Electoral College

[cnelsen]

One, the EC is part of the Constitution.

Two, the vote itself as it affects the EC cannot be thrown out.

Three, if the vote has been infringed, by Russian hacking, e.g., so that the election cannot be considered valid, a Constitutional problem occurs.

Either SCOTUS can declare the election invalid and order a new election, or the President and Vice-President can be removed by impeachment and conviction.

StarJerky you are seriously a hoot. But thanks for letting us know when elections are invalid. Have never come across any constitutional or statutory language on that and would have assumed you were talking out of your ass again. But if a vote has been "infringed", well, I can hear Johnny Cochran now:

If the vote be infringe, the vote be invalid.

And he's got a point. How fair is it to the resident of Detroit to risk her life getting to the polling place only to find out, in the event she makes it home alive, her vote was "infringed" by the 70 percent of the voters in her district who didn't bother going through the formality of existence before casting their votes. Every election, in fact, there is a ton of infringing going on in places like Detroit, Newark, Orange, North Philly, Gary, Indiana, and elsewhere. I can see declaring the election results invalid in those places, but negate the entire nation's because polling in black-run districts is so fraudulent? Doesn't seem right.

As for Russian "hacking" invalidating an election, I suppose your concern for the integrity of our vote might be sincere, if absurd, but I suspect you are driven more by the Jewish warmongering gene and Jewish antipathy for the white Christian nation of Russia. The "hacking" Russia is accused of (without evidence) involves gaining access to email accounts that show billionaire Jews like George Soros and Haim Saban actually "infringing" on our vote, while Jewish owned media like the Washington Post and the New York Times knowingly published lies to corruptly influence the vote in collaboration with them. I'd be fine with nullifying an election if it meant public executions of these vermin, but Russia? For allegedly "hacking" into email accounts and publishing the emails' contents exposing the corruption of filth like Soros? Putin should receive a Congresssional Medal of Honor.

 

[JakeStarkey]

cnelsen is hooting again, about "Jewish" corruption or whatever.

If SCOTUS or the Congress determined that Russian hacking compromised the election, either or both branches have the power to invalidate the election.

 

[eflatminor]

If the progressives had not chipped away at Federalism 100 years ago with the 17th amendment, you might have a shot today at changing the electoral college.

Now you don't.

There is no way in hell we're going to let you undo one of the last vestiges of states rights.

Your unending pursuit of greater and greater centralization of power is nauseating. Enough!

 

[Pogo]

If the progressives had not chipped away at Federalism 100 years ago with the 17th amendment, you might have a shot today at changing the electoral college.

Now you don't.

There is no way in hell we're going to let you undo one of the last vestiges of states rights.

Your unending pursuit of greater and greater centralization of power nauseating. Enough!

Doublethink --- ^^ alive and well.

 

[eflatminor]

If the progressives had not chipped away at Federalism 100 years ago with the 17th amendment, you might have a shot today at changing the electoral college.

Now you don't.

There is no way in hell we're going to let you undo one of the last vestiges of states rights.

Your unending pursuit of greater and greater centralization of power nauseating. Enough!

Doublethink --- ^^ alive and well.

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

 

[Pogo]

If the progressives had not chipped away at Federalism 100 years ago with the 17th amendment, you might have a shot today at changing the electoral college.

Now you don't.

There is no way in hell we're going to let you undo one of the last vestiges of states rights.

Your unending pursuit of greater and greater centralization of power nauseating. Enough!

Doublethink --- ^^ alive and well.

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

 

[FA_Q2]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

Compromise is unnecessary in this case - you are trying to change the system. Those that like the way it is do not have to do anything at all - it will stay as is.

If you want to change it then you need to get the support for doing so - support that simply is not there at this time.

 

[FA_Q2]

If the progressives had not chipped away at Federalism 100 years ago with the 17th amendment, you might have a shot today at changing the electoral college.

Now you don't.

There is no way in hell we're going to let you undo one of the last vestiges of states rights.

Your unending pursuit of greater and greater centralization of power nauseating. Enough!

Doublethink --- ^^ alive and well.

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

That is not advocating for states to steamroll anything at all. By that standard (and has already been pointed out to you) if we held a popular vote for the president and the winner took office with 55% of the vote it would be big government steamrolling over 45% of the voters who cast a vote for the other guy.

The state itself has an election and then backs the winner.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

One, the EC is part of the Constitution.

Two, the vote itself as it affects the EC cannot be thrown out.

Three, if the vote has been infringed, by Russian hacking, e.g., so that the election cannot be considered valid, a Constitutional problem occurs.

Either SCOTUS can declare the election invalid and order a new election, or the President and Vice-President can be removed by impeachment and conviction.

All that happened was that the corrupt and criminal DNC got hacked nothing got hacked in regards the election. So much for that claim.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah, good luck with that.

While we're at it, why not throw out all those court rulings that overturned a massive popular vote in such cases as Proposition 8 in California where clearly the vote was in favor of marriage is between one mand and one woman.

Or do we accept mob rule ONLY when it is in our favor and oppose it in all other instances?

Interesting you try to use a comparison with a Prop that has no relationship whatever to the topic.

yes it does the proposition passed with major majority votes. Either you support the popular vote in all things or you are selective only when your side loses.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, good luck with that.

