• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Here's one for the Constitution wonks.

Torus34

DP Veteran
Joined
May 5, 2019
Messages
3,976
Reaction score
1,320
Location
Staten Island, NY USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It would be a left handed route around the EC instead of taking on what issues we have with the EC head on. The problem with left handed routes is that they always always always leave backdoors. Never seen it work any other way. Left handed solutions or routes are like extruded aluminum.....very strong in one axis and weak as shit in another. Once the weakness is exposed ......Good night Irene!
Hi.

Thanks for posting.

Regards, best to you and yours.
 

Torus34

DP Veteran
Joined
May 5, 2019
Messages
3,976
Reaction score
1,320
Location
Staten Island, NY USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I don't think the key is 'two parties', when one of the parties like todays' Republican Party is tyrannical and corrupt, but rather protections from tyranny and the people having power including to resist and change government. There is nothing that makes the country better about today's Republican Party being strong. The best things have been done only because of one party (Democratic) rule.
Hi!

Though I try to take an unbiased look at the realm political, I do find the Republican Party far more likely to be a real danger to our system of government, such as it is. The relative uniformity of viewpoints within the Republican Party* compared to the Democratic Party makes it a more effective tool in any attempt to establish a one party state. We have been lucky this time that the standard bearer is, at bottom, incompetent. Another might not be.

Regards, best to you and yours.

* It's relative. Splits do exist and that between the far right and what remains of the moderate right is one.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
46,287
Reaction score
15,982
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Consider a situation in which one political party controls the state legislatures of enough states so that their electors -- those the states name as members of the Electoral College -- are more than 270 in number. Now suppose the state houses of those states specifically designate as electors people who will vote for the presidential candidate of their party without regard for the popular vote in their states.

The Electoral College will then select the president of the United States of America even if almost all of the voters in those specific states voted for the candidate of the other major party.

Interesting, nu?


Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the prophylactic Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.


Reminder. I try to respond to all who quote my posts. If you do not get a response from me, it may be that you've made it onto my 'Ignore' list.
That is against State and Federal laws. State legislatures may not change election laws after an election.
 

Gaius46

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 15, 2012
Messages
13,130
Reaction score
7,001
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It’s possible given that it’s left completely to the states to decide how to select electors. However since most states have laws that requiring electors to vote for the vote popular vote it isn’t likely to happen. And if a state legislature was to decide to ignore popular vote and grant all electors to whomever they wanted (assuming they could) I’d expect they’d all be looking for new jobs come next election and there’s nothing a legislator hates more than the idea of losing his job.
 

Torus34

DP Veteran
Joined
May 5, 2019
Messages
3,976
Reaction score
1,320
Location
Staten Island, NY USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That is against State and Federal laws. State legislatures may not change election laws after an election.
Hi! Thanks for the post.

Given control of a state's legislature, changing election law is not all that much of a problem.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
16,262
Reaction score
2,644
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That is against State and Federal laws. State legislatures may not change election laws after an election.
The Constitution grants the state legislature the authority to choose electors based upon whatever law they wish to pass.
Congress can't change that-- except to the extent they have the authority to name a national and uniform date for an election.

If a state wishes to change its election law, they have that authority. Hard to see any state actually doing it. But Congress or the federal courts can't stop them.
 

Torus34

DP Veteran
Joined
May 5, 2019
Messages
3,976
Reaction score
1,320
Location
Staten Island, NY USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Constitution grants the state legislature the authority to choose electors based upon whatever law they wish to pass.
Congress can't change that-- except to the extent they have the authority to name a national and uniform date for an election.

If a state wishes to change its election law, they have that authority. Hard to see any state actually doing it. But Congress or the federal courts can't stop them.
Hi!

Put together that fact and a party which believes its ideology should be the law of the land, add a cult-like following to the mix and -- wave bye, bye to our present two party system.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
46,287
Reaction score
15,982
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Constitution grants the state legislature the authority to choose electors based upon whatever law they wish to pass.
Congress can't change that-- except to the extent they have the authority to name a national and uniform date for an election.

If a state wishes to change its election law, they have that authority. Hard to see any state actually doing it. But Congress or the federal courts can't stop them.
Only if it is before an election. The only thing a legislature can do after an election is to obey its own laws passed BEFORE the election. They cannot change anything after the fact. Clear enough?
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
46,287
Reaction score
15,982
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Hi! Thanks for the post.

Given control of a state's legislature, changing election law is not all that much of a problem.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
Again ONLY before an election. They may not change any election laws after the fact. Do you understand why that is?

