will become the law of the land and will override the EC by 2024.

 

[Dayton3]

So what. You are one person only, period, no more important than anyone else.

NPV will become the law of the land and will override the EC by 2024.

You can't override something in the U.S. Constitution without changing the Constitution. No matter what law is passed.

 

[jamesbyoung]

You can't override something in the U.S. Constitution without changing the Constitution. No matter what law is passed.

The states are ordered by the Constitution to make their own laws. That is exactly what is happening. The Constitution does not need to be changed.

That is the beauty of NPV.

That is why you are crying.

YouTube

 

[Dayton3]

The states are ordered by the Constitution to make their own laws. That is exactly what is happening. The Constitution does not need to be changed.

That is the beauty of NPV.

That is why you are crying.

YouTube

10th Amendment has been dead for more than a century.

 

[jamesbyoung]

10th Amendment has been dead for more than a century.

Yup. NPV rules, elector drools

 

[BrotherFease]

Yes, true. Having the candidates and or state parties choose their own electors does away with independent thinking. Although I'd like to keep the electoral college, I think a change is needed. My problem with the electoral college is 48 states have a winner take all, it doesn't matter whether a candidate receives a majority or a plurality of the vote. Taking a page from Maine and Nebraska, my change would retain the voter take all for the candidate receiving a majority of the vote, 50% plus one. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, then each congressional district would award their electoral vote to the winner of that district, plus the state last two electoral votes would go to the plurality winner.

Now it's like I said, I'd like to keep it with this change. If no change, then going to a popular vote wouldn't cause an objection from me. Seeing a candidate receive all of a states electoral votes while getting only 45% of that states popular vote just seems wrong. Kind of like a pet peeve.

I thought of an interesting alternative the other day. How about the 67%-33% rule? Whoever wins the popular vote in that state gets 67% of the electoral college votes, and the 2nd place finisher gets 33% of the electoral college votes. If we used Alabama as an example in 2016, then Trump would have won 6 electors to Clinton's 3 electors. For Idaho, it would have been 3 votes for Trump, 1 for Clinton.

 

[Samwise]

I thought of an interesting alternative the other day. How about the 67%-33% rule? Whoever wins the popular vote in that state gets 67% of the electoral college votes, and the 2nd place finisher gets 33% of the electoral college votes. If we used Alabama as an example in 2016, then Trump would have won 6 electors to Clinton's 3 electors. For Idaho, it would have been 3 votes for Trump, 1 for Clinton.

Except you don't know who the electors are going to vote for when it comes time for each of them to vote.

 

[BrotherFease]

Except you don't know who the electors are going to vote for when it comes time for each of them to vote.

As I have established before, electors should be free to vote their conscience. I am referring to projected votes. There's NO reason to have electors in the first place, if they are mandated to vote for X candidate.

 

[Perotista]

I thought of an interesting alternative the other day. How about the 67%-33% rule? Whoever wins the popular vote in that state gets 67% of the electoral college votes, and the 2nd place finisher gets 33% of the electoral college votes. If we used Alabama as an example in 2016, then Trump would have won 6 electors to Clinton's 3 electors. For Idaho, it would have been 3 votes for Trump, 1 for Clinton.

I still like the idea of a majority, 50% plus 1 in order to obtain all of a states electoral votes. There's something about a majority I like, something about a plurality I don't. You had the following states award all their electoral votes to a candidate that didn't receive a majority, a plurality winner
Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

 

[Samwise]

I still like the idea of a majority, 50% plus 1 in order to obtain all of a states electoral votes. There's something about a majority I like, something about a plurality I don't. You had the following states award all their electoral votes to a candidate that didn't receive a majority, a plurality winner
Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Again. States can't award electoral votes. Only electors can vote. The states simply point the electors.

 

[Rich2018]

Nope. I never offered a plan. I was just pointing out that headcount can be reduced by attrition vs. layoffs.

Your plan is to reduce the staffing of government departments by natural wastage

Or are you saying that you now DON'T support this reduction

Or you support reduction by another method ?

And which 38 states will pass an amendment to reduce their political influence?

We'll know on November 4th.

 

[Rich2018]

Dude, the match is over. You lost.

The ref stopped it before Round 3, because you were incoherent.

No, I think he stopped it because you were incoherent.

 

[Rich2018]

That is why so many people are sneaking and lying their way into our country...

How would you like them to come in ?

Like your ancestors ?

...because of the terrible government we have and the wonderful government they have unleashed upon themselves.

"Terrible" or "Wonderful"

You make no sense

Are you suggesting that Trump's wall is a failure ?
If so, is that because of "terrible" or "wonderful" government ?


Maybe the USA just needs to fast track citizenship on these new immigrants ?

 

[Jay59]

No, I think he stopped it because you were incoherent.

Oh dear. That bout was over days ago and you only just noticed he was gone.

Have yourself checked for head injury. It could be serious.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

How would you like them to come in ?

Like your ancestors ?





"Terrible" or "Wonderful"

You make no sense

Are you suggesting that Trump's wall is a failure ?
If so, is that because of "terrible" or "wonderful" government ?


Maybe the USA just needs to fast track citizenship on these new immigrants ?

Yes legally like my ancestors did. With respect for our laws and the citizens of this country who made those laws like my ancestors did. My ancestors came here because of advertising of plentiful work and opportunity in the land of milk and honey. Except when they got here the plentiful jobs were in the coal mines and they could not make enough money working to afford milk and honey. That is the ones that lived long enough to even become adults. My grandfathers brothers died in the coal mines before the age of 16. Their father died only a few years after getting here in the coal mines forcing the children to go to work at 8 years of age or starve to death.

 

[Rich2018]

Yes legally like my ancestors did. With respect for our laws and the citizens of this country who made those laws like my ancestors did....

So just let immigrants come here and make them citizens

Trust me, they don't want to have to sneak in

Government needs to govern. Everything else can be done by the private sector.

So which government departments would you close ?

 

[Gator]

As I have established before, electors should be free to vote their conscience. I am referring to projected votes. There's NO reason to have electors in the first place, if they are mandated to vote for X candidate.

There is no reason for popular votes if electors are free to choose whomever they want. As long as we vote for a Dem or Rep slate of electors then the electors voting their conscience means supporting their already chosen party's candidate.

 

[Samwise]

Your plan is to reduce the staffing of government departments by natural wastage

Or are you saying that you now DON'T support this reduction

Or you support reduction by another method ?

I said that reduction via attrition is an alternative to reduction by layoffs.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

So just let immigrants come here and make them citizens

Trust me, they don't want to have to sneak in





So which government departments would you close ?

We do. The problem is there are too many people who want to come here. Shall we take in a few 100 million from China, a few 100 million from India, and 1/2 billion from the rest of the world. Get a grip on reality.