Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

[iguanaman]

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

Far more equally than now when a few swing States are all that matter.

 

[mrjurrs]

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

If you only want responses from the person you are responding to send them a private message.

 

[NotreDame]

If you only want responses from the person you are responding to send them a private message.

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

 

[NotreDame]

Far more equally than now when a few swing States are all that matter.

Yeah? Far more? So, candidates will do more than stop to piss at a gas station in Wyoming than they do now in relation to Cali such that it is “far more equal” than the status quo?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linc]

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.

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.

 

[jmotivator]

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.

 

[Moonglow]

If your vote mattered they wouldn't let you vote.

 

[Somerville]

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?

 

[jmotivator]

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. :roll:

 

[Somerville]

What about what I said does not fit an originalist view of the Constitution? Show your work. :roll:

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?

 

[Glitch]

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.

 

[mrjurrs]

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.

 

[jmotivator]

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.

 

[Rich2018]

If your vote mattered they wouldn't let you vote.

"They", "them", "those" people

Who are "They" ?

 

[Moonglow]

"They", "them", "those" people

Who are "They" ?

They are the powers that be.

 

[NotreDame]

Little touchy this morning? You made a comment about campaigning in WY, I said they don't campaign there now.

Yes, and your comment had absolutely nothing to do with what I said to Iquanaman. Your interjection did not answer my questions to Iguanaman.

 

[mrjurrs]

Yes, and your comment had absolutely nothing to do with what I said to Iquanaman. Your interjection did not answer my questions to Iguanaman.

No, but it did reveal your comment to be specious.

 

[NotreDame]

No, but it did reveal your comment to be specious.

No it did not, precisely and exactly because your remark "had absolutely nothing to do with what" I asked Iquanaman. Your comment cannot logically "reveal" my queries as "specious" when, inter alia, your comment is irrelevant.

 

[Rich2018]

They are the powers that be.

and who would they be ?

 

[mrjurrs]

No it did not, precisely and exactly because your remark "had absolutely nothing to do with what" I asked Iquanaman. Your comment cannot logically "reveal" my queries as "specious" when, inter alia, your comment is irrelevant.

Iguanaman said "Then candidates will campaign in all States equally." You asked about campaigning in WY. I said they don't campaign there now. Please explain how what I posted is out of line.

 

[Rich2018]

Iguanaman said "Then candidates will campaign in all States equally." You asked about campaigning in WY. I said they don't campaign there now. Please explain how what I posted is out of line.

I think the point being that there are two few electoral votes to be had and in a solidly "red" state

 

[mrjurrs]

I think the point being that there are two few electoral votes to be had and in a solidly "red" state

I agree. But for the same reason, WY won't see candidates in a popular vote election either. The current US population is about 330 million. WY is about 570,000 (@2/10 of 1% of the population). If CA had the same representation as WY in the Electoral College, CA would have @139 votes in the electoral college.

 

[NotreDame]

Iguanaman said "Then candidates will campaign in all States equally." You asked about campaigning in WY. I said they don't campaign there now. Please explain how what I posted is out of line.

No, I asked a specific query in regards to Iguanaman’s suggestion of abolishing the EC is a win-win as equal campaigning in all states would commence. Iguanaman’s point being the EC is an impediment to equal campaigning in all states, and once removed, equal campaigning in all states would occur.

The inference to be drawn from that logic was that the least populace state, Wyoming, a state candidates presently stop in to piss on the side of the road while traversing through in route to more important electoral college states, would no longer be the port-a-potty state once the EC is gone. Instead, abolishing the EC transforms the piss-in-state of Wyoming, to a state canvassed by candidates equally to other states, like Cali.

I then asked Iguanaman if he really believed abolishing the EC was going to transform Wyoming to state enjoying equal campaigning to that of Cali?

You interjected with irrelevant remark.

So, how is your remark germane to any of that exchange, and the reasonable inferences I inquired about? It doesn’t but knock yourself out trying to rationalize otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mrjurrs]

No, I asked a specific query in regards to Iguanaman’s suggestion of abolishing the EC is a win-win as equal campaigning in all states would commence. Iguanaman’s point being the EC is an impediment to equal campaigning in all states, and once removed, equal campaigning in all states would occur.

The inference to be drawn from that logic was that the least populace state, Wyoming, a state candidates presently stop in to piss on the side of the road while traversing through in route to more important electoral college states, would no longer be the port-a-potty state once the EC is gone. Instead, abolishing the EC transforms the piss-in-state of Wyoming, to a state canvassed by candidates equally to other states, like Cali.

I then asked Iguanaman if he really believed abolishing the EC was going to transform Wyoming to state enjoying equal campaigning to that of Cali?

You interjected with irrelevant remark.

So, how is your remark germane to any of that exchange, and the reasonable inferences I inquired about? It doesn’t but knock yourself out trying to rationalize otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can continue with this mental masturbatiuon by yourself.

 

[NotreDame]

I agree. But for the same reason, WY won't see candidates in a popular vote election either. The current US population is about 330 million. WY is about 570,000 (@2/10 of 1% of the population). If CA had the same representation as WY in the Electoral College, CA would have @139 votes in the electoral college.

If your remarks above are true, then like me, you are incredulous towards Iguanaman’s suggestion that abolishing the EC for a popular vote results in equal campaign in all states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk