Suppose the Electoral College in Dec Works as the Founders Intended

[Flopper]

The electors will follow the vote in their states, even if it is the Donald who wins the vote.

So, lets turn it around. It won’t happen but lets say that HRC’s slot machine server actually spits out an e-mail showing that she was telling a Chinese official a state secret in return for a hefty continued donation to the CGI. Its an open and shut case. When asked by the media, she takes the 5th.

And it comes down on the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. After the people have voted and after she had won.

You don’t think some electors would have a good reason not to vote for her?

Electors in 25 states could do that. However,more likely the president elect would be arrested and thus not be able to fulfill the responsibilities of the president. Following the 20th amendment, the vice president elect would serve as president until such time the president was able to serve.

 

[candycorn]

The electors will follow the vote in their states, even if it is the Donald who wins the vote.

So, lets turn it around. It won’t happen but lets say that HRC’s slot machine server actually spits out an e-mail showing that she was telling a Chinese official a state secret in return for a hefty continued donation to the CGI. Its an open and shut case. When asked by the media, she takes the 5th.

And it comes down on the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. After the people have voted and after she had won.

You don’t think some electors would have a good reason not to vote for her?

Electors in 25 states could do that. However,more likely the president elect would be arrested and thus not be able to fulfill the responsibilities of the president. Following the 20th amendment, the vice president elect would serve as president until such time the president was able to serve.

You're likely correct.

 

[Flopper]

Several alternatives exist.

One, as candy has said, the electors could reject HRC's election. That, I do not think, would happen,

Two, the President could pardon her for all crimes known and unknown to the date of the pardon.

Three, provided one and two did not happen, the lame duck GOP Senate could try her as a President Elect on impeachment charges brought by the House. If convicted and removed from officer, the Vice-President Elect would become President Elect. I think the Democratic senators would join that movement and approve conviction.

You're in legal stuff I don't understand. However, I question whether a president could pardon her until after she has been convicted. Also the constitution is quite specific as who they impeach, the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the US. There is no provision for the impeachment of a president elect. I think the 20th amendment could be use if either the Electoral College does not reach a decision or the House does not validate the decision of the electoral college then the 20th amendment can be used to make the vice-president elect the acting president.

 

[candycorn]

Several alternatives exist.

One, as candy has said, the electors could reject HRC's election. That, I do not think, would happen,

Two, the President could pardon her for all crimes known and unknown to the date of the pardon.

Three, provided one and two did not happen, the lame duck GOP Senate could try her as a President Elect on impeachment charges brought by the House. If convicted and removed from officer, the Vice-President Elect would become President Elect. I think the Democratic senators would join that movement and approve conviction.

You're in legal stuff I don't understand. However, I question whether a president could pardon her until after she has been convicted. Also the constitution is quite specific as who they impeach, the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the US. There is no provision for the impeachment of a president elect. I think the 20th amendment could be use if either the Electoral College does not reach a decision or the House does not validate the decision of the electoral college then the 20th amendment can be used to make the vice-president elect the acting president.

Bush 41 pardoned Casper Weinberger before his trial.

Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails 'Cover-Up'

 

[Flopper]

Several alternatives exist.

One, as candy has said, the electors could reject HRC's election. That, I do not think, would happen,

Two, the President could pardon her for all crimes known and unknown to the date of the pardon.

Three, provided one and two did not happen, the lame duck GOP Senate could try her as a President Elect on impeachment charges brought by the House. If convicted and removed from officer, the Vice-President Elect would become President Elect. I think the Democratic senators would join that movement and approve conviction.

You're in legal stuff I don't understand. However, I question whether a president could pardon her until after she has been convicted. Also the constitution is quite specific as who they impeach, the president, vice-president, and civil officers of the US. There is no provision for the impeachment of a president elect. I think the 20th amendment could be use if either the Electoral College does not reach a decision or the House does not validate the decision of the electoral college then the 20th amendment can be used to make the vice-president elect the acting president.

Bush 41 pardoned Casper Weinberger before his trial.

Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails 'Cover-Up'

You're right, In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that the pardon power"extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, orafter conviction and judgment

 

[Kondor3]

Time to scrap the Electoral College.

Time to substitute binding Popular Voting for that ancient relic of a time in which communications was measured in weeks rather than milliseconds.

