The future of Electoral Voters

[Mac1958]

Since politics has devolved into little more than short term thinking, here's a question to ponder. Let's look down the road a bit.

First, let's assume that the EV system remains, so all those who to bring that up don't need to (although I'm sure they will).

Now that the idea of turning Electoral Voters from their obligation has been breached on the largest level to date, can we expect EV's to be targeted each and every presidential election from now on?

And does anyone doubt that this "targeting" will include threats and intimidation and bribery?

The presidential election will only be prelude. The real battle would begin after that. A few dozen faceless EV's will have the power to control the destiny of 300+ million Americans.

Is this really what we want?
.

 

[Penelope]

It needs to go.

 

[imawhosure]

Since politics has devolved into little more than short term thinking, here's a question to ponder. Let's look down the road a bit.

First, let's assume that the EV system remains, so all those who to bring that up don't need to (although I'm sure they will).

Now that the idea of turning Electoral Voters from their obligation has been breached on the largest level to date, can we expect EV's to be targeted each and every presidential election from now on?

And does anyone doubt that this "targeting" will include threats and intimidation and bribery?

The presidential election will only be prelude. The real battle would begin after that. A few dozen faceless EV's will have the power to control the destiny of 300+ million Americans.

Is this really what we want?
.

Doesn't work that way Mac. If the electors change votes on the 1st ballot and were to elect anyone else, the electoral college would then be challenged and the choice would then go to the house for President, and the Senate for Vice-President. It is the way it works.

As far as the EC, why would small(er) states go along with a change? They and their legislatures would be silly to do so. But, there is a movement from deep blue states to make it so no matter who wins their state, their electors vote en mass for the winner of the popular vote. The blue states can do this legally as they are in charge of their electors. I am of the opinion that if they do this, it will trigger the red states who have been balking about an article 5, to get on board; especially now that so many states are red. They are virtually at the threshold of being able to call, and execute anything they decide on, by themselves. (very close. very, very close) If that is what the far leftists want, then that is probably what they are going to get. They need be careful what they wish for. Just the simple clause they are fighting for most.....forced balanced budget......would put the Democrats in the trick bag.

 

[JoeB131]

Since politics has devolved into little more than short term thinking, here's a question to ponder. Let's look down the road a bit.

First, let's assume that the EV system remains, so all those who to bring that up don't need to (although I'm sure they will).

Now that the idea of turning Electoral Voters from their obligation has been breached on the largest level to date, can we expect EV's to be targeted each and every presidential election from now on?

And does anyone doubt that this "targeting" will include threats and intimidation and bribery?

The presidential election will only be prelude. The real battle would begin after that. A few dozen faceless EV's will have the power to control the destiny of 300+ million Americans.

Is this really what we want?

Oh, look, it's Thursday and Mac is going into hysterics again.

The thing is, yes, you have ALWAYS had this potential for mischeif by the electors, who can do any damned thing they want.

Most of the time they don't because the electoral and popular votes mesh,and the parties are pretty good at picking loyalists to do these jobs.

The ONLY reason why it's an issue THIS time is because the GOP nominated a candidate most of their party didn't want, and unlike other times that the primary voters shit the bed (Goldwater, McGovern) he managed to win the electoral college.

The only thing that is keeping these electors from doing the sane thing and voting against the Nazi their party was dumb enough to nominate and who won a mere 80K votes in some swing states is they don't want to split their party.

The thing is, they could split the Electoral vote by enough of them supporting a moderate, and then they could throw it into Congress where that moderate could be selected. The Constitution actually allows for all of this, and pretty much for THIS REASON. To protect the voters from themselves.

You see, the Republicans KNOW Trump is going to be a disaster that will make them miss George W. Bush. They just don't have the balls to stand up to their own voters and stop it.

Unless something comes out showing that Trump was more in cahoots with the Russians that he obviously is, the system will wuss out and give a nuclear arsenal to a malignant narcissist.

But we showed them PC Police, huh, Mac?

 

[Mac1958]

Since politics has devolved into little more than short term thinking, here's a question to ponder. Let's look down the road a bit.

First, let's assume that the EV system remains, so all those who to bring that up don't need to (although I'm sure they will).

Now that the idea of turning Electoral Voters from their obligation has been breached on the largest level to date, can we expect EV's to be targeted each and every presidential election from now on?

And does anyone doubt that this "targeting" will include threats and intimidation and bribery?

