Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

[Greenbeard]

TL;DR The National Popular Vote Compact is a stupid idea that only makes sense to dumb people.

Much like the Electoral College itself.

 

[jmotivator]

Ah you meant we will soon see an improvement so that the USA is more like every other country calling itself a democracy.

What keeps politics simple in the USA, is that it's generally a two party system.

If there were three parties (three or more candidates for president) things would get a lot more complex.

The two party system is a result of the simple nature of US politics, not the reverse. There is no mandate for two parties in the system but, for whatever reason, we as a country have decided that when one of the two major parties loses support in favor of a 3rd party the resolution is for one of the two competing parties to consume the other, ending in a return to the two party system.

Germany has a roughly similar political system to what exists in the US and they too gravitate strongly to two primary parties.

 

[jmotivator]

Much like the Electoral College itself.

Well, no, the Electoral College makes perfect sense and works exactly as designed. This Federal Government and our Federal System are designed to balance equal individual representation in the Federal Government against equal State representation in the Federal Government. That system is why there is a Congress and a Senate to begin with. All the Electoral college is is a system by which those two representations play an active role in selecting the President, with the State delegated seats only playing a role when the country is closely split on candidates.

It would be funny, though, to watch the Democrats collective heads explode if they ever hit the 270 vote mark in this plan only to have Texas decide to leave the Democrat candidate off their state ballot.

 

[Greenbeard]

Well, no, the Electoral College makes perfect sense and works exactly as designed.

It works nothing like designed, not even counting the 12th amendment being required to fix glaring flaws in the design. See Federal No. 68 for how it originally worked. A nonsensical aggregation of re-weighted state-level popular votes creating an intense focus on a handful of "swing states" has little to do with how the EC was supposed to function.

The current perversion of the concept really is a dumb idea that only makes sense to dumb people.

 

[Napoleon]

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

We, as the people, mostly live in metro areas and primarily on the coast. More than half of Americans live within 50 miles of the coast. Why should mostly uninhabited natural landscapes elect the President?

 

[American]

I think 2016 demonstrated that despite the good intentions of the Founding Fathers, hoping to avoid the populace from electing a flim flam man as president, the EC currently is made up of people with political ambitions themselves. Consequently, their attitude is largely "I'm going to need these people to vote for me in the future. Why would I want to piss them off by refusing to honor their collective wishes and put a knucklehead in the White House?" Later he will claim "I was just following the will of the people. It's not my fault they wanted a moron in charge."

In reality, the EC was conceived specifically to prevent the people from putting a moron in the White House. The EC was conceived to put a buffer, an intellectual and non-populist buffer between the people and the WH. In retrospect, it is an utter failure because the EC electors didn't have the courage to do their constitutional duty.

The EC ought to be done away with. It doesn't work as intended.

Where did you get this nonsense?

 

[jmotivator]

It works nothing like designed, not even counting the 12th amendment being required to fix glaring flaws in the design. See Federal No. 68 for how it originally worked. A nonsensical aggregation of re-weighted state-level popular votes creating an intense focus on a handful of "swing states" has little to do with how the EC was supposed to function.

The current perversion of the concept really is a dumb idea that only makes sense to dumb people.

Well, no, that is as designed. A campaign has limited funding and limited time to conduct a nationwide campaign, and the EC forces candidates to focus on regions where there is more political parity rather than cater to a few large cities and calling it a day.

Don't blame me because your candidate couldn't figure that out. :lol:

 

[Greenbeard]

Well, no, that is as designed. A campaign has limited funding and limited time to conduct a nationwide campaign, and the EC forces candidates to focus on regions where there is more political parity rather than cater to a few large cities and calling it a day.

Don't blame me because your candidate couldn't figure that out. :lol:

The EC was not designed with campaign finance and campaigning in mind, Christ.

 

[gdgyva]

We, as the people, mostly live in metro areas and primarily on the coast. More than half of Americans live within 50 miles of the coast. Why should mostly uninhabited natural landscapes elect the President?

ask those people who live in Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa...

they can tell you better than I can....

they are the backbone of this country....the people that feed us, and they represent most of middle class america

 

[jmotivator]

The EC was not designed with campaign finance and campaigning in mind, Christ.

:roll:

John Adams in Defense of the Constitution argued against the reliance on a popular vote, and a single representative body, as a tyranny of the majority, and that the system of a mixed government is designed to ward off the tendency for a single, powerful majority abandoning the will of all but their core constituencies. This is the purpose for the split between the Senate ,as the representation of state power, and the house, as the representation of the people. The Electoral college is a direct reflection of that mixed government. What you propose is the tyranny of the majority.

My point is that the Electoral college is designed to force politicians out of their central power hubs and actually appeal to states outside their base, and adopt policies that benefit citizens other than their core constituencies. It works as deigned, and with limited time and resources the Electoral college system moves candidates to the states where state and federal policy are most hotly contested.

2016 is a perfect example of how the Electoral College is supposed to work, not an argument against it. In 2016, the entirety of Hillary's Clinton's popular vote lead came from lopsided victories in 2 counties out of 3,007 counties. You argue for those two counties deciding the Presidency even though Trump won the popular vote total of the other 3,005 counties.