While we're at it, why not throw out all those court rulings that overturned a massive popular vote in such cases as Proposition 8 in California where clearly the vote was in favor of marriage is between one mand and one woman.

Or do we accept mob rule ONLY when it is in our favor and oppose it in all other instances?

Interesting you try to use a comparison with a Prop that has no relationship whatever to the topic.

yes it does the proposition passed with major majority votes. Either you support the popular vote in all things or you are selective only when your side loses.

I don't live in California, Dumbass.

 

[Pogo]

If the progressives had not chipped away at Federalism 100 years ago with the 17th amendment, you might have a shot today at changing the electoral college.

Now you don't.

There is no way in hell we're going to let you undo one of the last vestiges of states rights.

Your unending pursuit of greater and greater centralization of power nauseating. Enough!

Doublethink --- ^^ alive and well.

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

That is not advocating for states to steamroll anything at all. By that standard (and has already been pointed out to you) if we held a popular vote for the president and the winner took office with 55% of the vote it would be big government steamrolling over 45% of the voters who cast a vote for the other guy.

The state itself has an election and then backs the winner.

----- which is steamrolling all its own people who didn't vote that way.

My state's Electors told Congress that the entire state voted for Rump. That's absolute bullshit. Were our 15 EVs allocated according to how the state actually DID vote they would cast 8 for Rump and 7 for Clinton. Because that was the reality.

 

[Pogo]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

Compromise is unnecessary in this case - you are trying to change the system. Those that like the way it is do not have to do anything at all - it will stay as is.

If you want to change it then you need to get the support for doing so - support that simply is not there at this time.

Actually it is. In another thread I linked some sixty-plus polls done in every state that all showed assent for the idea that the EC needs reform, or abolishment. Every single one.

 

[FA_Q2]

The debate has started again as to whether the US Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote
eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state.

This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected.

As for political primaries the number of delegates awarded in each state should be determined by the percentage of votes won by each candidate.

For 2016 multiplying the percentage of votes each candidate received {in each state} times the number of electoral votes {in each state} results in the following: Clinton 256.985 and Trump 253.482.

Compromise is unnecessary in this case - you are trying to change the system. Those that like the way it is do not have to do anything at all - it will stay as is.

If you want to change it then you need to get the support for doing so - support that simply is not there at this time.

Actually it is. In another thread I linked some sixty-plus polls done in every state that all showed assent for the idea that the EC needs reform, or abolishment. Every single one.

You need more than a majority to accomplish this.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It is comforting to know that no matter how liberals feel, the EC will never be eliminated. If it means that much to you, go the civil war route.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yeah, good luck with that.

While we're at it, why not throw out all those court rulings that overturned a massive popular vote in such cases as Proposition 8 in California where clearly the vote was in favor of marriage is between one mand and one woman.

Or do we accept mob rule ONLY when it is in our favor and oppose it in all other instances?

Interesting you try to use a comparison with a Prop that has no relationship whatever to the topic.

yes it does the proposition passed with major majority votes. Either you support the popular vote in all things or you are selective only when your side loses.

Hillary won the popular vote, RGS.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is comforting to know that no matter how liberals feel, the EC will never be eliminated. If it means that much to you, go the civil war route.

Why? Congress will remove him if he does not wise up, or SCOTUS will if the Russians are proven to interfere with hacking on his behalf.

And if not, then the courts and Congress will have their way with him, as well as the great majority of Americans and SNL.

It will be fun.

 

[kaz]

If the progressives had not chipped away at Federalism 100 years ago with the 17th amendment, you might have a shot today at changing the electoral college.

Now you don't.

There is no way in hell we're going to let you undo one of the last vestiges of states rights.

Your unending pursuit of greater and greater centralization of power nauseating. Enough!

Doublethink --- ^^ alive and well.

Over your head, I understand. It's okay.

I only wish it were over my head, since ignorance is as they say, bliss.

But your crocodile tears over Big Gummint ring hollow when you're advocating for states to steamroll the individual's vote in similar fashion. Worse, in fact.

That is not advocating for states to steamroll anything at all. By that standard (and has already been pointed out to you) if we held a popular vote for the president and the winner took office with 55% of the vote it would be big government steamrolling over 45% of the voters who cast a vote for the other guy.

The state itself has an election and then backs the winner.

----- which is steamrolling all its own people who didn't vote that way.

My state's Electors told Congress that the entire state voted for Rump. That's absolute bullshit. Were our 15 EVs allocated according to how the state actually DID vote they would cast 8 for Rump and 7 for Clinton. Because that was the reality.

Idiotic butt hit. No one said everyone in North Carolina voted for Trump. They said Trump won the popular vote, and he did. Douse the butt hurt. Trump won by the rules. That he didn't win by your revamped, post election rules is completely and utterly irrelevant and in no way says Hillary would have won if we had PV. No one ran for the PV, Einstein. Trump didn't spend a dime in California, New York or Illinois and all the Republicans there knew he had no chance to win

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trump lost the PV vote by eleven million votes.

Fact.

The majority of Americans certainly don't want him, and he does done nothing to change their minds.

Fact.

 

[kaz]

It is comforting to know that no matter how liberals feel, the EC will never be eliminated. If it means that much to you, go the civil war route.

Yep. The rest of the country is never going to agree to be ruled by California, New York and Illinois