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

[code1211]

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.

The Electoral College process could be much more streamlined than it is.

After each state votes, sending human beings to a location to cast votes seems silly in this day and age. The whole thing could be done on a with a less cumbersome tally electronically based only the representation numbers of Congressmen and Senators.

The important thing is that each state decide their preference and that each states preferences calculated according to weighted average be accurately incorporated into the selection of the successful candidate.

As a republic, the various STATES vote for their leader- not the people. The people vote to determine the preference of their state.

 

[snakestretcher]

Proportional representation is the way to go, and it does away with the Electoral College which can only be a good, and fair, approach.

What is proportional representation and why do we need this reform?

 

[Torus34]

As a republic, the various STATES vote for their leader- not the people. The people vote to determine the preference of their state.

This is OK as far as it goes. The vote of a person, though, is severely distorted by the Electoral College [The votes of some Americans count more than three times that of certain others,] and by the gerrymandering of districts by the political parties. Gerrymandering can result in a vote becoming, essentially, meaningless.

It can be noted, en passant, that corporations, in their campaign to free themselves from the restraints of government control, have won some of the rights of citizens. They have, though eschewed any attempt to gain right to vote, deeming it of little or no value to them.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

The Electoral College process could be much more streamlined than it is.

After each state votes, sending human beings to a location to cast votes seems silly in this day and age. The whole thing could be done on a with a less cumbersome tally electronically based only the representation numbers of Congressmen and Senators.

The important thing is that each state decide their preference and that each states preferences calculated according to weighted average be accurately incorporated into the selection of the successful candidate.

As a republic, the various STATES vote for their leader- not the people. The people vote to determine the preference of their state.

This statement is dead wrong and is exactly what I was trying to point out. The voters of a state DO NOT determine who that state votes for, random unelected assholes get to choose, and they could choose something completely opposite of what the people voted for if they wanted to, there's nothing stopping them. That's not even a republic.

The entire purpose of the electoral college is to completely shut out political minorities in a state from getting anything at all. If you're a Republican in NY or a Democrat in TX, there is absolutely no reason for you to vote and your vote will not be counted. A substantial amount of the country under the EC has no political power whatsoever, while a handful of swing states get all the attention and decide the elections.

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

Sorry bud, but trying to have Wyoming's 17 residents have as much power in federal matters as Californa's 40 million is looney toons. I can understand the argument that it shouldn't be purely based on population and there should be some balancing there, but making it completely equal is ridiculous.

 

[Irwin Corey]

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

It did NOT. The Appeals Court upheld the Founding Fathers original intention for the EC.

In a ruling that kicks at the foundation of how America chooses presidents, a federal appeals court on Tuesday said members of the Electoral College, who cast the actual votes for president, may choose whomever they please regardless of a state’s popular vote.

Federalist 68 (by Hamilton) makes the case for the EC. His reasoning for the EC is to prevent and unqualified, unprepared, but, glib … "CON-MAN" … from becoming President. IMHO the Court is correct when they affirm that "members of the Electoral College … may choose whomever they please regardless of a state’s popular vote." Having electors that will do what IS best for our Country is the main reason why we have an Electoral College. The Founding Fathers greatly feared some smooth talking unqualified charlatan becoming President.

There was also some "expedience" involved. Thinking back to a time when long distance communication was "very limited" the electoral college made a "National Election" easier to manage. Think about it, Senators and Congressmen are really elected "LOCALLY" by State or District. The Presidency is really the ONLY National election we have. So, IMHO in an age of computers and highspeed communication I think the Electoral College has out lived it's usefulness AND (in 2016) failed in it's duty to keep an unqualified Con-Man from becoming President.

"IMHO" arguments that the EC balances the power of small and large states is a Red Herring. The Presidency is all were talking about, and as powerful as the Presidency is it is still balanced (supposedly) By the Senate, Congress and the Supreme Court. In an age of Highspeed Communication AND Calculations by Computers AND/AND considering the 2016 election IMHO the Electoral College has failed in it's duty and has become an anachronism; it's time for one man one vote when it comes to electing the President.