We have the technology... time to use it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Time to scrap the Electoral College.

Time to substitute binding Popular Voting for that ancient relic of a time in which communications was measured in weeks rather than milliseconds.

We have the technology... time to use it.

But that would not be the originalist or contextualist view. You need to be consistent.

 

[Kondor3]

Time to scrap the Electoral College.

Time to substitute binding Popular Voting for that ancient relic of a time in which communications was measured in weeks rather than milliseconds.

We have the technology... time to use it.

But that would not be the originalist or contextualist view. You need to be consistent.

So who said that I was any of those things?

The nice part about being an Independent and Centrist is that you can be to the right of Attila the Hun on some things, to the left of Karl Marx on others, and right down the middle of the road, on most things...

Cafeteria Political Philosophy... pick and choose, as you think best suited to the moment and scenario...

In a political context... Consistency is for creatures of habit, and other partisan hacks and dullards... best to remain flexible, and open to a wide array of ideas...

Next batter, please...

=======================================

Time to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of the Popular Vote...

The technology is there...

Time to do it...

 

[candycorn]

Time to scrap the Electoral College.

Time to substitute binding Popular Voting for that ancient relic of a time in which communications was measured in weeks rather than milliseconds.

We have the technology... time to use it.

But that would not be the originalist or contextualist view. You need to be consistent.

So who said that I was any of those things?

The nice part about being an Independent and Centrist is that you can be to the right of Attila the Hun on some things, to the left of Karl Marx on others, and right down the middle of the road, on most things...

Cafeteria Political Philosophy... pick and choose, as you think best suited to the moment and scenario...

In a political context... Consistency is for creatures of habit, and other partisan hacks and dullards... best to remain flexible, and open to a wide array of ideas...

Next batter, please...

=======================================

Time to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of the Popular Vote...

The technology is there...

Time to do it...

A lot of truth to that. However, I disagree with getting rid of the EC because it would shift campaigning to only the highly populated areas of a few states. I think the winning position is to amend the Constitution to where the President Elect must get the majority of Electoral Votes as well as the plurality of popular votes. If not, the provisions of the 12th amendment kick in.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Time to scrap the Electoral College.

Time to substitute binding Popular Voting for that ancient relic of a time in which communications was measured in weeks rather than milliseconds.

We have the technology... time to use it.

But that would not be the originalist or contextualist view. You need to be consistent.

So who said that I was any of those things?

The nice part about being an Independent and Centrist is that you can be to the right of Attila the Hun on some things, to the left of Karl Marx on others, and right down the middle of the road, on most things...

Cafeteria Political Philosophy... pick and choose, as you think best suited to the moment and scenario...

In a political context... Consistency is for creatures of habit, and other partisan hacks and dullards... best to remain flexible, and open to a wide array of ideas...

Next batter, please...

=======================================

Time to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of the Popular Vote...

The technology is there...

Time to do it...

Thank you. I was having fun with the idea that we have to do everything the way the Founders were doing it.

Yes, I agree in principal, but I really like candy's idea.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

As we all know, it's delegates to the Electoral College that chose the president, not the voters. The founders intended that states sent delegates to Washington to chose a president. The constitution leaves the method of selection of delegates to the states. All states have setup their election laws so voters aren't really voting for the candidate but for a delegate chosen to select the president. State laws differ but the selected delegates are almost always well respected members of the winning candidate's party, delegates that will faithfully carry out the wish of the voters. Basically they are the party establishment often delegates to the convention, state party leaders, and previous office holders.

Now suppose Trump wins the general election by a narrow margin and we have some faithless electors who refuse to vote for him throwing the vote to Clinton. Only about half of of our states have faithless elector laws to punish and/or replace them. I don't see how the Supreme Court could do anything. Even if they did, what could they do? Once the electors vote, what can the states do?

I actually think electors are controlled by the party and are loyal to that. The voters are a members of a party. I don't think electors will go against the voters because they ultimately get their job from the voters.

Sidenote: I don't think electors were an elitist plot by the founders. There was just something about having some distance from the voters that made the selection process better. I think it was a better system because I could form a party and get my electors on the ballet. The party would then have more control over the process but since I am a member of the party I could work within it to change it in a way I want. From what I read that is how it worked most of the time and it seemed to be better for that reason. The people had more control over the system than when they directly elected a politician. THose days are gone. Electors are just a formality now.