The presidential election will only be prelude. The real battle would begin after that. A few dozen faceless EV's will have the power to control the destiny of 300+ million Americans.

Is this really what we want?

Oh, look, it's Thursday and Mac is going into hysterics again.

The thing is, yes, you have ALWAYS had this potential for mischeif by the electors, who can do any damned thing they want.

Most of the time they don't because the electoral and popular votes mesh,and the parties are pretty good at picking loyalists to do these jobs.

The ONLY reason why it's an issue THIS time is because the GOP nominated a candidate most of their party didn't want, and unlike other times that the primary voters shit the bed (Goldwater, McGovern) he managed to win the electoral college.

The only thing that is keeping these electors from doing the sane thing and voting against the Nazi their party was dumb enough to nominate and who won a mere 80K votes in some swing states is they don't want to split their party.

The thing is, they could split the Electoral vote by enough of them supporting a moderate, and then they could throw it into Congress where that moderate could be selected. The Constitution actually allows for all of this, and pretty much for THIS REASON. To protect the voters from themselves.

You see, the Republicans KNOW Trump is going to be a disaster that will make them miss George W. Bush. They just don't have the balls to stand up to their own voters and stop it.

Unless something comes out showing that Trump was more in cahoots with the Russians that he obviously is, the system will wuss out and give a nuclear arsenal to a malignant narcissist.

But we showed them PC Police, huh, Mac?

It was never my intent to get this far up in your head, Joe.

But, whatever you say, you're right. Thanks.
.

 

[martybegan]

Since politics has devolved into little more than short term thinking, here's a question to ponder. Let's look down the road a bit.

First, let's assume that the EV system remains, so all those who to bring that up don't need to (although I'm sure they will).

Now that the idea of turning Electoral Voters from their obligation has been breached on the largest level to date, can we expect EV's to be targeted each and every presidential election from now on?

And does anyone doubt that this "targeting" will include threats and intimidation and bribery?

The presidential election will only be prelude. The real battle would begin after that. A few dozen faceless EV's will have the power to control the destiny of 300+ million Americans.

Is this really what we want?
.

Plenty of elections have been just as contentious as this one, and the system has worked, even if it started to bend from time to time.

 

[martybegan]

It needs to go.

Nope.

 

[Mac1958]

Since politics has devolved into little more than short term thinking, here's a question to ponder. Let's look down the road a bit.

First, let's assume that the EV system remains, so all those who to bring that up don't need to (although I'm sure they will).

Now that the idea of turning Electoral Voters from their obligation has been breached on the largest level to date, can we expect EV's to be targeted each and every presidential election from now on?

And does anyone doubt that this "targeting" will include threats and intimidation and bribery?

The presidential election will only be prelude. The real battle would begin after that. A few dozen faceless EV's will have the power to control the destiny of 300+ million Americans.

Is this really what we want?
.

Doesn't work that way Mac. If the electors change votes on the 1st ballot and were to elect anyone else, the electoral college would then be challenged and the choice would then go to the house for President, and the Senate for Vice-President. It is the way it works.

As far as the EC, why would small(er) states go along with a change? They and their legislatures would be silly to do so. But, there is a movement from deep blue states to make it so no matter who wins their state, their electors vote en mass for the winner of the popular vote. The blue states can do this legally as they are in charge of their electors. I am of the opinion that if they do this, it will trigger the red states who have been balking about an article 5, to get on board; especially now that so many states are red. They are virtually at the threshold of being able to call, and execute anything they decide on, by themselves. (very close. very, very close) If that is what the far leftists want, then that is probably what they are going to get. They need be careful what they wish for. Just the simple clause they are fighting for most.....forced balanced budget......would put the Democrats in the trick bag.

Yeah, the smaller states would certainly fight this. And you're right, it wouldn't mean that we'd start over. But let's look at the current situation - the Democrats know the rules (or I assume they do), and they're willing to send it to the House? If I'm them, I'd be worried that the office would then go to a hardcore conservative.

My only point (and concern) is that a regular fight over the EV's would mean that the national election would not be the final say going forward.
.

 

[JoeB131]

It was never my intent to get this far up in your head, Joe.

But, whatever you say, you're right. Thanks.

Hey, guy, i know you just hate when someone challenges your bullshit...

Maybe you should try spreading less of it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Since politics has devolved into little more than short term thinking, here's a question to ponder. Let's look down the road a bit.

