Court rules Electoral College members aren't bound by popular vote

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by ModCon, Aug 21, 2019.

  1. Texas Republican

    Texas Republican Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2015
    Messages:
    28,121
    Likes Received:
    19,405
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A proportional electoral college system would work well in California and New York.
     
  2. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,839
    Likes Received:
    32,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Majority rule (aka democracy) is bad but minority rule is better? Is that really your argument?
     
    bx4 likes this.
  3. bx4

    bx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    15,145
    Likes Received:
    12,519
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But under the current system they are already “forced” to vite a certain way.

    All the judgement says is that faithless Electors must have their votes counted. As they are now. As they would be with an NPV compact.
     
  4. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah and the Court just said they can't do that. You can't have a law that requires the electors to vote a certain way
     
  5. bx4

    bx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    15,145
    Likes Received:
    12,519
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So according to you, future presidential elections are meaningless? Everyone votes but then the Electors can do whatever the hell they want?

    E.g. Trump wins Texas by 8% but half the Electors will be entitled to vote for The D candidate if they want to?
     
  6. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well that's how the Constitution sets it out.

    Yes, the electors in Texas can vote how they want.

    It's obvious you did not even bother to read one of the reports about this opinion
     
  7. bx4

    bx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    15,145
    Likes Received:
    12,519
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So according to you, this judgement makes votes completely meaningless - it completely disenfranchises all Americans, even under the current system - and you think that this is a "great day for the Republic"?
     
  8. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    10,193
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is not how the EC system works. There is not a set of Electorals just sitting around waiting to see how the State or the Nation votes. The people used as Electoral are decided AFTER to election within the State. In most States, if the Republican candidate received the most votes, then the list of names for Electorals that was submitted by the Republicans is used. If the Democrat candidate received the most votes, then the list of names for Electorals that was submitted by the Democrats is used. The people on these lists have pledged to vote for their party's candidate, but they are not legally bound to do so. Chances that half of them would vote against their party would likely be very rare.
     
  9. bx4

    bx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    15,145
    Likes Received:
    12,519
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I completely agree. That is what makes faithless Electors so rare. All the judgment says is that if there are faithless Electors, their (faithless) votes must be counted. They can't be replaced with someone who will vote the "correct" way.

    That doesn't change the fact that if the NPV Compact goes into effect, many States will have adopted a perfectly constitutional approach to choosing their Electors. An approach that is different from the system that most states use today, but it will be perfectly constitutional. And the will of the people.

    Some people see this as a big win against the NPV Compact, but it isn't. It just confirms (in CO) what has happened across the country for more than two hundred years.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2019
    Nunya D. likes this.
  10. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's what the Constitution requires. Read Art 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii

    Yes it's a great day because leftist Govts can bind their electors. I find your post odd, given you seem to support the idea of State Legislatures binding their electors to the national popular vote, thereby potentially making the voters of that state's vote meaningless
     
  11. bx4

    bx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    15,145
    Likes Received:
    12,519
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I assume you mean "can't bind their electors".

    But if you are correct, it also means that R states cannot bind their Electors to vote for the candidate that received the most votes in their state. Remember that this case was brought in the context of the 2016 election and it doesn't only work in one direction.

    Think for a moment about what happens if the NPV compact never comes into effect. This judgment will continue to apply to the current system. It means (according to you) states cannot bind their Electors to respect the will of their state's voters. They could decide to cast their votes in favor of the winner of the NPV. Even if the NPV compact doesn't come into effect.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2019
  12. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am correct, and "red states" can't either. It's the law.

    Yes it was brought because the elector wouldn't vote for Clinton in 2016, and was illegal removed because he wouldn't
     
  13. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    10,193
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct. All the State is deciding is which list to use. Though I am against a State using the NPV, as I think it disenfranchises the State's voters, I think it is completely Constitutional.
     
    bx4 likes this.
  14. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    10,193
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They are not binding their Electorals. They are choosing which list to use.

    For instance, say Hillary won the State of Oregon.....but Trump received the NPV. Oregon (if they had the NPV rule) would use the Republican list of Electorals. The people on this list COULD still vote for Hillary, but unlikely.
     
    bx4 likes this.
  15. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some states have done that, and there's been a major push by some leftist State Govts to bind their electors to whomever wins the national popular vote
     
  16. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    10,193
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not quite. They are not binding the Electorals. They are deciding which list of Electorals to use.....Republicans or Democrats. Once the list is chosen, the Electorals can vote their conscious, but will likely vote with their party. This resent ruling upholds that.
     
    bx4 likes this.
  17. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The case here, an elector was removed because he would not vote for Clinton, that was found to be illegal.
     
  18. bx4

    bx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    15,145
    Likes Received:
    12,519
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep. It hasn’t really changed anything. Faithless Electors are rare. They would be equally rare if the NPV compact comes into effect.
    Not really the big deal you make it out to be.
     
  19. Nunya D.

    Nunya D. Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    10,193
    Likes Received:
    2,797
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly my point. The Electoral is not bound to vote as expected. The court ruled that this is the case. What the State did was unconstitutional. HC won in Colorado and the Democrat's list was used...and was pre-mark for HC. Baca (the Electoral) scratched out HC and voted for Kasich. Colorado violated the Constitution by not counting his vote and replacing him. I strongly suspect the SCOTUS will rule similarly.
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2019
  20. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Agreed. They can’t bind the elector
     
    Nunya D. likes this.
  21. HTownMarine

    HTownMarine Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    8,348
    Likes Received:
    4,155
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If your idea of elected representation is minority rule, then yes.
     
    Nunya D. likes this.
  22. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,839
    Likes Received:
    32,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Elected through gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, electoral fraud and weighting votes according to geographical location?

    I will have to disagree
     
  23. HTownMarine

    HTownMarine Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    8,348
    Likes Received:
    4,155
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Voter disenfranchisement? Its 2019... who cant vote? Who is prevented from voting? Child molesters and rapists in prison? The Boston bomber? You're not one of those people who thinks he should have a vote too, are you?

    You're right... it makes way more sense for the half of the country who do not contribute via income tax to determine how we spend that money, or how much people should pay into it. Hell, if I wasnt paying taxes, I'd say we should up the tax rate to 80%. What do I care? I'm not paying it anyway and that's more money I'll have access too. Makes sense.

    The system is set up the way it is because mob rule never has and never will allow a nation to sustain longterm success. Never has. Never will.

    "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch."
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2019
  24. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,280
    Likes Received:
    18,041
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Seems the only reason people want to do away with the electoral college is because of political posturing.
     
  25. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,839
    Likes Received:
    32,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Many people were denied the ability to vote, here is one such example. There are many more, Almost exclusively signed into law by republicans.
    As for murderers, child rapists, and individuals in prison — while I agree they probably shouldn’t vote — I keep hearing that rights cannot be infringed on the gun debate for any reason. Do you believe voting is a right or are their limits to rights?

    That you use a single tax to determine if someone is worthy of vocalizing their ideas is just sad. There are likely many different taxes you do not pay and have never even heard of.

    All of systems were not set up that way, we are the only “democracy” that has anything even remotely similar to an electoral college. Voters have picked the winner in the vast majority of elections — except five in the entirety of the nation. I would argue the nation would have been better off had the last two been elected — as I am not aware of the policies of the previous. Both were fools, but if you cannot win on ideas I guess you have to find another way to win...
     

Share This Page