GOP pushes for an ‘earthquake in American electoral power’

[HikerGuy83]

I think your real concern is that there won't be another republican in the white house without slipping in the back door of the EC .

Not really concerned.

We really don't know how electoral behaviour will change if we went to a direct election of a president.

Many in states where the outcome is pretty much known....stay home.

 

[Chomsky]

Take away the EC and they will never be 'heard' from again, at least in presidential elections.

What?

The legislators are trying to over-ride their voices.

I'm arguing for the present system as specified in the Constitution. Don't the People elect those to represent them in state governments?

Yes. And now those legislators are betraying the People's trust.

If the Democrats want to make inroads in state legislatures, to have a hand in the legislation which controls that state's election laws and regulations, they just need to run better candidates, i.e. more representative of their constituency, and get elected to that state's legislature, right? That might just require supporting policies and agenda which don't align with the radicalism we've seen from the Democrat party at the national level as of late.

Well, first they need to ensure the vote is fair.

 

[Chomsky]

Don't you know the left wishes it had thought of this first. Seems the Constitution always seems to get in the way of the left.

Nonsense.

 

[eohrnberger]

What?

If you take away the EC, you've disenfranchised all the voters in the non-urban, non-heavily populated populated areas, i.e. 'the fly over country' which is left constantly denigrates and marginalizes. Making those voter's votes inconsequential is just the next step of more of the same.

The legislators are trying to over-ride their voices.

I'm not seeing this.

Yes. And now those legislators are betraying the People's trust.

I'm not seeing this either.

Well, first they need to ensure the vote is fair.

What part of the vote or voting process(s) is it that you believe is unfair?

 

[Chomsky]

If you take away the EC, you've disenfranchised all the voters in the non-urban, non-heavily populated populated areas, i.e. 'the fly over country' which is left constantly denigrates and marginalizes. Making those voter's votes inconsequential is just the next step of more of the same.

While you marginalize other voters by overweighting selected voters?

One citizen, one (equal) vote my friend. I'm not for favoritism. These systems were put in place by wealthy landowner aristocrats to stay in power, while slaves, women, and non-land-owners were disenfranchised. The EC was one of their tools.

We're slowly undoing all this. Slavery has been made illegal, and former slaves cannot vote. Women can now vote. And non-landowners can now vote. The EC is one more in a chain of no longer acceptable bars to democracy.

I'm not seeing this.


I'm not seeing this either.


What part of the vote or voting process(s) is it that you believe is unfair?

What???

The politicians want to overturn the will of the electorate, and install their own electors. And you don't see a problem?

 

[Chomsky]

They are only partly right. The State legislatures may indeed determine their Electors for the Electoral College in any manner they wish, unless that manner violates the US Constitution.

Any State may enact a law that completely abolishes the popular vote for determining their Electors and choose any method they desire, providing that method does not violate the US Constitution.

That may indeed be the ruling, I fear.

I never thought I'd say it, but I believe I'm now for abolishing the Electoral College.

By breaking the norms that have developed over the decades, Trumpism has showed the flaws in the Constitution, things we generally don't think of. Luckily, our founders had the wisdom to allow for it to change with the times. And I think now is the time for change. We are veering away from Democratic principles.

 

[eohrnberger]

While you marginalize other voters by overweighting selected voters?

It's called representative government. Perhaps you've heard of it in your civics education at some point in time?
Or perhaps not. The education system has given up teaching civics, and it kinda shows.

One citizen, one (equal) vote my friend. I'm not for favoritism.

Again, you miss the structure. The presidential election is not a national election, it is 50 state elections (plus a few territories).
What you seem to be advocating for is a direct democracy, i.e. mob rule.

These systems were put in place by wealthy landowner aristocrats to stay in power, while slaves, women, and non-land-owners were disenfranchised. The EC was one of their tools.

While true, the system of government in the US was designed by enlightened landowners, it was not designed to maintain their power, which, as you've pointed out here, hasn't been, given that non-land-owners, slaves, and women, have all been acknowledged to have the right to vote.

