Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 152

Thread: Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

  1. #131
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    23,898

    Re: Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Linc View Post
    Of the seven faithless electors in 2016, the most ever, five didn’t vote for Clinton and two didn’t vote for Trump. Imagine that scenario in 2000, where Bush won 271-266. It would have been 269-261 with the 2016 scenario.

    Do you really want to go down the road of the mess of contingent elections in the House for POTUS and the Senate for VP? I sure don’t. The language in the 12th amendment is about as murky as it gets. We’ve got enough legal problems right now.

    The Supremes need to put an end to this faithless nonsense we’ve always had with us. As well, it’s past time for them to give at least a few more clues as to their thinking on census redistricting along with any changes to the EC.
    You think that is bad? Imagine being a citizen of a state who gives away your vote to the winner of the popular vote in an equally close election, and you have no standing to challenge vote counts in California and New York.
    “A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.” ― C.S. Lewis

  2. #132
    Professor
    Moonglow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    foothills of destiny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,549

    Re: Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

    If your vote mattered they wouldn't let you vote.
    To live is to suffer~Fritz Lang

  3. #133
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,713

    Re: Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    You think that is bad? Imagine being a citizen of a state who gives away your vote to the winner of the popular vote in an equally close election, and you have no standing to challenge vote counts in California and New York.
    I thought "Conservatives" were Constitutional originalists. Changed your mind on this one clause?
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  4. #134
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    23,898

    Re: Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    I thought "Conservatives" were Constitutional originalists. Changed your mind on this one clause?
    What about what I said does not fit an originalist view of the Constitution? Show your work.
    “A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.” ― C.S. Lewis

  5. #135
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,713

    Re: Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    What about what I said does not fit an originalist view of the Constitution? Show your work.
    You were right and I was wrong. Your view that a minority can control the government is exactly what the Founders wished to see. That is why Madison wrote in Federalist #10 wrote that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths"

    John C Greene's defence of the Electoral College has the following passage
    The object of our constitutional republic is not to make everyone's voice exactly equal, but rather to make everyone's unalienable rights equally secure. The legitimate concerns and even the rights of large segments of the citizens of our nation could easily be ignored and even trampled upon by the largest cities of the nation. And don't think ambitious and unscrupulous politicians wouldn't play that situation like a fiddle.
    I must wonder if a citizen who lives in a city doesn't have the equal voice of a rural resident, how can their "inalienable rights" be equal?
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  6. #136
    Guru Glitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Alaska (61.5°N, -149°W)
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,495

    Re: Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Linc View Post
    Of the seven faithless electors in 2016, the most ever, five didn’t vote for Clinton and two didn’t vote for Trump. Imagine that scenario in 2000, where Bush won 271-266. It would have been 269-261 with the 2016 scenario.

    Do you really want to go down the road of the mess of contingent elections in the House for POTUS and the Senate for VP? I sure don’t. The language in the 12th amendment is about as murky as it gets. We’ve got enough legal problems right now.

    The Supremes need to put an end to this faithless nonsense we’ve always had with us. As well, it’s past time for them to give at least a few more clues as to their thinking on census redistricting along with any changes to the EC.
    It was not "the most ever." It was just the most in modern times. In 1836 all of Virginia's 23 electors became faithless when they voted for William Smith instead of Van Buren's running mate Richard Johnson.

    There was also a faithless elector in 2000. Barbara Lett-Simmons had pledged to vote for Gore/Lieberman for DC, then abstained. Which is why the EC vote was 266 to 271. Had there been 7 faithless electors in 2000, like there was in 2016, then the EC vote would have been 269 to 262. Which means that the House of Representatives would decide the election, like in 1824. Or more accurately the Speaker of the House would decide who becomes President. Which in 2000 was Republican Dennis Hastert. It would have been a Republican-controlled Senate got to decide who became Vice President in 2000.

    There is nothing "murky" about it, and it has been done before.

    The Supreme Court has already held that Electors cannot be compelled to vote a particular way.
    No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated what is implicit in its text -- that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices. * Certainly, under that plan, no state law could control the elector in performance of his federal duty, any more than it could a United States Senator who also is chosen by, and represents, the State.

    Source: Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952)
    Also,

    Doubtless it was supposed that the electors would exercise a reasonable independence and fair judgment in the selection of the chief executive, but experience soon demonstrated that, whether chosen by the legislatures or by popular suffrage on general ticket or in districts, they were so chosen simply to register the will of the appointing power in respect of a particular candidate. In relation, then, to the independence of the electors, the original expectation may be said to have been frustrated.

    Source: McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)
    The States' undisputed power to appoint electors does not give States the power to control their activity once they have been appointed and have begun to perform their federal function as electors. As the Supreme Court held in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), States may not interfere with federal duties.

  7. #137
    Professor mrjurrs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    The Bay
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    1,908

    Re: Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by NotreDame View Post
    Are you confused? My post to you was essentially you’ve said nothing to answer my question as it related to Iguanaman’s post and his view.

    You are free to chime in, I welcome it, but interjecting with an irrelevant remark is something you should “send in a private message.”


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Little touchy this morning? You made a comment about campaigning in WY, I said they don't campaign there now.
    "Some men see things as they are and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not." Robert F. Kennedy

  8. #138
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    23,898

    Re: Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    You were right and I was wrong. Your view that a minority can control the government is exactly what the Founders wished to see. That is why Madison wrote in Federalist #10 wrote that democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths"

    John C Greene's defence of the Electoral College has the following passage

    I must wonder if a citizen who lives in a city doesn't have the equal voice of a rural resident, how can their "inalienable rights" be equal?
    Well, I think the first thing to consider is that in the case of the election of the President, the Founders didn't even think it necessary to put it to a direct vote. Our current election system is a contrivance built more on evolving tradition than constitutional requirement. If California decided that the State Legislature would appoint Electors and skip the popular vote it would be perfectly constitutional.

    That is why it can not be stressed enough how little the popular vote actually means constitutionally. The only way that the vote matters constitutionally is that, whatever the state decides, it is applied equally. The popular vote was never in the plan, it was always left explicitly up to the states as to how to appoint electors.
    “A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading.” ― C.S. Lewis

  9. #139
    Sage
    Rich2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Norcross, Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    12,901

    Re: Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Moonglow View Post
    If your vote mattered they wouldn't let you vote.
    "They", "them", "those" people

    Who are "They" ?

  10. #140
    Professor
    Moonglow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    foothills of destiny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,549

    Re: Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich2018 View Post
    "They", "them", "those" people

    Who are "They" ?
    They are the powers that be.
    To live is to suffer~Fritz Lang

Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •