11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[Montrovant]

This question has probably been asked. I'm not going to go back and
read 40 pages to see it.

Would this even hold up before the Supreme Court?

Our system is our system. Our system is the Electoral College. I doubt,
constitutionally, that a state could give its votes away from the will of
ITS citizens, to a popular vote.

There is already debates on some individuals selected changing their vote
from what their state has decided. If challenged, I don't think any of it
would hold up before the present SCOTUS

Yes, this is being discussed. Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to choose electors how they wish. There has been some argument that it violates other parts of the Constitution: martybegins believes it violates the guarantee of a Republican form of government in Article 4, Section 4.

As far as I recall, while the USSC has ruled that states can make electors pledge to vote for a certain candidate, I don't think it has ever ruled that the electors are required to follow through on those pledges. Not every state even has a law requiring electors to vote for the winner of the election in that state, and from what I've read, no faithless electors has ever been prosecuted under one of those laws, so who knows if they would hold up?

 

[Montrovant]

The Electoral College is the only place where illegals are counted as votes

I don't understand what you mean with this statement.

 

[ChrisL]

Hillary won the "popular vote" because of California and New York, two very large states with a large population. She didn't do so well in MANY other states.

National popular vote arguments are really pretty silly when talking about Electoral College elections. The candidates would almost surely campaign differently if the presidency were decided by the popular vote, so there is no way to know what the results might have been if the election had been set up that way. Maybe Trump would have won if the election had been by popular vote anyway.

I understand the frustration when a candidate wins an election without winning the popular vote, but I don't like when people make it seem as if those results would have been the same if there were no Electoral College.

Oh, I agree 100%. Most of the people who are complaining about it are only complaining because, well, Trump. Lol.

I've been pointing all this out for years including way before the 2016 election happened. Because it has Zero to do with results; it has to do with having one's vote count.

Hell I lived in Louisiana eighteen years ago, I could see that my state's vote was predetermined regardless what I did, so I went and cast a protest third party vote. Know what it got me? Bupkis. Nobody even noticed. So this buthurt bullshittery fantasy about "waah, they just don't like Rump" rings hollow here in the real world.

Oh, so did you complain to have rules changed and was there a movement to do so when Bill Clinton won the popular vote?

 

[ChrisL]

The Electoral College is the only place where illegals are counted as votes

I don't understand what you mean with this statement.

I would assume that means that he thinks electoral colleges do not take into account whether or not the votes are even valid and that he is anti electoral college. However, that would not be the responsibility of the electoral college. That is the responsibility of the localities to make sure that votes are valid and that illegals or others who shouldn't cast a vote are not doing so.

 

[buckeye45_73]

more of the left just ignoring it

they have no respect for the constitution, which makes it funny when they act like they care.

Blue states rally to upend Electoral College, with addition of Connecticut

 

[BlindBoo]

This question has probably been asked. I'm not going to go back and
read 40 pages to see it.

Would this even hold up before the Supreme Court?

Our system is our system. Our system is the Electoral College. I doubt,
constitutionally, that a state could give its votes away from the will of
ITS citizens, to a popular vote.

There is already debates on some individuals selected changing their vote
from what their state has decided. If challenged, I don't think any of it
would hold up before the present SCOTUS

The SC cannot bar the States from choosing how they select their electors. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...."

Need a new amendment for that.

 

[Pogo]

Subversion of the US Constitution and its defined means of electing our president is an act of treason against the United States. The compac will be held unconstitutional as it subverts the intent of each area having an equal vote. This keeps population centers from becoming dictatorial to the rest of the US. We have never been a popular vote democracy. We are a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

If they do this each states governor needs to be removed from power and kept from ever holding office again..

It would appear you need to actually read the Constitution before putting your foot in your mouth about what "su

If that's a virtue, why don't states elect governors that way? Why doesn't each of its counties (parishes, boroughs) have its own electors to pick the governor?

Or Senator? Or Representative? Or Mayor? Or sheriff?

Prior to the 14th amendment and subsequent rulings, they could have, but most didn't.

You deflected the question instead of confronting it. Don't think you're gonna get away with it.

The question was on the MERITS of that indirect process, not what "could have" happened. Once again the question is, if it's a virtue, why don't we use it electing a governor as we do electing a president? Same process either way, yet somehow you'd have us believe it's worthwhile on one level yet not on another. And that's a Double Standard.

Again --- *IS* it a legitimate system, or IS IT NOT? If said system is ideal to pick a leader of a diverse nation, why isn't the same system ideal to pick the leader of a diverse state? Having it both ways is not a choice here. Pick one.

They did it at the federal level because they were afraid of an overbearing federal government controlled by 2-3 large States.

Well we now have the overbearing federal government, and people like you want it controlled by 2-3 large States, so it appears they were correct in their worries.

I already did that math above and disproved the canard, put it in the oven, roasted it and had it for lunch, so this fantasy point was already shot down before it took off.

1st:

Please respond to my posts individually. I take the time to respond to each person in kind, and expect the same consideration.

That was a site glitch, carrying some previous residual content over, which, when I saw it, I deleted as irrelevant to this post. Did that a while ago and in fact it's gone, yet here you are bitching about something that already got fixed.

2nd:

The merits of the indirect process is that a person who wants to be president just can't run to the biggest population centers to win the job, he or she has to have broader appeal to win differing sections of the country.

Ah. Like this?

​

See below for an interesting related found object found while retrieving this map

The concept is not done at the State level because States are in theory small enough to not need the levelling of the field one wants at the federal level.

Uh huh.

California? "Small enough"?
Texas isn't diverse?
How 'bout New York?

One could argue that counties in States could benefit from a similar system, but remember a person's other citizenship besides US citizenship is to a State itself, not a county.

Irrelevant. The question was whether it's a legitimate system or not. If it is, then it should be legitimate for a President or for a Governor. If it isn't, then cancel both. Again --- pick one. Legitimate system or not? The whole world's waiting.

Besides which, I am simultaneously a citizen of my country, my state, my county, my town, and my Congressional District. You are too.

Local control of counties flows DOWN from the State Legislatures, not UP from the people. A person's sovereignty transfers to the State via the State's legislature, not through their local sub-division.

Already addressed. You're looking for exceptions to have your double standard.


Off the topic: found object food for thought related to above: This map dismisses the infamous "Three Fifths Compromise" and imagines enfranchised slaves having their votes count:

Note that Lincoln still wins. Also notice South Carolina being the only Breckinridge state --- that's because SC chose its electors via its state legislature and did not have a popular vote at all, so the model assumes that EV does not change. Note also that the level of Southern support for Bell, the Constitutional Unionist who favored keeping the Union intact as did every candidate except Breckinridge, implies the affected states would have voted similarly in their referenda about secession, if they were held at all, would have turned down the idea, and the Civil War doesn't happen.

Further interesting side note to this side note -- in that same election of 1860 (the real one, not a hypothetical), one of the states held a referendum on whether black people should be given the right to vote. The results came back a resounding "No". The state was --- New York.

Using the 1860 election as an example of anything but the 1860 election is like modeling a human lifetime based on observing a sneeze.

Your contention was that the system as designed, prevents a candidate who didn't have "broad appeal". And I showed you an election where the winning candy not only didn't have said broad appeal --- he didn't even run for the office in an entire region of the country.

Or for another example, if enough candidates with not-at-all-broad appeal run, they can deny any of the candidates from garnering enough EVs to throw the election to the House, as for example Thurmond tried to do in 1948, Wallace in 1968 and really, every third party candidate who doesn't stand a realistic chance against the Duopoly that the EC-WTA system preserves, protects and defends because under the Constitution that's the only way they could ever win.

Or for a third example consider the last election. Does a candidate who can't win anything in the urban centers or on the coasts---- where the vast majority of Americans live --- represent a "broad appeal"?

As for "small enough" why do you think some of those states currently have some if not serious at least organized "split us up" movements?

I live in NYC and I know plenty of upstaters that want to blow up the Tappan Zee Bridge and kiss us all goodbye.

That would be unfortunate as the Tappan Zee is my gateway to New England, but I'd just go take the Saw Mill Parkway and save the toll

 

[Pogo]

The Electoral College is the only place where illegals are counted as votes

I don't understand what you mean with this statement.

I would assume that means that he thinks electoral colleges do not take into account whether or not the votes are even valid and that he is anti electoral college. However, that would not be the responsibility of the electoral college. That is the responsibility of the localities to make sure that votes are valid and that illegals or others who shouldn't cast a vote are not doing so.

Votes in any state have to be certified before they're accepted numbers, which validates them, and that's done before the Electrical College does its thing, so to the extent that they will base on votes, that validation is already done.

But of course in practice Electors can vote for whoever they want.

 

[Timmy]

The problem wh the electoral system is that we have evolved to a point where a handful of states get all the attention.