We're slowly undoing all this. Slavery has been made illegal, and former slaves cannot vote. Women can now vote. And non-landowners can now vote. The EC is one more in a chain of no longer acceptable bars to democracy.

Again, you seem to be advocating for is a direct democracy, i.e. mob rule.

What???

The politicians want to overturn the will of the electorate, and install their own electors. And you don't see a problem?

You'll have to cite an instance where this actually happened.

 

[Chomsky]

It's called representative government. Perhaps you've heard of it in your civics education at some point in time?
Or perhaps not. The education system has given up teaching civics, and it kinda shows.

Which varies. In the House it's 'proportional representation'. In the Senate, it is 'State's Representation'. In the Presidential, it seems to be 'whatever the hey the politicians want it to be'. The Senate has already been fixed; it's this last, the EC that I'm rallying against.

Again, you miss the structure. The presidential election is not a national election, it is 50 state elections (plus a few territories).
What you seem to be advocating for is a direct democracy, i.e. mob rule.

No. I'm against politicians running the show, unaccountable to the voters.

These antiquated system were acceptable before, but are no longer. Women vote; Black men & women vote; non-landowners vote; and we no longer allow the politicians to pick their own Senators. Dumping the EC is in the same progression, and the sooner the better.

And if you are calling the American voters a 'mob', well I'm not sure what to say.

While true, the system of government in the US was designed by enlightened landowners, it was not designed to maintain their power, which, as you've pointed out here, hasn't been, given that non-land-owners, slaves, and women, have all been acknowledged to have the right to vote.


Again, you seem to be advocating for is a direct democracy, i.e. mob rule.

Ibid.

You'll have to cite an instance where this actually happened.

They are now arguing the case that allows them to do it. That's the OP, remember?

 

[Chomsky]

So, follow the Constitution?

Which may be the problem.

Trumpism has shaken the norms that have been established over the decades, exposing the flaws in the Constitution.

And why wouldn't it me?

Quite frankly I think you're getting worked up for nothing. Any legislature that opts for a board of electors that doesn't match the state's election result would likely get sued if not impeached en masse.

When I see a SCOTUS suit specifically arguing to do the above, excuse me for paying attention!

 

[eohrnberger]

Which varies. In the House it's 'proportional representation'. In the Senate, it is 'State's Representation'. In the Presidential, it seems to be 'whatever the hey the politicians want it to be'.

No, in a presidential, it is Electoral College representation.

The Senate has already been fixed; it's this last, the EC that I'm rallying against.

I understand you are, but it would be the wrong thing to do, so we disagree, and the reasons why have been in the body of this exchange.

No. I'm against politicians running the show, unaccountable to the voters.

You seem to think that there is unaccountability in the system, again, here we disagree.

These antiquated system were acceptable before, but are no longer. Women vote; Black men & women vote; non-landowners vote; and we no longer allow the politicians to pick their own Senators. Dumping the EC is in the same progression, and the sooner the better.

I refer you back to what I've posted about what eliminating the EC will do.

And if you are calling the American voters a 'mob', well I'm not sure what to say.

No, what I'm saying is that a direct democracy is a Democracy ruled by mob rule. If you are going to distort and contort what I post, it makes it near impossible to have a reasonable exchange.

Ibid.



They are now arguing the case that allows them to do it. That's the OP, remember?

"Republican legislators in battleground states sweeping control over election procedures, with ramifications that could include power over how states select presidential electors."
State legislatures have 'control over election procedures', this is as per the Constitution.
Pretty sure that includes 'how states select presidential electors'.

Democrats aren't running moderate candidates who are running on moderate platform of policies, and aren't winning seats in the state legislatures, and you don't like it. You'd rather have extremist candidates running on extremist positions gain seats in the state legislatures. Got it.

 

[Chomsky]

Odd, my copy of the Constitution reads as follows when it comes to describing who has the authority to decide how Presidential electors are chosen (emphasis added):


What does yours say?

