1 1
JerryBaumchen

Electoral College: Yes/No

Recommended Posts

Hi Folks,

I was having lunch with an old friend last week; he lives in Washington state & I live in Oregon.

I told him that it really did not matter who we voted for in Nov. because Oregon, Washington & California; the western-most states would go strongly for Biden, as they did for HRC in 2016.  In other words, due to the EC, our vote is really only a gesture.

Given that, how many of you would like to get rid of the EC.

I do as I want my actual vote to count.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, airdvr said:

Silly man...it doesn't matter what opinion anyone has here.  If you'd like to see the EC abolished you only need to get 3/4ths of the states to approve an amendment to the Constitution.  That shouldn't be too hard.  :halo:

1280px-Red_state%2C_blue_state.svg.png

Hi airdvr,

Re:  'Silly man'

In all of my posts in reply to you I have never called you any names other than airdvr.

Try a little courtesy, OK?

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

I told him that it really did not matter who we voted for in Nov. because Oregon, Washington & California; the western-most states would go strongly for Biden, as they did for HRC in 2016.  In other words, due to the EC, our vote is really only a gesture.

I'm not sure I really like that argument. If you live in an area that absolutely never swings it's probably going to be frustrating - but ultimately in any election by any counting method that's decided by more than one vote either way then you could say that your vote didn't matter. And it'd technically be true but also kinda not the point y'know?

 

On a different tack to most of the common arguments, I'd propose that without the EC it'd be a lot harder to continue disenfranchising the US citizens living in place like DC and Puerto Rico. Four million people in those two areas alone who really don't get a vote that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Silly man...it doesn't matter what opinion anyone has here.  If you'd like to see the EC abolished you only need to get 3/4ths of the states to approve an amendment to the Constitution. 

Actually you only need 20 states or so and 16 have already agreed.  Those 16 have agreed to the National Popular Vote compact, which is a law that each state passes stating that all their electoral votes will go to the popular vote winner.  Then it doesn't matter what the rest of the states do; those 20 states have enough electoral votes to swing the election to the popular winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, billvon said:

Actually you only need 20 states or so and 16 have already agreed.  Those 16 have agreed to the National Popular Vote compact, which is a law that each state passes stating that all their electoral votes will go to the popular vote winner.  Then it doesn't matter what the rest of the states do; those 20 states have enough electoral votes to swing the election to the popular winner.

Umm yea...except the SCOTUS just kind of made that a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billvon said:

Why do you think that?

 

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a basic assumption of the country’s electoral system, reducing the possibility that a state’s Electoral College votes would be delivered to someone other than the winner of its presidential election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, airdvr said:

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a basic assumption of the country’s electoral system, reducing the possibility that a state’s Electoral College votes would be delivered to someone other than the winner of its presidential election.

No, they said that the states may bind their EC voter to vote per the state's will (they don't even have to do that, but they may).  The voters in those 16 states have agreed that their EC voters would follow the national popular vote.  The first invocation of that might get a visit to the SCOTUS -- could lead to a more protracted election than hanging chads.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, airdvr said:

Umm yea...except the SCOTUS just kind of made that a problem.

I don't think so. The SC held that states have the right to compel electors to vote for their party's candidate. The decision certainly assumes that the electors will be appointed based on the popular vote of the state, but that's because it is the way it's always been done and because that was the case in front of them. I'd think that the wording of the decision would require a new SC ruling for the popular vote compact because of that.

However, the current ruling does explicitly interpret the phrase "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors" as being so broad in its power that it gives the states complete control over those electors - to remove them, to fine them, to compel them to vote in a certain way. I think they'd have a hard time going back on that and arguing that it has a hidden meaning that limits the states to only compelling them to respect the popular vote of the state, not of the nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am pretty sure that you are interpreting the interpretation too widely.  it only applied to whether the laws that states have forcing electors to vote for the popular winner was constitutional.  it didn't go any further than that, like saying anything else about it.  i am not a lawyer though, but have been following this one pretty closely.  please correct me if i am wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sfzombie13 said:

i am pretty sure that you are interpreting the interpretation too widely.  it only applied to whether the laws that states have forcing electors to vote for the popular winner was constitutional.  it didn't go any further than that, like saying anything else about it.  i am not a lawyer though, but have been following this one pretty closely.  please correct me if i am wrong.

That's what I'm trying to say, but I mean that the logic they used to show that states could do that was based on a broad interpretation of the power given by that phrase. Whether states can compell electors to follow the national popular vote is a seperate question, but I think it would be difficult to then argue that the same logic and power did not apply.

 

Probably a more simple rebuttal to Airdvr's point is that the SC said that states can compell electors to comply with the Statewide popular vote, but not that they have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, airdvr said:

Silly man...it doesn't matter what opinion anyone has here.  If you'd like to see the EC abolished you only need to get 3/4ths of the states to approve an amendment to the Constitution.  That shouldn't be too hard.  :halo:

1280px-Red_state%2C_blue_state.svg.png

Something to think about is that in many of those states (Texas for one), the demographics are changing. The present colors might not remain, even with gerrymandering (trust me, in Texas there’s been gerrymandering), and with voter ID laws.  Voter ID laws are against poor people — not specifically minorities, but the correlation is pretty good. So in the long run, the republicans will have to work on actual convincing, not suppression and power maintenance.

And actual governance of actual numbers is good  

Wendy P. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jakee said:

Probably a more simple rebuttal to Airdvr's point is that the SC said that states can compell electors to comply with the Statewide popular vote, but not that they have to.

nothing has changed.  they always could compel them to do whatever they wanted, and usually did, now they just know the laws they made are upheld and they can still do it.  i see what you're saying, but it has always been like that.  they can, and will, do whatever they want to do, this time with the court's blessing.  tl;dr:  scotus upholds 10th amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, phantomII said:

If you want to know the vote of the people you should cut out the middleman.

But as Hamilton told us in Federalist Paper #68, the people are too ignorant and stupid to know what's good for them and need an elite to make that decision.

 

Tyranny of the majority - BAD

Tyranny of a wealthy minority - GOOD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, kallend said:

But as Hamilton told us in Federalist Paper #68, the people are too ignorant and stupid to know what's good for them and need an elite to make that decision.

 

Tyranny of the majority - BAD

Tyranny of a wealthy minority - GOOD

I tend to agree with an idealistic interpretation of that.  MOB rule vs. Democratically elected officials capable and willing to make the best decisions based upon the long term needs of the country and humanity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, DJL said:

I tend to agree with an idealistic interpretation of that.  MOB rule vs. Democratically elected officials capable and willing to make the best decisions based upon the long term needs of the country and humanity.

That's an argument for having politicians, not for having the EC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

1 1