 

[Ikari]

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

It didn't get expanded. The faithless elector is a designed feature of the EC, and needs to be preserved

 

[Ikari]

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.

I mean, we ****ed up this time, but in theory yes.

 

[maquiscat]

The Electoral College process could be much more streamlined than it is.

After each state votes, sending human beings to a location to cast votes seems silly in this day and age. The whole thing could be done on a with a less cumbersome tally electronically based only the representation numbers of Congressmen and Senators.

The important thing is that each state decide their preference and that each states preferences calculated according to weighted average be accurately incorporated into the selection of the successful candidate.

As a republic, the various STATES vote for their leader- not the people. The people vote to determine the preference of their state.

I honestly think that each county should be decided by popular vote. Each county then sends one vote to the state. Each state then sends one vote to the national. If a tie, count the total number county vote. If still a tie then popular vote.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[BrotherFease]

I honestly think that each county should be decided by popular vote. Each county then sends one vote to the state. Each state then sends one vote to the national. If a tie, count the total number county vote. If still a tie then popular vote.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Don't you mean by congressional district? We divide up electors based on the number of U.S Senators and the number of congressional representatives. Counties are not exactly evenly divided up. Trust me I work for a law firm and done tax research where I had to call up different counties.

 

[maquiscat]

Don't you mean by congressional district? We divide up electors based on the number of U.S Senators and the number of congressional representatives. Counties are not exactly evenly divided up. Trust me I work for a law firm and done tax research where I had to call up different counties.

Nope I meant counties. Balance out the highly populated counties with the sparsely populated ones, as well as doing such for the states.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[code1211]

This is OK as far as it goes. The vote of a person, though, is severely distorted by the Electoral College [The votes of some Americans count more than three times that of certain others,] and by the gerrymandering of districts by the political parties. Gerrymandering can result in a vote becoming, essentially, meaningless.

It can be noted, en passant, that corporations, in their campaign to free themselves from the restraints of government control, have won some of the rights of citizens. They have, though eschewed any attempt to gain right to vote, deeming it of little or no value to them.

Why did you edit my post? Why did you present my post as if it had not been edited?

The STATES are represented in the Electoral college. Them's the rules and that's the law.

A few years ago, Indiana outscored Cleveland and King James in a basketball playoff series, but failed to win more games. Cleveland won the series. More points is like the popular vote. Only the losers care.

The Electoral College is one way to allow the various states to impact the election. It was designed to do exactly that. It affords greater weight to the States that have greater populations. Less weight to less populace states.

The only weight afforded corporations is that which is purchased from the Gerrymandering, lying, postulating thieves of our political parties. I'm not sure how this is tangent...

 

[Torus34]

Why did you edit my post? Why did you present my post as if it had not been edited?

The STATES are represented in the Electoral college. Them's the rules and that's the law.

A few years ago, Indiana outscored Cleveland and King James in a basketball playoff series, but failed to win more games. Cleveland won the series. More points is like the popular vote. Only the losers care.

The Electoral College is one way to allow the various states to impact the election. It was designed to do exactly that. It affords greater weight to the States that have greater populations. Less weight to less populace states.

The only weight afforded corporations is that which is purchased from the Gerrymandering, lying, postulating thieves of our political parties. I'm not sure how this is tangent...

Hi! Thank you for taking time to respond.

Regards.

 

[code1211]

This statement is dead wrong and is exactly what I was trying to point out. The voters of a state DO NOT determine who that state votes for, random unelected assholes get to choose, and they could choose something completely opposite of what the people voted for if they wanted to, there's nothing stopping them. That's not even a republic.

The entire purpose of the electoral college is to completely shut out political minorities in a state from getting anything at all. If you're a Republican in NY or a Democrat in TX, there is absolutely no reason for you to vote and your vote will not be counted. A substantial amount of the country under the EC has no political power whatsoever, while a handful of swing states get all the attention and decide the elections.

(Other poster's post was edited away.)