First, let's assume that the EV system remains, so all those who to bring that up don't need to (although I'm sure they will).

Now that the idea of turning Electoral Voters from their obligation has been breached on the largest level to date, can we expect EV's to be targeted each and every presidential election from now on?

And does anyone doubt that this "targeting" will include threats and intimidation and bribery?

The presidential election will only be prelude. The real battle would begin after that. A few dozen faceless EV's will have the power to control the destiny of 300+ million Americans.

Is this really what we want?
.

Doesn't work that way Mac. If the electors change votes on the 1st ballot and were to elect anyone else, the electoral college would then be challenged and the choice would then go to the house for President, and the Senate for Vice-President. It is the way it works.

As far as the EC, why would small(er) states go along with a change? They and their legislatures would be silly to do so. But, there is a movement from deep blue states to make it so no matter who wins their state, their electors vote en mass for the winner of the popular vote. The blue states can do this legally as they are in charge of their electors. I am of the opinion that if they do this, it will trigger the red states who have been balking about an article 5, to get on board; especially now that so many states are red. They are virtually at the threshold of being able to call, and execute anything they decide on, by themselves. (very close. very, very close) If that is what the far leftists want, then that is probably what they are going to get. They need be careful what they wish for. Just the simple clause they are fighting for most.....forced balanced budget......would put the Democrats in the trick bag.

yup exactly

the leftards still wouldnt get a hillary

--LOL

we are ripe for a convention

 

[Mac1958]

It was never my intent to get this far up in your head, Joe.

But, whatever you say, you're right. Thanks.

Hey, guy, i know you just hate when someone challenges your bullshit...

Maybe you should try spreading less of it.

Yes Joe, you're right, thank you.
.

 

[Mac1958]

we are ripe for a convention

We're certainly ripe for SOMETHING.

I don't know how that happens in our present condition.
.

 

[martybegan]

Since politics has devolved into little more than short term thinking, here's a question to ponder. Let's look down the road a bit.

First, let's assume that the EV system remains, so all those who to bring that up don't need to (although I'm sure they will).

Now that the idea of turning Electoral Voters from their obligation has been breached on the largest level to date, can we expect EV's to be targeted each and every presidential election from now on?

And does anyone doubt that this "targeting" will include threats and intimidation and bribery?

The presidential election will only be prelude. The real battle would begin after that. A few dozen faceless EV's will have the power to control the destiny of 300+ million Americans.

Is this really what we want?
.

Doesn't work that way Mac. If the electors change votes on the 1st ballot and were to elect anyone else, the electoral college would then be challenged and the choice would then go to the house for President, and the Senate for Vice-President. It is the way it works.

As far as the EC, why would small(er) states go along with a change? They and their legislatures would be silly to do so. But, there is a movement from deep blue states to make it so no matter who wins their state, their electors vote en mass for the winner of the popular vote. The blue states can do this legally as they are in charge of their electors. I am of the opinion that if they do this, it will trigger the red states who have been balking about an article 5, to get on board; especially now that so many states are red. They are virtually at the threshold of being able to call, and execute anything they decide on, by themselves. (very close. very, very close) If that is what the far leftists want, then that is probably what they are going to get. They need be careful what they wish for. Just the simple clause they are fighting for most.....forced balanced budget......would put the Democrats in the trick bag.

Yeah, the smaller states would certainly fight this. And you're right, it wouldn't mean that we'd start over. But let's look at the current situation - the Democrats know the rules (or I assume they do), and they're willing to send it to the House? If I'm them, I'd be worried that the office would then go to a hardcore conservative.

My only point (and concern) is that a regular fight over the EV's would mean that the national election would not be the final say going forward.
.

They know they have a better chance of a "get along get along" Establishment Republican if they can get it to the House.

Trump may shine a very big flashlight on all sorts of inner government workings, workings that have not seen the light of day in decades.

 

[martybegan]

Since politics has devolved into little more than short term thinking, here's a question to ponder. Let's look down the road a bit.

First, let's assume that the EV system remains, so all those who to bring that up don't need to (although I'm sure they will).

Now that the idea of turning Electoral Voters from their obligation has been breached on the largest level to date, can we expect EV's to be targeted each and every presidential election from now on?

And does anyone doubt that this "targeting" will include threats and intimidation and bribery?

The presidential election will only be prelude. The real battle would begin after that. A few dozen faceless EV's will have the power to control the destiny of 300+ million Americans.