Obviously the same thing. And that's the fear of many of us, and the point of the OP: SCOTUS may affirm.

--

Trumpism has destroyed the norms we've established over the many decades, and exposed the flaws in our Constitution. One such norm, is that our legislatures follow our desires in our vote.

Over time we've eradicated the other undemocratic principles of our founders, and disallowed slavery, allowed former slaves to vote, allowed women to vote, allowed non-land-owners to vote, etc., etc. We stopped the politicians from picking their hand-chose Senate, and put the power back in the hands of the People. Now, I'm arguing we do the same for the Office of President.

What was accepted in 1776, is no longer acceptable now. I suspect most citizens are not aware the politicians can over-ride their votes if they desire, and if a referendum was done they'd vote to close this undemocratic loophole.

 

[Chomsky]

No, in a presidential, it is Electoral College representation.


I understand you are, but it would be the wrong thing to do, so we disagree, and the reasons why have been in the body of this exchange.


You seem to think that there is unaccountability in the system, again, here we disagree.


I refer you back to what I've posted about what eliminating the EC will do.

Yes, we've both stated our cases, and that's fine.

No, what I'm saying is that a direct democracy is a Democracy ruled by mob rule. If you are going to distort and contort what I post, it makes it near impossible to have a reasonable exchange.

But, I won't acquiesce to your characterization of 'mob rule'. That's simply a derogatory expression, when the reality is you do not want to see majority rule.

Myself & my fellow Americans showing-up to cast our vote at the polling place, are not a 'mob'. We are a majority. We want to be fully heard. But, we are not a mob. Far from it.

"Republican legislators in battleground states sweeping control over election procedures, with ramifications that could include power over how states select presidential electors."
State legislatures have 'control over election procedures', this is as per the Constitution.
Pretty sure that includes 'how states select presidential electors'.

We both agreed on this is in the Constitution, and we disagree as to whether it should remain.

But I will add this: We changed this decades ago, stopping state legislatures from putting their hand-picked guys into the Senate. Now, I believe it is time to extend this to the Presidency.

Democrats aren't running moderate candidates who are running on moderate platform of policies, and aren't winning seats in the state legislatures, and you don't like it. You'd rather have extremist candidates running on extremist positions gain seats in the state legislatures. Got it.

It doesn't matter who the Dems are running, besides it being solely your opinion.

The point of the matter is equal democratic representation. I didn't like Trump in office, but I accepted it was the will of my fellow Americans. And Trump's as extreme as it comes. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

 

[Chomsky]

Sorry...but there is no abuse here.

There may not be a Constitutional violation, but they are betraying the trust of the voters by allowing themselves to over-ride the voters desires.

If the law allowing it is constitutional, then (regardless of how blatant it is) the law is constitutional and court has no say.

And that indeed may be the result. And, many of us see that as a problem.

We fixed this in the Senate with the 25th A, and now it looks like we're going to have to address the Presidential.

They are not the moral conscience of our country.

They should be. But, I'm afraid you're right.

 

[HikerGuy83]

They should be. But, I'm afraid you're right.

No, they shouldn't be.

You don't legislate or enforce morality (except in some basic instances such as murder and theft that affect others).

If you chose to go down that road, you have to ask whose conscience is it going to be ?

 

[eohrnberger]

Yes, we've both stated our cases, and that's fine.




But, I won't acquiesce to your characterization of 'mob rule'. That's simply a derogatory expression, when the reality is you do not want to see majority rule.

Myself & my fellow Americans showing-up to cast our vote at the polling place, are not a 'mob'. We are a majority. We want to be fully heard. But, we are not a mob. Far from it.

OK, so it's majority mob rule then, the point remains.

We both agreed on this is in the Constitution, and we disagree as to whether it should remain.

But I will add this: We changed this decades ago, stopping state legislatures from putting their hand-picked guys into the Senate. Now, I believe it is time to extend this to the Presidency.



It doesn't matter who the Dems are running, besides it being solely your opinion.