Being in a minority is being in a minority. Your vote still counts. Conservatives in California are less plentiful than Liberals. They still vote though and will occasionally be in the majority.

The more populace states have more Liberals. Here in Indiana, Andre Carson's district is in the heart of Indianapolis. It is solidly liberal.

Big city means probable Liberal control. As the population concentrates more and more into population centers, those densely populated centers turn more and more liberal.

Areas that are more affluent and more rural (and are probably less densely populated) probably produce Conservative control.

I think it's safe to assume that people don't come out of the womb either Conservative or Liberal.

What is it about reducing populations of people to living like ants in a hill or bees in a hive that converts thinking, self reliant people into Liberals? Is this really the process at all?

What is the impetus that creates the beliefs? What guides a person to "If you want it done right, do it yourself." or "It takes a village."?

Do people gravitate to their living conditions because this is where they are comfortable or is there something in the living conditions that makes them believe as they do?

 

[Individual]

So we could let each State determine who will be their electors and put them together in a room, where each candidates name is called and the electors raise their hand to show support until one of the candidates has received a majority of the hands raised. Sure would simplify and hasten the election process.

 

[gdgyva]

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.

wont happen....

democrats have the populous areas dominated with their giveaway platforms

so almost every major urban votes democrat

takes a boatload of farmers to make up for that

 

[code1211]

I honestly think that each county should be decided by popular vote. Each county then sends one vote to the state. Each state then sends one vote to the national. If a tie, count the total number county vote. If still a tie then popular vote.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

This would seem to invite some shenanigans.

What if Wyoming decided the right number of Counties for their state was 3 million?

 

[maquiscat]

This would seem to invite some shenanigans.

What if Wyoming decided the right number of Counties for their state was 3 million?

There is a point of red tape that even governments won't cross. Even so, Wyoming still gets only one vote going to the Federal level.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[MrWonka]

wont happen....

democrats have the populous areas dominated with their giveaway platforms

so almost every major urban votes democrat

takes a boatload of farmers to make up for that

And your point is what exactly? If liberal parts of the country are so incredibly popular that everyone is moving to them and trying to get away from right wing rural country maybe you should take that as a hint that liberals are doing something right and conservatives are doing something wrong.

Alabama and Mississippi have been consistently some of the worst states in the country economically and educationally for decades. They are also the most Conservative. Minnesota and Massachusetts have consistently been some of the best states in the country economically and educationally for decades. They're also the most liberal.

I hear all these idiot conservatives talk about States Rights. They say states need to have the freedom to try their own ideas so we can see which ones work and which don't. Well if the United States is a serious of laboratories the tests they've been running in the deep south have been failing miserably. The liberals North and Coasts are mopping the floor with the right wing party of the country and yet rather than accept failure and try to change the south just keeps dig itself into a bigger and bigger whole.

There are parts of the South that probably shouldn't even be classified as 1st world. They may still not have indoor pluming if it wasn't for the TVA.

 

[Ikari]

There is a point of red tape that even governments won't cross. Even so, Wyoming still gets only one vote going to the Federal level.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

I mean, people are already upset with the EC as is. To level it to 1 vote per state would ruffle some feathers even more. The EC had the compromise between State influence and Popular decision.

 

[gdgyva]

And your point is what exactly? If liberal parts of the country are so incredibly popular that everyone is moving to them and trying to get away from right wing rural country maybe you should take that as a hint that liberals are doing something right and conservatives are doing something wrong.

Alabama and Mississippi have been consistently some of the worst states in the country economically and educationally for decades. They are also the most Conservative. Minnesota and Massachusetts have consistently been some of the best states in the country economically and educationally for decades. They're also the most liberal.

I hear all these idiot conservatives talk about States Rights. They say states need to have the freedom to try their own ideas so we can see which ones work and which don't. Well if the United States is a serious of laboratories the tests they've been running in the deep south have been failing miserably. The liberals North and Coasts are mopping the floor with the right wing party of the country and yet rather than accept failure and try to change the south just keeps dig itself into a bigger and bigger whole.