 

[DOTR]

The Electoral College is the only place where illegals are counted as votes

I don't understand what you mean with this statement.

I would assume that means that he thinks electoral colleges do not take into account whether or not the votes are even valid and that he is anti electoral college. However, that would not be the responsibility of the electoral college. That is the responsibility of the localities to make sure that votes are valid and that illegals or others who shouldn't cast a vote are not doing so.

not quite

 

[ATL]

Who knew that the only "states rights" cons liked, was the one where the southern states could keep enslaved people as property.....

 

[Pogo]

Hillary won the "popular vote" because of California and New York, two very large states with a large population. She didn't do so well in MANY other states.

National popular vote arguments are really pretty silly when talking about Electoral College elections. The candidates would almost surely campaign differently if the presidency were decided by the popular vote, so there is no way to know what the results might have been if the election had been set up that way. Maybe Trump would have won if the election had been by popular vote anyway.

I understand the frustration when a candidate wins an election without winning the popular vote, but I don't like when people make it seem as if those results would have been the same if there were no Electoral College.

If comparing an EC result with a hypothetical PV system, it's reasonable to assume the popular vote preference would not change, although the numbers therein certainly would. With a turnout of 55% as it was in 2016, it's plausible that many MANY more would have voted; Californians who wanted Rump but didn't see the point in voting, and Texans who wanted Clinton but didn't see the point in voting, would have then had an actual reason to go do it. And all those states where the end results were close, would have suddenly had ALL their votes count.

So it's impossible to predict what the numbers would have been but it's entirely reasonable to expect that the end preference would have been the same, unless the case can be made that one side's voter is more/less likely than the other side to see that there's no point in their vote.

I disagree about expecting the end preference, which I take to mean end result, would be the same. I disagree because there are too many potential factors which could change if the system is changed. Not only would candidate campaigns likely be adjusted, the number of voters who turn up to vote could change drastically. You pointed that out, but I don't know if it can be assumed that the proportions of voters who might decide to vote would be the same; maybe more conservatives than liberals might decide to vote.

Maybe. But there's no reason to suspect more (or fewer) would do that unless you can think of one.

Certainly the campaigning would have been different, but it would have been the same "different" for everybody. That cancels each other out. If the infield is wet, it's wet for both teams. You may lose control of my ground ball, but I may lose control of yours.

The possible change that appeals most to me is the idea that more people might be willing to vote independent/third party if the system were national popular vote rather than the EC. So it could be that instead of the same percentages of people voting for Clinton and Trump, more of those voters might have been siphoned off to vote for Johnson, or Stein, or some other third party candidate. Perhaps Bernie Sanders would have run as an independent rather than backing Clinton. Then again, maybe things would be almost exactly the same as they were with the election we had. It's just too hard to say IMO.

This is a strong and salient point. Indeed if we were freed from the shackles of the EC-WTA system, third-party and Indie candies would finally have a shot. That's why the Duopoly isn't going to let it get away.

 

[Pogo]

So California's 55 electors have equal weight in a presidential election as Montana's 3 electors?

Well, it equals out a lot more than if they were to go by popular vote alone. Each state is guaranteed to have some representation when it comes to federal matters, regardless of the geographic square miles it contains.

Does it really, though? With most states having a winner-takes-all system for electors, doesn't the representation actually get skewed even more? For example, Trump got somewhere around 31% of the votes in California, but Clinton got all 55 electors. On the other end, Clinton got about 43% of the vote in Texas, but Trump got all 38 electors.

There have only been 5 times where a president was elected without winning the popular vote. In only 4 of those elections did the president get enough electors to win (John Quincy Adams was selected by the House of Representatives). Just as arguing that a candidate would have won if an election used a popular vote seems silly, arguing that a couple of states will decide every election with a popular vote seems silly. Almost every election has gone the way the popular vote ended up, anyway.

There are pros and cons to each of the systems in question. I think I would prefer more states to use systems that select electors proportionately based on voting.

Huh? Well the electors, I assume, would go with whomever won the most votes in their respective states, in MOST instances. I would think they would have to have a good reason for going with the losing candidate. Percentages of votes to each candidate are not really relevant, but who got the most votes in each state.

Now, CA and NY have a larger population, so naturally they get more EC votes. However, they do not get to MONOPOLIZE the system. The other states also get representation because they have all have a vested interest in federal policies/procedures.