Is this really what we want?
.

Doesn't work that way Mac. If the electors change votes on the 1st ballot and were to elect anyone else, the electoral college would then be challenged and the choice would then go to the house for President, and the Senate for Vice-President. It is the way it works.

As far as the EC, why would small(er) states go along with a change? They and their legislatures would be silly to do so. But, there is a movement from deep blue states to make it so no matter who wins their state, their electors vote en mass for the winner of the popular vote. The blue states can do this legally as they are in charge of their electors. I am of the opinion that if they do this, it will trigger the red states who have been balking about an article 5, to get on board; especially now that so many states are red. They are virtually at the threshold of being able to call, and execute anything they decide on, by themselves. (very close. very, very close) If that is what the far leftists want, then that is probably what they are going to get. They need be careful what they wish for. Just the simple clause they are fighting for most.....forced balanced budget......would put the Democrats in the trick bag.

The national popular vote compact would dissolve the second someone the State's government didn't like got the EV's of the State without winning the State. There is no mechanism to force them to comply in the time frame of a presidential election (between the people voting and the electors voting).

 

[Mac1958]

Since politics has devolved into little more than short term thinking, here's a question to ponder. Let's look down the road a bit.

First, let's assume that the EV system remains, so all those who to bring that up don't need to (although I'm sure they will).

Now that the idea of turning Electoral Voters from their obligation has been breached on the largest level to date, can we expect EV's to be targeted each and every presidential election from now on?

And does anyone doubt that this "targeting" will include threats and intimidation and bribery?

The presidential election will only be prelude. The real battle would begin after that. A few dozen faceless EV's will have the power to control the destiny of 300+ million Americans.

Is this really what we want?
.

Doesn't work that way Mac. If the electors change votes on the 1st ballot and were to elect anyone else, the electoral college would then be challenged and the choice would then go to the house for President, and the Senate for Vice-President. It is the way it works.

As far as the EC, why would small(er) states go along with a change? They and their legislatures would be silly to do so. But, there is a movement from deep blue states to make it so no matter who wins their state, their electors vote en mass for the winner of the popular vote. The blue states can do this legally as they are in charge of their electors. I am of the opinion that if they do this, it will trigger the red states who have been balking about an article 5, to get on board; especially now that so many states are red. They are virtually at the threshold of being able to call, and execute anything they decide on, by themselves. (very close. very, very close) If that is what the far leftists want, then that is probably what they are going to get. They need be careful what they wish for. Just the simple clause they are fighting for most.....forced balanced budget......would put the Democrats in the trick bag.

Yeah, the smaller states would certainly fight this. And you're right, it wouldn't mean that we'd start over. But let's look at the current situation - the Democrats know the rules (or I assume they do), and they're willing to send it to the House? If I'm them, I'd be worried that the office would then go to a hardcore conservative.

My only point (and concern) is that a regular fight over the EV's would mean that the national election would not be the final say going forward.
.

They know they have a better chance of a "get along get along" Establishment Republican if they can get it to the House.

Trump may shine a very big flashlight on all sorts of inner government workings, workings that have not seen the light of day in decades.

That would be a helluva risk, given the makeup of the House.

My guess is that, if they were to think it through, they'd rather see Trump in there than Pence, for example.

I dunno. The precedent may be set now.
.

 

[Fang]

The popular just proved that California, Chicago and New York are full of liberal nutcases, many probably illegal. The EC did exactly what it was supposed to do and didn't allow a majority in 3 main urban areas rule the rest of the country.

 

[jon_berzerk]

we are ripe for a convention

We're certainly ripe for SOMETHING.

I don't know how that happens in our present condition.
.

a constitutional convention the last resort

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah, the smaller states would certainly fight this. And you're right, it wouldn't mean that we'd start over. But let's look at the current situation - the Democrats know the rules (or I assume they do), and they're willing to send it to the House? If I'm them, I'd be worried that the office would then go to a hardcore conservative.

Well, no, I think you miss the point. (But again, you always do.)

The problem with Trump isn't his ideology. The problem with Trump is that he's a racist, a misogynist, an authoritarian and possibly nuts.

A Hardcore Conservative, as you say, would still be someone who knew the rules, respected the institutions, and wouldn't do anything totally crazy. And if the GOP could elect that guy, they would. In a heartbeat.