There are parts of the South that probably shouldn't even be classified as 1st world. They may still not have indoor pluming if it wasn't for the TVA.

you know...you might want to follow your avatar's advice

stop bigotry

you are a bigot

you believe everyone in the south is a redneck, uneducated, and cant tie their own shoelaces

you care nothing about the flyover states and their wants and needs

you only care about what YOU WANT....

look in the mirror dude....

 

[MrWonka]

you know...you might want to follow your avatar's advice

stop bigotry

you are a bigot

you believe everyone in the south is a redneck, uneducated, and cant tie their own shoelaces

I live in Charleston ****ing South Carolina. I know what the population looks like. The entire state of Alabama or Mississippi doesn't have to be an uneducated redneck to **** up a state. All it takes is 51%. Just last year something like 47% of Alabama voters supported a known pedophile for U.S. Senate.

I'm fully aware that even in a ****ty state like Alabama or Mississippi there are plenty of good people, decent people, who understand their state is a colossal failure. Unfortunately those people generally get an education and get the **** out of there rather than stick around and try to fix it.

you care nothing about the flyover states and their wants and needs

I was born in a tiny little town of 3000 people in Rural Minnesota. I lived there for the first 31 years of my life. I have an enormous family who all still live there. Most of them are very christian. Most grew up on farms if they don't still live on them. I understand the problems of rural flyover country better than you ever will, but unlike you I understand that their problems are almost exclusively being caused by their own willful ignorance.

you only care about what YOU WANT....

I am a white male who considers himself to be a feminist. I'm fighting against Misogyny and Racism both of which would benefit me if I let them continue. You don't have the foggiest ****ing clue who your talking to. It is you who are making baseless prejudiced assumptions about me. Not the other way around.

 

[gdgyva]

I live in Charleston ****ing South Carolina. I know what the population looks like. The entire state of Alabama or Mississippi doesn't have to be an uneducated redneck to **** up a state. All it takes is 51%. Just last year something like 47% of Alabama voters supported a known pedophile for U.S. Senate.

I'm fully aware that even in a ****ty state like Alabama or Mississippi there are plenty of good people, decent people, who understand their state is a colossal failure. Unfortunately those people generally get an education and get the **** out of there rather than stick around and try to fix it.


I was born in a tiny little town of 3000 people in Rural Minnesota. I lived there for the first 31 years of my life. I have an enormous family who all still live there. Most of them are very christian. Most grew up on farms if they don't still live on them. I understand the problems of rural flyover country better than you ever will, but unlike you I understand that their problems are almost exclusively being caused by their own willful ignorance.


I am a white male who considers himself to be a feminist. I'm fighting against Misogyny and Racism both of which would benefit me if I let them continue. You don't have the foggiest ****ing clue who your talking to. It is you who are making baseless prejudiced assumptions about me. Not the other way around.

well then show a little respect for your fellow americans

maybe, just maybe they have something to say also

they may not hold the same beliefs....have the same intellect....or the same education

but they too have the same right to voice their opinions, whether you like them or not

all i am asking and saying

 

[MrWonka]

well then show a little respect for your fellow americans

Why should I? Do you know what trying to be respectful to your political opponents while disagreeing with them is called?

Political Correctness.

But last I checked the people that elected this disgusting piece of **** president think Political Correctness is a bad thing. They like Trump because he "Told it like it is." They like that he doesn't hold back. Even though he's the most dishonest President in American history the morons who elected him think he's the most truthful because he speaks his mind with no filter.

So if they can elect a piece of **** like Trump whose entire campaign was based on nothing but personally attacking his opponents, Muslims, Women, the LGBTQ community you don't get to then expect politeness from me. The deplorable piles of **** that elected this President love the fact that he's disrespectful to his fellow Americans so I see absolutely no reason to be respectful back to them.

maybe, just maybe they have something to say also

they may not hold the same beliefs....have the same intellect....or the same education

but they too have the same right to voice their opinions, whether you like them or not

Sorry pal, but we're way beyond Opinions at this point. Just because you believe something doesn't make it an opinion. Trump and his supporters seem to want an entirely new version of reality filled with "alternate facts." You're entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts.

