|
Post by Devoid on Aug 23, 2019 2:13:23 GMT
U.S. Presidential elections are ultimately not decided by the popular vote but rather by a group of electors that are expected to vote for their state's (or in Nebraska and Maine's case, district) winner by popular vote. There is a heated debate whether the Electoral College should even determine who ultimately wins the race. That discussion aside: - Should faithless electors be allowed to vote for whomever they want even when it conflicts with the results with the state-wise winner (and/or their running mate Vice President)?
- Should their vote be validated or not? If not, should their vote be omitted from the tally or shall the vote of a compliant alternate be used?
- Should there be penalties for those who are faithless?
- Do the faithless have federally-protected rights [per the 12th Amendment] to choose as they see fit? If so, what rights does the voting populace have then?
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found it was unconstitutional for Colorado to throw out the vote of Micheal Baca, a faithless elector, during the 2016 presidential election. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Aug 23, 2019 19:21:08 GMT
The electoral collage is an anachronism for a democratic republic. It distorts the will of the people. Even goes against it.
Universal suffrage for the presidency!
Majority rule!
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Aug 24, 2019 1:07:38 GMT
Well of course the Electoral College is shit, it doesn't even have a gender studies program!
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Aug 24, 2019 11:57:27 GMT
It's not a bug, but a design feature. The rule was put in place on purpose to help prevent completely unfit people from getting into office.
In this case, it failed.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Aug 24, 2019 13:24:21 GMT
It's not a bug, but a design feature. The rule was put in place on purpose to help prevent completely unfit people from getting into office. In this case, it failed. It kept one out of two from getting in, so I can't say it completely failed.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Aug 24, 2019 15:28:28 GMT
Anything that let's something like Trump in is a failure. Almost anything would be better than that Baboon.
I say almost, because there is always something worse than what you think is the worst.
I also am for getting rid of the Electoral College it's just serving it's purpose anymore.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Aug 24, 2019 19:56:55 GMT
Anything that let's something like Trump in is a failure. Almost anything would be better than that Baboon. Now, see... I disagree. Because Clinton would have been very effective at destroying our country, whereas Trump is simply ineffectual at making things better.
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Aug 25, 2019 0:35:14 GMT
I created this thread not to discuss whether or not the Electoral College should exist, rather to discuss the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling regarding faithless electors and its potential impact on future U.S. Presidential elections.
Feel free to create another thread about the benefits and detriments to the country due to the actions of the Trump administration and/or the hypothetical Clinton administration.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Aug 25, 2019 11:49:12 GMT
Simply put, with the current reading of the law, Electors are not held to the States results. They can vote for whomever they want. Like I said, it's not a bug, but a design feature.
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Aug 25, 2019 14:36:31 GMT
I created this thread not to discuss whether or not the Electoral College should exist, rather to discuss the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling regarding faithless electors and its potential impact on future U.S. Presidential elections. Feel free to create another thread about the benefits and detriments to the country due to the actions of the Trump administration and/or the hypothetical Clinton administration.
It's interesting, but I'm certain SCOTUS will have to weigh in on it. I think the basis for the decision is fraught. They're saying that the 10th amendment doesn't hold because there are no prior rights to electors prior to the Constitution, so the states cannot hold rights about that position. I think this is a bad reading of the 10th. The right to recall faithless electors is not denied by the Constitution, and so is therefore held by the states, or the people. I find it odd that the Constitution would be written in a way that turns the keys to democracy over to unaccountable individuals with no recourse whatsoever. This isn't an Electoral College problem, it's an odd reading of the 10th. If it stands, I think I'll actually see a Constitutional amendment in my lifetime (not counting the 27th, as it has a 200 year ratification history).
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Aug 30, 2019 18:00:28 GMT
I created this thread not to discuss whether or not the Electoral College should exist, rather to discuss the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling regarding faithless electors and its potential impact on future U.S. Presidential elections. Feel free to create another thread about the benefits and detriments to the country due to the actions of the Trump administration and/or the hypothetical Clinton administration.
It's interesting, but I'm certain SCOTUS will have to weigh in on it. I think the basis for the decision is fraught. They're saying that the 10th amendment doesn't hold because there are no prior rights to electors prior to the Constitution, so the states cannot hold rights about that position. I think this is a bad reading of the 10th. The right to recall faithless electors is not denied by the Constitution, and so is therefore held by the states, or the people. I find it odd that the Constitution would be written in a way that turns the keys to democracy over to unaccountable individuals with no recourse whatsoever. This isn't an Electoral College problem, it's an odd reading of the 10th. If it stands, I think I'll actually see a Constitutional amendment in my lifetime (not counting the 27th, as it has a 200 year ratification history). Yeah, state guberments should totally have a say on whom people vote for. But not the Federal guberment. That one is bad guberment. The constitution turns democracy over to voters by design, moron.
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Aug 30, 2019 22:38:56 GMT
It's interesting, but I'm certain SCOTUS will have to weigh in on it. I think the basis for the decision is fraught. They're saying that the 10th amendment doesn't hold because there are no prior rights to electors prior to the Constitution, so the states cannot hold rights about that position. I think this is a bad reading of the 10th. The right to recall faithless electors is not denied by the Constitution, and so is therefore held by the states, or the people. I find it odd that the Constitution would be written in a way that turns the keys to democracy over to unaccountable individuals with no recourse whatsoever. This isn't an Electoral College problem, it's an odd reading of the 10th. If it stands, I think I'll actually see a Constitutional amendment in my lifetime (not counting the 27th, as it has a 200 year ratification history). Yeah, state guberments should totally have a say on whom people vote for. But not the Federal guberment. That one is bad guberment. The constitution turns democracy over to voters by design, moron. Are you referring to 'voters' in this context as the general voting population, those involved in the selection of electors, or the electors themselves?
Thanks for the clarification.
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Aug 30, 2019 23:17:06 GMT
Yeah, state guberments should totally have a say on whom people vote for. But not the Federal guberment. That one is bad guberment. The constitution turns democracy over to voters by design, moron. Are you referring to 'voters' in this context as the general voting population, those involved in the selection of electors, or the electors themselves?
Thanks for the clarification. General voting population and electors themselves. The selective body is problematic, but not the subject of the question here. Votes in a democracy shouldn't be tempered with. No matter how bad the electoral system is. Vox populi, vox dei. Change the system if it is that bad, instead of meddling with a right (universal, cause yes I know the rebuttal: the constitution bla bla bla) and the voice of citizens.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Aug 30, 2019 23:28:48 GMT
The electoral collage is an anachronism for a democratic republic. It distorts the will of the people. Even goes against it. Universal suffrage for the presidency! Majority rule! I've been wanting the college gone for ages. It's not going to be the Democrat's golden ticket, though. They are in for a rude surprise if they think that they will get the majority of a true popular vote.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Aug 31, 2019 1:43:56 GMT
I've been wanting the college gone for ages. It's not going to be the Democrat's golden ticket, though. They are in for a rude surprise if they think that they will get the majority of a true popular vote. I suspect that if they kill the Electoral College, 3rd party candidates will have a massive uptick...
|
|