|
Post by Ovinomancer on Aug 31, 2019 2:52:56 GMT
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. Not to gleefully point out your utter ignorance on the matter, but the state picking electors however they want to is in the Constitution. That all of the states have chosen to allow for the citizens to vote is really beside the point -- they don't have to under the Constitution. So, you argument that the electoral system shouldn't be changed is actually an argument for the states to be able to do it however they want. Fundamentally, this is really only an issue because of how the Presidency has assumed so much power since the early 20th due to the expansion of the Federal bureaucracy and the new powers Congress has allotted to the Executive -- often at the cost of the Legislative's power. But, nope, big government is the meal ticket, so we can't say that's the root of the Presidential power, we have to insure ignorance of the system so that we can only let the correct Presidents into office -- the ones that will ensure the meals keep coming.
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Aug 31, 2019 17:45:44 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. Like Clinton got in the last election?
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Aug 31, 2019 18:02:43 GMT
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. Not to gleefully point out your utter ignorance on the matter, but the state picking electors however they want to is in the Constitution. And that has nothing to do with what I said, Derpina. Picking electors and the actual votes of electors are two different things. Its been like that for the last 200 years. Um... Derpina, my position is that the system should change. True story. It is the content of my first post in this thread. The electoral college system is broken. Various patches are put in place to correct its violation of the will of the people, but patches do not correct the fundamental problems with it. Only its abolition will lead to the will of the people to be respected. After that, if Trumplike fascists still get elected, whether a Dem or a Rep or other, there will be no denial that the US are racist. Win win.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Aug 31, 2019 19:52:26 GMT
Like Clinton got in the last election? You do realize that vast swathes of people don't bother to vote because they live in a state where their vote won't count, right? For instance, no reason for me to ever bother* voting Democrat even if there were a Dem on the ticket I like as I live on Florida which goes traditionally Republican. * I've still always voted just in case, but I know plenty of people who stayed home last election instead of bothering (didn't help that there was literally no one they wanted in office). Inversely, if they thought their vote could have mattered nationally, they'd might have gotten out and voted for a "at least it's not the Dem/Rep" 3rd party candidate.
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Sept 1, 2019 0:44:02 GMT
Like Clinton got in the last election? You do realize that vast swathes of people don't bother to vote because they live in a state where their vote won't count, right? For instance, no reason for me to ever bother* voting Democrat even if there were a Dem on the ticket I like as I live on Florida which goes traditionally Republican. * I've still always voted just in case, but I know plenty of people who stayed home last election instead of bothering (didn't help that there was literally no one they wanted in office). Inversely, if they thought their vote could have mattered nationally, they'd might have gotten out and voted for a "at least it's not the Dem/Rep" 3rd party candidate. Wow. Anecdotal evidence and opinions vs actual facts. I'm bored already! Remember kids, Nazis always disappoint.
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Sept 1, 2019 0:55:12 GMT
The Constitution leaves the method of selecting electors to the states themselves.
The following link provides the different selection processes employed by the various states. It also provides links to each state statute regarding its process:
The electors are selected with the assumption that they will 'rubber stamp' the results making the 'unofficial' results 'official' as required by the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, even after the electors pledge their choice, there is no guarantee they will abide by it. Some states have statutes in place to address faithless electors (vote nullification, alternate vote substitution, fines, perhaps even jail), but the ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals effectively negates these statutes allowing electors to vote for whomever they want (provided their selections for President and Vice-President meet the eligibility requirements) without facing repercussions when their actions are 'faithless'.
Since there are conflicting rulings between U.S. Circuit Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court will likely hear these cases and determine the rights of faithless electors. An amendment may be required to settle the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Sept 1, 2019 2:34:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Sept 1, 2019 3:56:32 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). I infer that is argued that while states are granted the power to appoint electors [through means defined by the state] per the U.S. Constitution, the states are not explicitly granted the right to bind or remove electoral appointments when the appointed electors are performing a federal-level function [defined in Article II/12th Amendment], per the Supremacy Clause (10th) forbidding interference by the state of a federal-level action.
Hey Ovi, this seems a bit different that your interpretation of the ruling. Am I missing something here?
I think I need to sleep then reread the ruling to make sure I'm not missing something else.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Sept 1, 2019 19:07:57 GMT
Having third parties wouldn't be bad. Both parties have a stranglehold on the government and that needs to end because it does lead and has led to stagnation and massive corruption.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Sept 1, 2019 20:56:13 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. Like Clinton got in the last election? There was no popular election in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Sept 1, 2019 20:58:37 GMT
Like Clinton got in the last election? You do realize that vast swathes of people don't bother to vote because they live in a state where their vote won't count, right? For instance, no reason for me to ever bother* voting Democrat even if there were a Dem on the ticket I like as I live on Florida which goes traditionally Republican. * I've still always voted just in case, but I know plenty of people who stayed home last election instead of bothering (didn't help that there was literally no one they wanted in office). Inversely, if they thought their vote could have mattered nationally, they'd might have gotten out and voted for a "at least it's not the Dem/Rep" 3rd party candidate. Yep, and there are many more millions of disenfranchised Republicans in the populous Democratic states, than there are disenfranchised Republicans in the less populous states. If the electoral college goes away, we see Republican presidents for many years.
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Sept 1, 2019 22:58:28 GMT
Like Clinton got in the last election? There was no popular election in 2016. Dems have won the popular vote for every presidential elections since 1992, with the exception of 2004. And that was an outlier cause "TERROR!". Data suggest it won't be different with a different voting system. But what are facts against feelings and truthiness?
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Sept 1, 2019 23:04:18 GMT
You do realize that vast swathes of people don't bother to vote because they live in a state where their vote won't count, right? For instance, no reason for me to ever bother* voting Democrat even if there were a Dem on the ticket I like as I live on Florida which goes traditionally Republican. * I've still always voted just in case, but I know plenty of people who stayed home last election instead of bothering (didn't help that there was literally no one they wanted in office). Inversely, if they thought their vote could have mattered nationally, they'd might have gotten out and voted for a "at least it's not the Dem/Rep" 3rd party candidate. Yep, and there are many more millions of disenfranchised Republicans in the populous Democratic states, than there are disenfranchised Republicans in the less populous states. If the electoral college goes away, we see Republican presidents for many years. That is a feeling, not a fact. National polls tend to show 'Muricans side with Dems. So does the popular vote for presidents since 1992... But what are facts against feelings and truthiness? But hammer that argument out. It is an easy one to make since you'll say you're right until a real election without the electoral college is held.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Sept 2, 2019 5:36:29 GMT
There was no popular election in 2016. Dems have won the popular vote for every presidential elections since 1992, with the exception of 2004. And that was an outlier cause "TERROR!". Data suggest it won't be different with a different voting system. But what are facts against feelings and truthiness? They've never won a popular vote, because there has never BEEN a popular vote. A true popular vote would have a very different voter turn out. So radically different that while the electoral college is in effect, no "popular vote" has any validity or meaning.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Sept 2, 2019 16:21:28 GMT
They've never won a popular vote, because there has never BEEN a popular vote. A true popular vote would have a very different voter turn out. So radically different that while the electoral college is in effect, no "popular vote" has any validity or meaning.
|
|