 

[hadit]

If the states the faithless electors were from did not have laws against them voting against the will of the people, we would have a situation similar to 2000, in which the law has the final say and the losing side goes ballistic and rants about stuff that doesn't matter. Kind of like claiming the loser in the Super Bowl actually won because they held the ball longer or had more total yardage.

 

[hadit]

Time to scrap the Electoral College.

Time to substitute binding Popular Voting for that ancient relic of a time in which communications was measured in weeks rather than milliseconds.

We have the technology... time to use it.

Why not go the other direction and do away with the popular vote altogether? Might at least prevent the "pretty one" from always winning. Even better, just let me pick.

 

[Flopper]

Time to scrap the Electoral College.

Time to substitute binding Popular Voting for that ancient relic of a time in which communications was measured in weeks rather than milliseconds.

We have the technology... time to use it.

I agree, the time is long past. Practically no one really agrees that a slate of electors should decide on who becomes the president. In fact the states are so much against that happening that 25 states will either recall and or punish any elector that actually votes for the candidate of their choice. The Electoral College is hypocritical farce.

 

[OKTexas]

As we all know, it's delegates to the Electoral College that chose the president, not the voters. The founders intended that states sent delegates to Washington to chose a president. The constitution leaves the method of selection of delegates to the states. All states have setup their election laws so voters aren't really voting for the candidate but for a delegate chosen to select the president. State laws differ but the selected delegates are almost always well respected members of the winning candidate's party, delegates that will faithfully carry out the wish of the voters. Basically they are the party establishment often delegates to the convention, state party leaders, and previous office holders.

Now suppose Trump wins the general election by a narrow margin and we have some faithless electors who refuse to vote for him throwing the vote to Clinton. Only about half of of our states have faithless elector laws to punish and/or replace them. I don't see how the Supreme Court could do anything. Even if they did, what could they do? Once the electors vote, what can the states do?

You might want to read the 12th Amendment, electors don't hold a central meeting, they vote in their States and the ballots are sent to the Speaker of the House to be counted.

 

[Flopper]

Time to scrap the Electoral College.

Time to substitute binding Popular Voting for that ancient relic of a time in which communications was measured in weeks rather than milliseconds.

We have the technology... time to use it.

But that would not be the originalist or contextualist view. You need to be consistent.

So who said that I was any of those things?

The nice part about being an Independent and Centrist is that you can be to the right of Attila the Hun on some things, to the left of Karl Marx on others, and right down the middle of the road, on most things...

Cafeteria Political Philosophy... pick and choose, as you think best suited to the moment and scenario...

In a political context... Consistency is for creatures of habit, and other partisan hacks and dullards... best to remain flexible, and open to a wide array of ideas...

Next batter, please...

=======================================

Time to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of the Popular Vote...

The technology is there...

Time to do it...

A lot of truth to that. However, I disagree with getting rid of the EC because it would shift campaigning to only the highly populated areas of a few states. I think the winning position is to amend the Constitution to where the President Elect must get the majority of Electoral Votes as well as the plurality of popular votes. If not, the provisions of the 12th amendment kick in.

Although I like the popular vote, getting rid of the Electoral College does not have to mean going to a popular vote.

After the vote in each state is tallied, the number of electors for each state can be assigned, certified by the state and sent to the House of Representatives for confirmation. It would work the same as it does now, except we skip the electoral college step which will assure that electoral votes all go to right candidate as determined by the voter. Faithless electors become a thing of the past.

Thus the electoral college would be gone but we would still have the same rotten system where a vote from Montana or North Dakota is worth 18 times as much as a vote from California.

 

[Flopper]

As we all know, it's delegates to the Electoral College that chose the president, not the voters. The founders intended that states sent delegates to Washington to chose a president. The constitution leaves the method of selection of delegates to the states. All states have setup their election laws so voters aren't really voting for the candidate but for a delegate chosen to select the president. State laws differ but the selected delegates are almost always well respected members of the winning candidate's party, delegates that will faithfully carry out the wish of the voters. Basically they are the party establishment often delegates to the convention, state party leaders, and previous office holders.