The point of the matter is equal democratic representation. I didn't like Trump in office, but I accepted it was the will of my fellow Americans. And Trump's as extreme as it comes. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

Trump, in spite of all his human foibles, the governance during his term was pretty reasonably and pretty moderate.
Can't say the same for this administration.

 

[Chomsky]

In Ohio there’s a fight between the legislature and the courts over maps right now that threatens to impact the primaries if it doesn’t get resolved soon.

But the fact is that the legislature is acting in bad faith and is ignoring the state constitution while the courts are rejecting those bad faith maps.

If SCOTUS wants to restrict courts from upholding things like state constitutions when it comes to this topic, why even have rules or laws at all?

The bolded, IMHO, is the essence of the problem.

Trumpism has destroyed many of the norms we've developed over the many decades. By doing this, it's exposed the flaws in our Constitution & methods of governance. One of them, is the abuse we are seeing in these Red Swing State legislatures suing for the right to over-ride their voters.

We've rectified many of the unacceptable Constitutional faults from our founders' era: Slavery is no longer allowed, former slaves can vote, non-landowners can vote, women can vote. With the 17th A, we took the power of Senate appointment away from the legislatures, and placed it in the hands of the People. Now, I'd argue, it is time to do the same with the office of President.

All my examples above show a steady march to more democratic principles. However, the current GOP want to rescind those principles. I'm dead against this, and find a lack of democracy unacceptable in our current world. We simply will not, and should not, accept a return to 1776.

--

BTW, buddy, I can't help but notice your lean under your avatar!

Christian? Capitalist? And, Social-Democrat?

Are you my cousin, or something? How many of us can there be? Not many, I bet!

And to boot, I'm not just Christian - but Conservatives Catholic! And despite my Liberal political leanings, I live my personal life fairly Conservatively, just as I embrace personal Conservative principles. Just as I'm an avowed Capitalist, who believes in practicing Social-Democracy!

I think people like us send those that like-to-stereotype for a loop! Ditto for marketers!

 

[Glitch]

I already knew the facts you posted, I didn't agree with all the interpretation and I didn't say much at all about all that in your post , and I have to ask you about something else,

#164 , You wrote


I Just want to be sure I understand, the people can't be trusted to choose the president of the country? They usually vote the wrong way for President?

Mob rule is always a bad idea, and something the founders went out of their way to avoid. As Alexander Faiser Tytler pointed out in 1787:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

Since 1933 the US has fallen under Tytler's prophecy with unconstitutional federal spending that has since exceeded more than a trillion taxpayer dollars every year. Because of democracy and the desire of corrupt politicians to pander to their constituents, the US has become the most fiscally irresponsible nation on the planet. When the US finally goes bankrupt it will be because of democracy and the absolutely corrupt politicians (the very same politicians that do not want civics taught in public schools) that the people elect.

 

[NatMorton]

Obviously the same thing. And that's the fear of many of us, and the point of the OP: SCOTUS may affirm.

--

Trumpism has destroyed the norms we've established over the many decades, and exposed the flaws in our Constitution. One such norm, is that our legislatures follow our desires in our vote.

Over time we've eradicated the other undemocratic principles of our founders, and disallowed slavery, allowed former slaves to vote, allowed women to vote, allowed non-land-owners to vote, etc., etc. We stopped the politicians from picking their hand-chose Senate, and put the power back in the hands of the People. Now, I'm arguing we do the same for the Office of President.

What was accepted in 1776, is no longer acceptable now. I suspect most citizens are not aware the politicians can over-ride their votes if they desire, and if a referendum was done they'd vote to close this undemocratic loophole.

On the contrary, I see Trump as a kind of Constitutional stress test, and, IMO, our system of government came through with flying colors.

In most corners of the world when the man in power loses an election and then claims “election fraud,” what usually follows is either a civil war of full blown authoritarianism. Instead, we packed Trump off to Mar a Largo and Biden moved into the White House without issue. That’s a durable framework.

 

[Chomsky]

No, they shouldn't be.

