• 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!

Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

Somerville said:
This NYTimes article is from August of this year. While reading more about the case, I found that only 15 of the states have laws requiring their electors to vote as the popular vote. This goes back to the days of the founding of the nation when the Founders, all members of the educated elite class, thought that choosing electors of the same class could prevent the hoi-polloi from choosing some disreputable riff-raff as president.



If you can't read the NYTimes article, try this link -- Colorado’s presidential electors don’t have to vote for candidate who wins the state, federal appeals court rules

The Denver Post, Oct 16, 2019 -- Colorado seeks “urgent” decision from Supreme Court on faithless electors

IF the Supreme Court refuses Colorado's appeal or IF the Supreme Court takes the case and rules that the "original intent" of the Founders allowed those chosen as electors during a presidential election to 1) Vote as that individual wants to vote and/or 2) State legislatures in choosing the electors for their state ensure that said individuals chosen promise to vote as the legislature demands regardless of the popular vote, America will be a republic in which a limited number of citizens have the privilege of choosing a president.
Click to expand...

Seems like you're looking for a way to cheat. Why else would a leftwinger bring up this subject?
 
Harshaw said:
I didn't make an argument; I stated a list of unambiguous and incontrovertible facts.




It doesn't matter how many states have said laws; the Constitution has always been clear.

Perhaps you recall just a few years ago when there was an effort to stop Donald Trump from taking office by appealing to the electors to vote for someone else. Had they done so, it would have been constitutionally valid.
Click to expand...


And we wouldn't be in the **** mess we are now...
 
gdgyva said:
every person in every state that is a registered voter CAN vote

those votes are tallied STATE by STATE

we do not use a national count, we use 50 state counts to determine the Presidential race

that is the way it was set up...

this has been argued time and time again....

if you all want to change it....you know what has to be done

get it on the ballot, and get 75% of the states to agree to the ratification

if as you say, the EC is stupid and most people dont want it, it should be easy to pass this

but i think the flyover states may have something to say about it....dont you?
Click to expand...

Why would Republican dominated states willingly give up their believed political advantage with the Electoral College?
 
American said:
Seems like you're looking for a way to cheat. Why else would a leftwinger bring up this subject?
Click to expand...

Interesting use of the word CHEAT since that is exactly what the EC does to the nation when it deliberately and purposely is there to thwart or cheat the will of the people in many far too many elections.
 
RE: Thread title

!. Well, of course, a liberal court would rule that the Electoral College may overrule the voters' choice.

2. After all, at this very moment, the House of Reps is doing its best to overrule the voters' choice, too.

3. Can we all agree that we Americans should stop lecturing other nations about "democracy"?
 
GDViking said:
And we wouldn't be in the **** mess we are now...
Click to expand...

:shrug: Maybe. But according to the OP, it shouldn't have been permitted.
 
Harshaw said:
I didn't make an argument; I stated a list of unambiguous and incontrovertible facts.




It doesn't matter how many states have said laws; the Constitution has always been clear.

Perhaps you recall just a few years ago when there was an effort to stop Donald Trump from taking office by appealing to the electors to vote for someone else. Had they done so, it would have been constitutionally valid.
Click to expand...

In this instance, I was using "argument" as it is understood in court: argument -- consists of a presentation of the facts or evidence and the inferences that may be drawn therefrom, which are aimed at persuading a judge or jury to render a verdict in favor of the attorney's client.
 
Somerville said:
In this instance, I was using "argument" as it is understood in court: argument -- consists of a presentation of the facts or evidence and the inferences that may be drawn therefrom, which are aimed at persuading a judge or jury to render a verdict in favor of the attorney's client.
Click to expand...

No, "argument" as understood in court is very much a separate phase of the trial from the witness/evidentiary -- fact -- phase, and indeed, a legitimate objection is against introducing arguments into the evidentiary phase. You don't make arguments while presenting/establishing the facts.
 
haymarket said:
Interesting use of the word CHEAT since that is exactly what the EC does to the nation when it deliberately and purposely is there to thwart or cheat the will of the people in many far too many elections.
Click to expand...

It's in the Constitution, therefore by definition it's not cheating. Your emotional leftwing argument is void.
 
Harshaw said:
:shrug: Maybe. But according to the OP, it shouldn't have been permitted.
Click to expand...

WHAT shouldn't have been permitted? The Colorado case began when one of the state's electors said he was going to vote for the candidate HE supported and not the one supported by the majority of voters in Colorado. Mr Michael Baca didn't want to vote for Trump or Clinton, his preferred candidate was John Kasich. The case is Baca v Colorado Dept of State

from the OP
IF the Supreme Court refuses Colorado's appeal or IF the Supreme Court takes the case and rules that the "original intent" of the Founders allowed those chosen as electors during a presidential election to 1) Vote as that individual wants to vote and/or 2) State legislatures in choosing the electors for their state ensure that said individuals chosen promise to vote as the legislature demands regardless of the popular vote, America will be a republic in which a limited number of citizens have the privilege of choosing a president.