Now suppose Trump wins the general election by a narrow margin and we have some faithless electors who refuse to vote for him throwing the vote to Clinton. Only about half of of our states have faithless elector laws to punish and/or replace them. I don't see how the Supreme Court could do anything. Even if they did, what could they do? Once the electors vote, what can the states do?

I actually think electors are controlled by the party and are loyal to that. The voters are a members of a party. I don't think electors will go against the voters because they ultimately get their job from the voters.

Sidenote: I don't think electors were an elitist plot by the founders. There was just something about having some distance from the voters that made the selection process better. I think it was a better system because I could form a party and get my electors on the ballet. The party would then have more control over the process but since I am a member of the party I could work within it to change it in a way I want. From what I read that is how it worked most of the time and it seemed to be better for that reason. The people had more control over the system than when they directly elected a politician. THose days are gone. Electors are just a formality now.

The current laws allow for faithless electors in a number states. There have been a number of faithless electors and there will probably continue to be. The only way to assure the electors will vote in accordance with desires of voters is for every state to pass a law that disqualifies and replaces a faithless elector. However, there is a problem. When you do this, the electoral college becomes completely useless. The electors have no say in vote.

 

[Flopper]

As we all know, it's delegates to the Electoral College that chose the president, not the voters. The founders intended that states sent delegates to Washington to chose a president. The constitution leaves the method of selection of delegates to the states. All states have setup their election laws so voters aren't really voting for the candidate but for a delegate chosen to select the president. State laws differ but the selected delegates are almost always well respected members of the winning candidate's party, delegates that will faithfully carry out the wish of the voters. Basically they are the party establishment often delegates to the convention, state party leaders, and previous office holders.

Now suppose Trump wins the general election by a narrow margin and we have some faithless electors who refuse to vote for him throwing the vote to Clinton. Only about half of of our states have faithless elector laws to punish and/or replace them. I don't see how the Supreme Court could do anything. Even if they did, what could they do? Once the electors vote, what can the states do?

You might want to read the 12th Amendment, electors don't hold a central meeting, they vote in their States and the ballots are sent to the Speaker of the House to be counted.

You're correct there is no central meeting. It's always been that way.

 

[JQPublic1]

If it every happened, t

As we all know, it's delegates to the Electoral College that chose the president, not the voters. The founders intended that states sent delegates to Washington to chose a president. The constitution leaves the method of selection of delegates to the states. All states have setup their election laws so voters aren't really voting for the candidate but for a delegate chosen to select the president. State laws differ but the selected delegates are almost always well respected members of the winning candidate's party, delegates that will faithfully carry out the wish of the voters. Basically they are the party establishment often delegates to the convention, state party leaders, and previous office holders.

Now suppose Trump wins the general election by a narrow margin and we have some faithless electors who refuse to vote for him throwing the vote to Clinton. Only about half of of our states have faithless elector laws to punish and/or replace them. I don't see how the Supreme Court could do anything. Even if they did, what could they do? Once the electors vote, what can the states do?

I wouldn't want to be an electorate that does that, they probably wouldn't live till 2017.

Nothing the Damn SC could do, that's the way it is setup and electors in the past didn't go along with the vote.

If it ever happened, I think we can kiss the electoral college goodbye.

It already has happened 4 times.

• In 1824 Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but got less than 50% of the electoral votes. John Quincy Adams became the next president when he was picked by the House of Representatives.
• In 1876 Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election when Rutherford B. Hayes got 185 electoral votes to Tilden’s 184.
• In 1888 Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election when Benjamin Harrison got 233 electoral votes to Cleveland’s 168.
• In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George Bush. In the most highly contested election in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount of ballots, giving Bush the state’s 25 electoral votes for a total of 271 to Gore’s 255.

 

[Kondor3]

...Although I like the popular vote, getting rid of the Electoral College does not have to mean going to a popular vote...

Correct.

Eliminating the Electoral College does not necessarily mean shifting to a Popular Vote.

It's merely my contention that it should.

We no longer need to mimick the Holy Roman (German) Imperial Elector system of the Middle Ages.

Technology has made it - including our own 200+ year-old expanded/adapted variation - entirely pointless and obsolete.

Keep it on ice against a time when the nation might suffer a massive EMP burst and all the technology shuts down, maybe, but... barring that... it's just not needed any longer...

An unnecessary over-complication...

Too many moving (and suspect and faulty) parts...

Less is More...