Opinions are things like a favorite color or pizza topping. Putting innocent children in cages and destroying families who've done nothing but work hard and seek a better life for their families is immoral. That's a fact. This administration is blatantly violating the basic Human Rights of anybody that looks at them funny. If your so called "value system" convinces you that this is acceptable then you can take your values and shove them where the sun doesn't shine because those sure as hell aren't American Values.

Donald Trump is a ****ing criminal. If he wasn't being protected by Republicans in the senate he would have already been charged and convicted of more than 10 separate felonies and he's spend the rest of his worthless life behind bars in a jump suit to match his stupid fake tan skin. You don't get to call yourself the heartland when you have no heart. If this is what Fly Over country calls their hero then flyover country can go **** itself.

 

[Linc]

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.

It would have a tremendous effect in 2020 if just Michigan and Pennsylvania flip, giving trump a 270 to 268 win. With Clinton losing 5 EVs and Trump losing 2 in 2016, that count would be 268 to 263, and the 12th amendment would kick in, with the 3rd highest EC vote total being on the House ballot. That would have been Collin Powell in 2016, with 3 EVs.

Currently, Republicans have a 27 to 21 lead in House state delegations, with two ties, in MI and PA. There are many scenarios where that lead could wind up tied. Then what? As well, the Senate votes for only two candidates for VP. Suppose the Senate winds up 50-50 after the 2020s. Then what?

This ruling could easily make the 2000 selection of Bush look rather calm. The candidate with 270 that loses EVs to faithless electors will no doubt appeal this appellate ruling to the USSC. In the meantime, the incumbent president/VP would be the temporary president/VP. As an example, the GOP temporaries could still install a Supreme Court Justice with a 50-50 Senate.

 

[Perotista]

It would have a tremendous effect in 2020 if just Michigan and Pennsylvania flip, giving trump a 270 to 268 win. With Clinton losing 5 EVs and Trump losing 2 in 2016, that count would be 268 to 263, and the 12th amendment would kick in, with the 3rd highest EC vote total being on the House ballot. That would have been Collin Powell in 2016, with 3 EVs.

Currently, Republicans have a 27 to 21 lead in House state delegations, with two ties, in MI and PA. There are many scenarios where that lead could wind up tied. Then what? As well, the Senate votes for only two candidates for VP. Suppose the Senate winds up 50-50 after the 2020s. Then what?

This ruling could easily make the 2000 selection of Bush look rather calm. The candidate with 270 that loses EVs to faithless electors will no doubt appeal this appellate ruling to the USSC. In the meantime, the incumbent president/VP would be the temporary president/VP. As an example, the GOP temporaries could still install a Supreme Court Justice with a 50-50 Senate.

We have had faithless electors all throughout our history. This ruling would only effect the states which have laws on their books about electors voting for whomever won the popular vote. Here's the list.

Faithless elector - Wikipedia

States choose their electors in various way. Each candidate on the Georgia ballot must submit a slate of electors to our secretary of state prior to the election. Whomever wins the Georgia popular vote, it is that candidates slate that cast Georgia's electoral votes. Some states choose electors during the primaries, some at party conventions, who knows how many different ways the electors are chosen? I was an elector for Ross Perot in 1996 and if he had won Georgia, I would have cast my electoral vote for him.

Unless one is from one of those states which had faithless elector laws, this ruling doesn't effect you. Then depending on how those state select electors, it probably won't effect most of them at all. I don't see this as a big deal. 167 times there has been faithless electors in our history.

29 states have faithless elector laws, but in 20 of those 29 states the electoral vote is counted as cast. No penalty. In the remaining 8, the faithless elector is replaced with one who will cast his vote for the candidate that won the popular vote. In reality, this ruling might effect only 9 states. Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Utah.

Faithless Elector State Laws - FairVote

The ruling isn't earth shattering as it hasn't any effect at all on 41 states. Besides, in most states the electors cast their votes in their respective state capitals long after the general election. That being the second Monday after the first Wednesday in December.