The closeness of the election meant that the 2 votes per state granted by Senate seats played a big role in the outcome, and the winner was the candidate who won the support of the most states.

The beauty of this system is that in a very close election such as 2016 these close elections have a high probability resulting in a split government with the House trending towards results that match the popular vote, meaning that even when the minority prevails over the majority for the Presidential seat, the House would tend to go for the majority, offering a check to Presidential power.

By eliminating the Electoral college all you do is make it more likely that the President and the House will be the same party, which, when you think about it, kind of shoots the **** out of a functional and dependable impeachment as a check against presidential power.

 

[Bodi]

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.

This has always been a major problem with the Electoral College... just one of the few that make the whole process a joke.

 

[jimbo]

The person winning the presidential election should be the one who gets most votes.

They are. The EC vote is the presidential election. If you mean the popular election, it doesn't exist.

It's no different than 7 elected Representatives and 2 Senators being elected to represent the state in Congress.

 

[Rich2018]

They are. The EC vote is the presidential election. If you mean the popular election, it doesn't exist.

It's no different than 7 elected Representatives and 2 Senators being elected to represent the state in Congress.

I meant popular votes not the undemocratic EC nonsense.

 

[jimbo]

I meant popular votes not the undemocratic EC nonsense.

The US is not a democracy. There is no democratic popular vote for President.

 

[Rich2018]

The US is not a democracy. There is no democratic popular vote for President.

Of course the USA is a democracy.
Please don't say the USA is a republic and not a democracy - Germany, Ireland and France are also republics and they're also democracies.
A country can be both.

There is a democratic vote for the president - it's just that the US political system counts them in an undemocratic way.

 

[jimbo]

Of course the USA is a democracy.
Please don't say the USA is a republic and not a democracy - Germany, Ireland and France are also republics and they're also democracies.
A country can be both.

There is a democratic vote for the president - it's just that the US political system counts them in an undemocratic way.

No it can't

No there isn't

 

[jimbo]

Of course the USA is a democracy.
Please don't say the USA is a republic and not a democracy - Germany, Ireland and France are also republics and they're also democracies.
A country can be both.

There is a democratic vote for the president - it's just that the US political system counts them in an undemocratic way.

Germany - Parliamentary
France - Republic
Ireland - Parliamentary Representative Republic

All from Google. (Insert country here) Political system.

It's not hard to look this stuff up.

 

[Rich2018]

No it can't

No there isn't

Of course it can - the USA, Frence. Ireland and Germany (amongst others) prove that

Yes there is.

 

[Rich2018]

Germany - Parliamentary
France - Republic
Ireland - Parliamentary Representative Republic

All from Google. (Insert country here) Political system.

It's not hard to look this stuff up.

Germany is a republic - you say it's not hard, then do so!


So say Germany is a parliamentary....but parliamentary what ? The answer is republic
In English the official name f the country is the FRG - stands for the Federal REPUBLIC of Germany

Do you know nothing about politics ?

So you agree that Ireland and France are republics also ?

All three are democracies too.



"Germany is a democratic, federal parliamentary republic, where federal legislative power is vested in the Bundestag (the parliament of Germany) and the Bundesrat (the representative body of the Länder, Germany's regional states)....
The Economist Intelligence Unit rated Germany a "full democracy" in 2018..."

Politics of Germany - Wikipedia


There you go Mr Look-it-up, Germany is a democracy and a republic

It's not hard to do.

 

[jmotivator]

I'm old enough to remember 2016 when the Democrats, media and Hollywood had a whole campaign trying to sway Electors to not vote for Trump.

Then I guess they forgot they did, and now they remember it's still possible and are against it.

Well, except when a state chooses to take away their citizens right to vote for their own electors... then they are OK with it again.

 

[NotreDame]

The Constitution gives the States complete control of how they choose electors. No other democracy uses the outdated practice of electoral votes. The current system makes a few "swing" States the sole determiners of the election. It should go. Then candidates will campaign in all States equally.

You think so? Candidates will campaign in equal quantities between California, the most populace state, and Wyoming, the least populated state?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mrjurrs]

You think so? Candidates will campaign in equal quantities between California, the most populace state, and Wyoming, the least populated state?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They don't campaign in Wyoming now...

 

[mrjurrs]

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"?

It wouldn't be in the Constitution is it was about overruling the people's choice. But isn't that exactly what the Electoral College did in the 2016 election?

 

[NotreDame]

They don't campaign in Wyoming now...

Yeah so? I’m not taking the view “they” do so now or will when the EC is nonexistent. But Iguanaman, who I was responding to, presented a win-win scenario for all states of if the EC is gone, they’ll be equal campaigning in “all” the states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rich2018]

Yeah so? I’m not taking the view “they” do so now or will when the EC is nonexistent. But Iguanaman, who I was responding to, presented a win-win scenario for all states of if the EC is gone, they’ll be equal campaigning in “all” the states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would be a win for democracy if the EC was scrapped.