Since 1887, federal law has contained what the Supreme Court has described as a “safe harbor” provision, which provides that the results of any state legal procedure for resolving disputes over the allocation of electors—judicial or otherwise—established in state law prior to Election Day shall be “conclusive” in determining how electors are to be allocated from that state.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/state-laws-may-decide-disputed-2020-election
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
16,262
Reaction score
2,644
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Only if it is before an election. The only thing a legislature can do after an election is to obey its own laws passed BEFORE the election. They cannot change anything after the fact. Clear enough?
As states decide how their electoral votes are chosen, they are free to change their laws after the fact.
If they choose to do so.
Which they won't.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
46,287
Reaction score
15,982
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
As states decide how their electoral votes are chosen, they are free to change their laws after the fact.
If they choose to do so.
Which they won't.
No they cannot even if they wanted to. Any changes to election laws made now would not be in effect for this election and for obvious reasons. All States have laws that state that electors will go to the winner of the popular vote. Game, set and match.
Since 1887, federal law has contained what the Supreme Court has described as a “safe harbor” provision, which provides that the results of any state legal procedure for resolving disputes over the allocation of electors—judicial or otherwise—established in state law prior to Election Day shall be “conclusive” in determining how electors are to be allocated from that state.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/state-laws-may-decide-disputed-2020-election
 
Last edited:

Torus34

DP Veteran
Joined
May 5, 2019
Messages
3,976
Reaction score
1,320
Location
Staten Island, NY USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Again ONLY before an election. They may not change any election laws after the fact. Do you understand why that is?

Since 1887, federal law has contained what the Supreme Court has described as a “safe harbor” provision, which provides that the results of any state legal procedure for resolving disputes over the allocation of electors—judicial or otherwise—established in state law prior to Election Day shall be “conclusive” in determining how electors are to be allocated from that state.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/state-laws-may-decide-disputed-2020-election
Hi!

Fully.

Regards. Stay safe 'n well.
 

apdst

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,925
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Consider a situation in which one political party controls the state legislatures of enough states so that their electors -- those the states name as members of the Electoral College -- are more than 270 in number. Now suppose the state houses of those states specifically designate as electors people who will vote for the presidential candidate of their party without regard for the popular vote in their states.

The Electoral College will then select the president of the United States of America even if almost all of the voters in those specific states voted for the candidate of the other major party.

Interesting, nu?


Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the prophylactic Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.


Reminder. I try to respond to all who quote my posts. If you do not get a response from me, it may be that you've made it onto my 'Ignore' list.
It's unconstitutional. The Supreme Court shot it down last summer.

 

Torus34

DP Veteran
Joined
May 5, 2019
Messages
3,976
Reaction score
1,320
Location
Staten Island, NY USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

apdst

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,925
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
That case treated of a different issue.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.
The majority decision says electors can't overrule a state's popular vote.

Cheers!
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
16,262
Reaction score
2,644
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No they cannot even if they wanted to. Any changes to election laws made now would not be in effect for this election and for obvious reasons. All States have laws that state that electors will go to the winner of the popular vote. Game, set and match.
Since 1887, federal law has contained what the Supreme Court has described as a “safe harbor” provision, which provides that the results of any state legal procedure for resolving disputes over the allocation of electors—judicial or otherwise—established in state law prior to Election Day shall be “conclusive” in determining how electors are to be allocated from that state.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/state-laws-may-decide-disputed-2020-election
As we know, the Constitution cannot be amended by Congressional statute.
But it's moot anyhow. No state laws on the subject are going to be changed.
 

Variant

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
1,437
Reaction score
480
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As we know, the Constitution cannot be amended by Congressional statute.
But it's moot anyhow. No state laws on the subject are going to be changed.
Making laws after the fact (when you don't like the result) is either strongly frowned upon by the Constitution or explicitly forbidden by it depending on which legal expert you want to ask.

Anyone who attempts to do so will be risking bedrock principles of the republic and if successful will enact a government that is widely viewed as illegitimate.

I would suspect overt violence and civil strife would follow any attempt.
 

apdst

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,925
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Making laws after the fact (when you don't like the result) is either strongly frowned upon by the Constitution or explicitly forbidden by it depending on which legal expert you want to ask.

Anyone who attempts to do so will be risking bedrock principles of the republic and if successful will enact a government that is widely viewed as illegitimate.

I would suspect overt violence and civil strife would follow any attempt.
Acts can be made illegal at anytime, providing that said act isn't constitutionally protected. There's nothing in The Constitution prohibiting the outlawing of acts after the fact.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,150
Reaction score
19,897
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The majority decision says electors can't overrule a state's popular vote.

Cheers!
Actually, that does not apply to the State Legislature. The Constitution is clear that it is up to State Legislatures to chose Electors, and they can do it as they see fit. All they would have to do is enact the change, and then simply send the electors as they see fit.

