The future of Electoral Voters

[JoeB131]

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.

Uh, dude, the cities are where PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE.

There's no reason why 500,000 sheep herders in Wyoming should have more influence than 6 million people in Chicago.

 

[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.
.

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.

Yeah, good point.

What a mess.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes Joe, thank you.

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

I enjoy making your pompous ass cry like a little girl.

 

[martybegan]

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.

No one has proven that Trump is a racist, or a misogynist, or an authoritarian. Once again you fall for the media narrative because it suits you, and quite frankly, you are a moron.

That black outreach he is attempting must scare the shit out of you.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Uh, dude, the cities are where PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE.

There's no reason why 500,000 sheep herders in Wyoming should have more influence than 6 million people in Chicago.

if we were a direct democracy, that would be a good point. but we are not and the office of the president represents the will of a population weighted vote of the 50 States (plus DC).

The masses have the House to represent them proportionally. If your side didn't weaponize the executive and judicial branches so much, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Mac1958]

No one has proven that Trump is a racist, or a misogynist, or an authoritarian. Once again you fall for the media narrative because it suits you, and quite frankly, you are a moron.That black outreach he is attempting must scare the shit out of you.

That stuff has fallen flat for them, and it's certainly a part of their rage.
.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

Is this really what we want?

Constitutionalists should be saying 'Yes'

 

[Mac1958]

Is this really what we want?

Constitutionalists should be saying 'Yes'

You'd be okay with an election followed by a battle over EV's?

That's not a rhetorical question, I'm curious.
.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm hoping the country has an adverse reaction to the pathetic nature of the hack left and pulls back to the center or center right.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

if we were a direct democracy, that would be a good point. but we are not and the office of the president represents the will of a population weighted vote of the 50 States (plus DC).

The masses have the House to represent them proportionally. If...side didn't weaponize the executive and judicial branches so much, this wouldn't be an issue.

So Obamacare was the wishes of the masses?

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

Is this really what we want?

Constitutionalists should be saying 'Yes'

You'd be okay with an election followed by a battle over EV's?

That's not a rhetorical question, I'm curious.
.

Some of us have known all along about how the system works. Don't worry about things you cannot control

 

[Mac1958]

Is this really what we want?

Constitutionalists should be saying 'Yes'

You'd be okay with an election followed by a battle over EV's?

That's not a rhetorical question, I'm curious.
.

Some of us have known all along about how the system works. Don't worry about things you cannot control

Was that a "yes" or a "no"?
.

 

[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.

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.
.

Ah Mac, I know you are going to cringe when I say this, but you need to read "rules for radicals," and you will understand the premise. (the book is boring, but once you read it, I doubt you will ever claim to want to vote for a far leftist again) This is all about replacing what is, with something that throws everything into chaos that they can eventually control. I know, it sounds tin foil, doesn't it, lol. But once you read the book, the tactics that have been use by the far left are spelled out right there, in that book written many years ago. It tells you how/why/outcome/methods, if you are a radical leftist. It actually works I guess, if you take into account far leftist success until Obama. Mr Obama had an affliction that is also described throughout history, and it is called the "Napolean complex." (by the way, I fear Trump may have it also, time will tell) Mr Obamas rise to the Presidency was more improbable than Donald Trumps, which fed the complex that he was always correct.

Anyway, you are a learned person, I suggest you read the book, it is eye opening, and being a political junky like myself, it will only be 1/2 as boring to you as it would be to someone who just casually follows politics.

 

[Claudette]

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.

Yup and that's why the FF's put it in there so all votes would count and we wouldn't have the larger population centers deciding every election.

The FF's knew exactly what they were doing.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

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?

Your choice of words is a bit confusing, but...

Could you define what obligations you believe electors have?

 

[Mac1958]

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?

Your choice of words is a bit confusing, but...

Could you define what obligations you believe electors have?

Good grief. It's a simple and clear question.

I've learned here to ask twice and then give up.

Never mind.
.

 

[jon_berzerk]

No one has proven that Trump is a racist, or a misogynist, or an authoritarian. Once again you fall for the media narrative because it suits you, and quite frankly, you are a moron.That black outreach he is attempting must scare the shit out of you.

That stuff has fallen flat for them, and it's certainly a part of their rage.
.

it seems to add to their rage

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

Ah Mac...you need to read "rules for radicals,"

Why would need to read that old thing? What a waste of time.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?
.

Of course we don't want that. You spoke of the obligation of electors. Not all states even oblige electors to cast a vote for the candidate who won their state. Until there is some national standard covering how electors may vote, this will no doubt continue to be a question.

Personally I'd like to see it gone for no other reason than it would force candidates to address and win support in all fifty states rather than just those required to lock up a EC win. IMO that is a contributing factor in maintaining division in this country.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

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?

Your choice of words is a bit confusing, but...

Could you define what obligations you believe electors have?

Good grief. It's a simple and clear question.

I've learned here to ask twice and then give up.

Never mind.
.

You can't define what 'obligations' you believe the electors have?