And as I showed you in the map you ignored, CA and NY not only do not get to MONOPOLIZE..... they don't even get PARITY. When it takes three and a half Californians to equal one Wyomingist, that's called DISparity.

Wyomingist? Is that the right word?

It's one I made up on the spot. I'm that quick.

 

[PredFan]

One more time, the reason for the electoral college is so that every state in the union gets equal representation when it comes to federal elections.

Liberals will never admit to that fact. Well, unless the circumstances were reversed then they would be all for the EC.

 

[Pogo]

This question has probably been asked. I'm not going to go back and
read 40 pages to see it.

Would this even hold up before the Supreme Court?

Our system is our system. Our system is the Electoral College. I doubt,
constitutionally, that a state could give its votes away from the will of
ITS citizens, to a popular vote.

There is already debates on some individuals selected changing their vote
from what their state has decided. If challenged, I don't think any of it
would hold up before the present SCOTUS

Ah, then it's up to us to restate what's already been laid out.

Cliff's Notes version --- the Constitution only says that each state shall send Electors. How that state chooses its electors is entirely up to the state. It doesn't have to hold elections at all. It can pick random names out of a phone book if it wants, and it's Constitutional.

 

[DOTR]

The Electoral College is the only place where illegals are counted as votes

I don't understand what you mean with this statement.

Electoral votes are assigned to states by population. Not by citizenship. Hauling in a huge number of foreigners is a tactic California has used to raise its influence in national elections. For every so many illegals who the census counts the state gets an extra electoral vote even though those illegals cant actually vote (in theory).
California is never going to give up that edge.

 

[martybegan]

The law is probably unconstitutional because it invalidates the votes of someone in a State via votes outside of a State.

That violates Article 4, Section 4, clause 1's guarantee of a republican form of government for each State.

Every time a state practices the infamous WTA unanimous bullshit that state is invalidating the votes of all of ITS OWN citizens who voted against that "unanimous" bulllshit. So that ship sailed long ago.

And again, I already pointed this out. Yet here it is sailing back in. If this could be held to be a violation, then we have literally hundreds if not thousands of violation cases going back centuries. If you can adequately demonstrate to SCOTUS that those elections were invalid, again more power to you.

I think the proposed law fails in the fact that is completely turns over the EV's of a State to voters OUTSIDE of the State, as opposed to nullifying the votes of the losing in-state candidate's voters.

To me the first does not meet the requirement of "Republican" form of government, but the second does.

If your vote is nullified by either system --- what the hell difference does it make whether it was voters inside or outside your state that nullified it?

Because at least when it happens from inside, you did have a vote that could impact the outcome. When you sell your votes to people outside your State, you pretty much give that up entirely.

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

A state's government is not the same thing as a state's Electors, now is it.

Show us anywhere the Constitution prescribes how a state chooses Electors.




Yeah, exactly.

What I am saying that choosing electors whilly nilly probably does not equate to a republican form of government.

 

[Pogo]

The problem wh the electoral system is that we have evolved to a point where a handful of states get all the attention.

That's one of several detriments --- voters in Arkansas and Massachusetts and Mississippi and California will never see a major party candidate, because their states are already taken for granted. And on the other side of that coin, those in the so-called 'battleground' states, an artificial term which would not exist without the EC-WTA, not only get all the attention but become dependent on polls to determine whether or not it's even worth getting out of bed on "Election" Day.

Other detriments of the same system are that it perpetuates the Duopoly and shuts out any competition to it, it depresses voter turnout in the extreme, and it disenfranchises millions even if they do bother to "vote".

 

[martybegan]

Because at least when it happens from inside, you did have a vote that could impact the outcome. When you sell your votes to people outside your State, you pretty much give that up entirely.

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

You would be correct in that assessment.
And if you acknowledged that states are already dispensing with up to 49.9% of its electorate's wishes, you'd be not only correct but honest too.

But again you're (deliberately it seems) conflating a state's government with its Electors. While the Constitution may require a state's government to be selected at the pleasure of its citizens, it holds no such requirement for that state's Electors.

Um, that's how an election works. one side wins, one side loses. The difference is at least currently people lose inside their own state to other voters inside their own state.

Since the Electors are a function of the government, I would think the republican nature would extend to them.

 

[martybegan]

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

How about if the legislators make a law saying all electors, no matter what happens in the State-wide vote, always go to Party X?

Again, there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents them from doing just that.

And Again from my angle, electors as a bridge function between the State and Federal governments, still have to be republican in nature.