It might risk their re-election, depending on being in an "at-risk" State District. I doubt they would do this, but if they did it would still be Constitutional.
 

apdst

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
133,631
Reaction score
30,925
Location
Bagdad, La.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Actually, that does not apply to the State Legislature. The Constitution is clear that it is up to State Legislatures to chose Electors, and they can do it as they see fit. All they would have to do is enact the change, and then simply send the electors as they see fit.

It might risk their re-election, depending on being in an "at-risk" State District. I doubt they would do this, but if they did it would still be Constitutional.
The legislature chooses electors. Electors vote in accordance with the state's popular vote. The legislature can't change electors to overrule the popular vote.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,150
Reaction score
19,897
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The legislature chooses electors. Electors vote in accordance with the state's popular vote. The legislature can't change electors to overrule the popular vote.
Actually, they can.

It was State Legislatures that changed the original process in their State's allowing for the popular vote to decide who get's electors. The State Legislatures can change it again, if they so choose.

Recall two States, Nebraska and Maine use a form of proportional distribution, hence how each gave 1 elector to the loser of the overall popular vote, but the winner of a District vote.

Recall also that several State Legislatures under Democrat control have signed onto the National Popular Vote Resolution. If enacted, that would ignore the popular vote in their States in favor of the total national popular vote total. (IMO completely disenfranchising their own State's population majority choice.)

By the same token any State Legislature can simply vote to rescind the popular vote law, permanently, or temporarily, and change how the Electors will be allocated prior to seating the Electoral College.

It is entirely Constitutional under Article II, Section I.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...
U.S. Constitution - Article II | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
 
Last edited:

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
14,997
Reaction score
6,190
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Consider a situation in which one political party controls the state legislatures of enough states so that their electors -- those the states name as members of the Electoral College -- are more than 270 in number. Now suppose the state houses of those states specifically designate as electors people who will vote for the presidential candidate of their party without regard for the popular vote in their states.

The Electoral College will then select the president of the United States of America even if almost all of the voters in those specific states voted for the candidate of the other major party.

Interesting, nu?


Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the prophylactic Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.


Reminder. I try to respond to all who quote my posts. If you do not get a response from me, it may be that you've made it onto my 'Ignore' list.

Yes, this hair-brained scheme called 'faithless electors' has been tossed around for months now. It won't work. Many states have laws against it, and there are two supreme court cases standing in the way. Chiafalo v. Washington and Department of State v. Baca though it goes back a lot further than these two.
 

OscarLevant

Gadfly Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
14,997
Reaction score
6,190
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Actually, they can.

It was State Legislatures that changed the original process in their State's allowing for the popular vote to decide who get's electors. The State Legislatures can change it again, if they so choose.

Recall, two States, Nebraska and Maine use a form of proportional distribution, hence how each gave 1 elector to the loser of the overall popular vote, but the winner of a District vote.

Recall also that several State Legislatures under Democrat control have signed onto the National Popular Vote Resolution.

By the same token any State Legislature can simply vote to rescind the popular vote law, permanently, or temporarily, and change how the Electors will be allocated prior to seating the Electoral College.

It is entirely Constitutional under Article II, Section I.



U.S. Constitution - Article II | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

Apparently you are totally oblivious to the court cases and precedent and state laws, NPVIC, etc., that prevent it.

In other words, they can, in theory, but not likely. There would be tremendous backlash.
 
Last edited:

Variant

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
1,437
Reaction score
480
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Acts can be made illegal at anytime, providing that said act isn't constitutionally protected. There's nothing in The Constitution prohibiting the outlawing of acts after the fact.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

So, no, not all acts can be made illegal after the fact. It is specifically prohibited in criminal cases, and would either be frowned upon or explicitly prohibited in civil cases depending on the legal expert you asked.
 

Variant

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2020
Messages
1,437
Reaction score
480
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually, they can.

It was State Legislatures that changed the original process in their State's allowing for the popular vote to decide who get's electors. The State Legislatures can change it again, if they so choose.

Recall two States, Nebraska and Maine use a form of proportional distribution, hence how each gave 1 elector to the loser of the overall popular vote, but the winner of a District vote.

Recall also that several State Legislatures under Democrat control have signed onto the National Popular Vote Resolution. If enacted, that would ignore the popular vote in their States in favor of the total national popular vote total. (IMO completely disenfranchising their own State's population majority choice.)

By the same token any State Legislature can simply vote to rescind the popular vote law, permanently, or temporarily, and change how the Electors will be allocated prior to seating the Electoral College.

It is entirely Constitutional under Article II, Section I.



U.S. Constitution - Article II | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Changing the law when you don't like the result, to overturn an election no less, follows neither the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution.

Doing so to overturn a popular result in an overtly partisan manner would lead to illegitimacy, unrest and probably open revolt.

At that point, technical legal details don't matter, the republic would be over.
 
Top Bottom