You don't legislate or enforce morality (except in some basic instances such as murder and theft that affect others).

If you chose to go down that road, you have to ask whose conscience is it going to be ?

You know, I'm tempted to acquiesce to your argument.

As long as we have 'representative democracy', I suspect there will always be a component of the rep's 'personal decision'. The weight of that component will be determined by the rationale to instate a representative democracy:

1] If the rationale is to simply simplify governance for practical functional reasons, then 'yes' you are absolutely right.

2] However, if the rationale is to have representatives in place who are better informed and better understand the mechanics & ramifications of their governance, than that component becomes larger.

I'd argue we do minimally legislate morality in matters like the examples you made above, such as murder, theft, etc. It was these types of things that I was thinking of, but I'd also put matters of election and democracy in this column too, as I believe democracy & representation is paramount & sacrosanct.

--

However for the most part, and for other things, 'yes' I am going to agree with you here.

 

[Chomsky]

On the contrary, I see Trump as a kind of Constitutional stress test, and, IMO, our system of government came through with flying colors.

In most corners of the world when the man in power loses an election and then claims “election fraud,” what usually follows is either a civil war of full blown authoritarianism. Instead, we packed Trump off to Mar a Largo and Biden moved into the White House without issue. That’s a durable framework.

That's fair, and I might agree.

But the stress test still exposed some fractures and areas for improvement, and I believe my OP displays one of them.

 

[Glitch]

Glitch, I should have told you before that you don't need to include a history or deep background, I already knew all that in your post.
You remember that the phrase, "the people's president" goes back almost 200 years. You know the cliche "president of the people" . Man of the people.

Are there many other people who agree with you on this?

I've never heard the phrase "the people's president" because it makes no sense in the US. The people have never elected any President in the US, not once. Even the very first President was elected by the State legislatures and not the people.

Anyone who agrees with "the people's president" are civically illiterate fools who haven't the vaguest clue how their own government functions.

 

[Bullseye]

Which may be the problem.

Trumpism has shaken the norms that have been established over the decades, exposing the flaws in the Constitution.

Nonsense.

When I see a SCOTUS suit specifically arguing to do the above, excuse me for paying attention!

What exactly do you think they're arguing?

 

[Bullseye]

GOP pushes for an ‘earthquake in American electoral power’

Conservatives are promoting the "independent legislature" theory, which would hand vast election powers to GOP legislators in battleground states.

www.politico.com

--

In essence, the Republican legislatures involved are arguing the courts have no say in reviewing the legislatures' decisions involving elections, and that the legislatures themselves are the final arbitrators of elections, including - at the extreme - the ability to decide the electors for Presidential elections.

I personal am abhorred by this, finding it absolutely unacceptable. I do not want politicians deciding the elections; I want my vote to be the one that counts.

Straight-up - I'm getting disgusted with the Electoral College system - if these are the inherent abuses allowed.

Wouldn't this also apply to legislatures in dem controlled states? So couldn't Dems legislatures act just as dirty as how you imagine GOP legislatures will?

 

[Bullseye]

I don't want judges deciding elections. Let them stick to jurisprudence.

But your fine with Mark Zuckerberg and his cronies doing it?

Seriously, I tend to agree that the electoral process specified in the Constitution works, nut we need stronger safeguards that it is being followed and that the election process is iron-clad; which includes allowing ONLY registered voters voting and that proper security for ballots and counting are in place.

The idea of a legislature going against the vote of their state is a nonsensical scare story being peddled by those that fear honest elections.

 

[Chomsky]

Looks like a scare story for simple minded lefties to rally behind. My first question is how many swing states HAVE republican legislatures? Wouldn't it then stand to reason that the state tends to lean right/republican? So why the hell would a republican legislature in a republican state not select a slate of pro-republican electors.

Because their citizens voted otherwise?

You make it sound like all citizens march lock-step in-line with a party, or never split vote, or never get tired of the guy they voted for the first time. All of these are bad assumptions . . .