For those who follow the philosophy of former Justice Antonin Scalia in regards to 'originalism' one might wish to read: Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952), in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate in order to be certified as electors. The court did not rule whether such pledges were enforceable. In his dissent, Justice Robert Jackson wrote: "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."


Now - readers, tell us: Is this a left/right battle, a liberals vs. conservatives case?

Are some who call who call themselves "conservative" arguing for or against the decision in this case? Do you want the Supreme Court to make a final decision - a decision that would agree with Justice Robert Jackson? Think about it. Such a decision would greatly lessen the voice of the people in choosing the next and all following Presidents.
 
American said:
It's in the Constitution, therefore by definition it's not cheating. Your emotional leftwing argument is void.
Click to expand...

This opinion doesn't read as very "Conservative" although you are correct in stating the Electoral College is in the Constitution. Your emotional rightwing argument is invalid in one respect. IF chosen electors are allowed to vote as they wish without regards to the votes of the citizenry, which was the original intent, what would you say if the electors chose Bernie Sanders over Mike Pence?
 
Somerville said:
WHAT shouldn't have been permitted?
Click to expand...

Faithless electors choosing someone other than Trump in 2016.

The Colorado case began when one of the state's electors said he was going to vote for the candidate HE supported and not the one supported by the majority of voters in Colorado. Mr Michael Baca didn't want to vote for Trump or Clinton, his preferred candidate was John Kasich. The case is Baca v Colorado Dept of State

from the OP
IF the Supreme Court refuses Colorado's appeal or IF the Supreme Court takes the case and rules that the "original intent" of the Founders allowed those chosen as electors during a presidential election to 1) Vote as that individual wants to vote and/or 2) State legislatures in choosing the electors for their state ensure that said individuals chosen promise to vote as the legislature demands regardless of the popular vote, America will be a republic in which a limited number of citizens have the privilege of choosing a president.

For those who follow the philosophy of former Justice Antonin Scalia in regards to 'originalism' one might wish to read: Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952), in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate in order to be certified as electors. The court did not rule whether such pledges were enforceable. In his dissent, Justice Robert Jackson wrote: "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."


Now - readers, tell us: Is this a left/right battle, a liberals vs. conservatives case?

Are some who call who call themselves "conservative" arguing for or against the decision in this case? Do you want the Supreme Court to make a final decision - a decision that would agree with Justice Robert Jackson? Think about it. Such a decision would greatly lessen the voice of the people in choosing the next and all following Presidents.
Click to expand...

I don't see how it has much of anything to do with "left/right." If it does, it shouldn't.
 
Somerville said:
This opinion doesn't read as very "Conservative" although you are correct in stating the Electoral College is in the Constitution. Your emotional rightwing argument is invalid in one respect. IF chosen electors are allowed to vote as they wish without regards to the votes of the citizenry, which was the original intent, what would you say if the electors chose Bernie Sanders over Mike Pence?
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with my argument. The crybabies who can't accept the way the Constitution works need to get over their butthurt. I'm a constitutionalist, and that's the bottom line on that.
 
haymarket said:
Why would Republican dominated states willingly give up their believed political advantage with the Electoral College?
Click to expand...

They wouldnt....you all are the ones that said the EC was stupid and should be changed...not them

We as a people dont want the major metro area's dictating who our president should be.....

We have 3000 + miles accross this country and well over 1500 miles north to south

Having the coasts elect our president makes no sense....

And until you can convince the flyover states to change, the EC will stay just as it is
 
American said:
There is nothing wrong with my argument. The crybabies who can't accept the way the Constitution works need to get over their butthurt. I'm a constitutionalist, and that's the bottom line on that.
Click to expand...

So you believe as the Founders did - that only the chosen elite shall be allowed to choose the nation's leaders?
 
Harshaw said:
Faithless electors choosing someone other than Trump in 2016.
Click to expand...
In this specific instance, the plaintiff refused to vote for the candidate chosen by the voters in Colorado - who happened to be Hillary Clinton.



I don't see how it has much of anything to do with "left/right." If it does, it shouldn't.
Click to expand...
You are right, it shouldn't but it will. Al Gore received more citizens' votes than George Bush, as did Hillary Clinton who got more votes than Donald Trump. So, two Democratic candidates lost because of the electoral college. Two times a minority got their president inaugurated, is that what you want?
 
Somerville said:
In this specific instance, the plaintiff refused to vote for the candidate chosen by the voters in Colorado - who happened to be Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...

:shrug: My comment didn't have to do with the Colorado "instance."