The problem is, right now, their party is held hostage by the Populists who put Trump in charge. They aren't ready to challenge them now. When the economy flounders and Trump's approval rating is at 20%, they will. But by then it will be too late.

You see, you are the one who gets on here every day and whines we should put partisanship aside and do what is best for the country.

Well stopping the crazy guy from getting the nukes would really be best for the country.

Hell, I'll go one further. Everyone here knows how much I despise Mitt Romney. But if the Hamilton Electors backed Romney as the alternative and Congress confirmed him, I'd be all for it. Romney is going to do a lot things I won't like, but he won't do anything reckless like intentionally wreck the economy or get us into a war.

 

[martybegan]

Since politics has devolved into little more than short term thinking, here's a question to ponder. Let's look down the road a bit.

First, let's assume that the EV system remains, so all those who to bring that up don't need to (although I'm sure they will).

Now that the idea of turning Electoral Voters from their obligation has been breached on the largest level to date, can we expect EV's to be targeted each and every presidential election from now on?

And does anyone doubt that this "targeting" will include threats and intimidation and bribery?

The presidential election will only be prelude. The real battle would begin after that. A few dozen faceless EV's will have the power to control the destiny of 300+ million Americans.

Is this really what we want?
.

Doesn't work that way Mac. If the electors change votes on the 1st ballot and were to elect anyone else, the electoral college would then be challenged and the choice would then go to the house for President, and the Senate for Vice-President. It is the way it works.

As far as the EC, why would small(er) states go along with a change? They and their legislatures would be silly to do so. But, there is a movement from deep blue states to make it so no matter who wins their state, their electors vote en mass for the winner of the popular vote. The blue states can do this legally as they are in charge of their electors. I am of the opinion that if they do this, it will trigger the red states who have been balking about an article 5, to get on board; especially now that so many states are red. They are virtually at the threshold of being able to call, and execute anything they decide on, by themselves. (very close. very, very close) If that is what the far leftists want, then that is probably what they are going to get. They need be careful what they wish for. Just the simple clause they are fighting for most.....forced balanced budget......would put the Democrats in the trick bag.

Yeah, the smaller states would certainly fight this. And you're right, it wouldn't mean that we'd start over. But let's look at the current situation - the Democrats know the rules (or I assume they do), and they're willing to send it to the House? If I'm them, I'd be worried that the office would then go to a hardcore conservative.

My only point (and concern) is that a regular fight over the EV's would mean that the national election would not be the final say going forward.
.

They know they have a better chance of a "get along get along" Establishment Republican if they can get it to the House.

Trump may shine a very big flashlight on all sorts of inner government workings, workings that have not seen the light of day in decades.

That would be a helluva risk, given the makeup of the House.

My guess is that, if they were to think it through, they'd rather see Trump in there than Pence, for example.

I dunno. The precedent may be set now.
.

With Pence they can beat up on him with the same tools they have been using since the 90's. He hates women, he hates abortion, he hates blacks, he a Jesus freak. some of those also can hit Trump, but they just. don't. seem. to. stick.

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, the smaller states would certainly fight this. And you're right, it wouldn't mean that we'd start over. But let's look at the current situation - the Democrats know the rules (or I assume they do), and they're willing to send it to the House? If I'm them, I'd be worried that the office would then go to a hardcore conservative.

Well, no, I think you miss the point. (But again, you always do.)

The problem with Trump isn't his ideology. The problem with Trump is that he's a racist, a misogynist, an authoritarian and possibly nuts.

A Hardcore Conservative, as you say, would still be someone who knew the rules, respected the institutions, and wouldn't do anything totally crazy. And if the GOP could elect that guy, they would. In a heartbeat.

The problem is, right now, their party is held hostage by the Populists who put Trump in charge. They aren't ready to challenge them now. When the economy flounders and Trump's approval rating is at 20%, they will. But by then it will be too late.

You see, you are the one who gets on here every day and whines we should put partisanship aside and do what is best for the country.

Well stopping the crazy guy from getting the nukes would really be best for the country.

Hell, I'll go one further. Everyone here knows how much I despise Mitt Romney. But if the Hamilton Electors backed Romney as the alternative and Congress confirmed him, I'd be all for it. Romney is going to do a lot things I won't like, but he won't do anything reckless like intentionally wreck the economy or get us into a war.

Yes Joe, thank you.

Whatever you wrote, I'm sure it's right, thank you.
.