You are right, it shouldn't but it will. Al Gore received more citizens' votes than George Bush, as did Hillary Clinton who got more votes than Donald Trump. So, two Democratic candidates lost because of the electoral college.
Click to expand...

So? What does that have to do with your argument in the OP?


Two times a minority got their president inaugurated, is that what you want?
Click to expand...

Far more than two. No majority elected Bill Clinton either time, for example.
 
American said:
It's in the Constitution, therefore by definition it's not cheating. Your emotional leftwing argument is void.
Click to expand...

Are you under the false impression the Constitution is a perfect creation handed to us from God in the Heavens and thus is incapable of having any shortcomings?

The Constitution contained many things which were not right or not in keeping with our stated purposes, including the allowing of slavery, the political and legal dominance of females, the failure to treat Native populations as everyone else was treated, and the Electoral College.
 
gdgyva said:
They wouldnt....you all are the ones that said the EC was stupid and should be changed...not them

We as a people dont want the major metro area's dictating who our president should be.....

We have 3000 + miles accross this country and well over 1500 miles north to south

Having the coasts elect our president makes no sense....

And until you can convince the flyover states to change, the EC will stay just as it is
Click to expand...

I do not want any special system that discriminates against some voters while rewarding others at those others expense. And that is what the EC does in giving extra advantage to small population states.

I do not care if you live in Iowa or California, New York or Wyoming, Texas or North Dakota. All votes of the people should be equal with no vote worth any more in weight than any other vote regardless of where it is cast.

And the EC violates that system by weighing small population state voters as worth sometimes three times more than large state voters. And that is fundamentally a violation of the one person/one vote system.
 
Somerville said:
So you believe as the Founders did - that only the chosen elite shall be allowed to choose the nation's leaders?
Click to expand...

Your post is broad stroke bull****, but I doubt you know why. Let me explain so even you understand. In the beginning the People's voice is in the House of Representatives, the States' voice is in the Senate, and the President is elected by the Electoral College. The President is the president of the Union (know what that means?). Each state was sovereign, with it's own government, elected by the people of that state. That's how powers were separated. That's a Republic! Your yearning for a pure Democracy is nothing more than ignorance and butthurt. You don't know anything about the Founders thoughts on the matter, otherwise you and your ilk wouldn't be here whining. Frankly I'm sick of this stupid debate. I know these concepts are very difficult for leftwingers, because they think their idea of "FAIRNESS" should rule everything. Your ideas are wrong, so get over it. You want to change things, put forth a Constitutional amendment. Anything else is cheating the system, and treasonous in my opinion. Now please bugger off.
 
haymarket said:
Are you under the false impression the Constitution is a perfect creation handed to us from God in the Heavens and thus is incapable of having any shortcomings?

The Constitution contained many things which were not right or not in keeping with our stated purposes, including the allowing of slavery, the political and legal dominance of females, the failure to treat Native populations as everyone else was treated, and the Electoral College.
Click to expand...

I'm under the impression that the Constitution is the Law of the Land! Your idea is to cheat your way to power by circumventing the Constitution every chance your get. There's the difference.
 
Why bother voting at all if the electoral college can override you? Think of the expenses saved on polling machines and booths and taking time off work to vote and stuff!
Just let the college choose and accept your fate.
 
haymarket said:
I do not want any special system that discriminates against some voters while rewarding others at those others expense. And that is what the EC does in giving extra advantage to small population states.

I do not care if you live in Iowa or California, New York or Wyoming, Texas or North Dakota. All votes of the people should be equal with no vote worth any more in weight than any other vote regardless of where it is cast.

And the EC violates that system by weighing small population state voters as worth sometimes three times more than large state voters. And that is fundamentally a violation of the one person/one vote system.
Click to expand...


California gets what 58 EC votes....i get it...you dont think that is enough...maybe 80? 85?

So if a democrat wins California they are halfway to winning the Presidency?

The presidency is NOT a popular vote...hope it never becomes one...

Certain states right now are certainty blue, certain states are certainty red, and then we have what...maybe 10-12 states that in an given election can swing one way or another depending on who is running?

I am ok with that....A good candidate from either side can still almost sweep the country...

We really need to see one of those....havent been many lately
 
American said:
I'm under the impression that the Constitution is the Law of the Land! Your idea is to cheat your way to power by circumventing the Constitution every chance your get. There's the difference.
Click to expand...

Who claimed that the Constitution was not the law of the land? Take that phony straw man back into your barn.

Changing the Constitution has been done many many many times over the years to correct problems with it . That is as American as the proverbial apple pie and the Founding Fathers provided a system for it. That is not at all CIRCUMVENTING it. That is just plain ridiculous.
 
gdgyva said:
California gets what 58 EC votes....i get it...you dont think that is enough...maybe 80? 85?
Click to expand...

Zero for any states would be more democratic and keeping in the principles of one person and one vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom