Supreme Court to decide whether EC voters have a right to differ from state popular vote

agree, and as long as that happens not a issue, but when it does overturn the will of the people, then it will become a problem, one that will most likely cause a civil war

"There is also a good probability that those 2 faithless electors received millions of requests from voters begging them to be faithless...far more requests than the voters who were "betrayed"."

the voters voted, so no mater how many of the losers request they vote otherwise, they should vote the will of the people

 

You have certainly changed your tune. Earlier in this thread you were arguing that states should not be allowed to bind electors to a specific vote. Now you are saying that it should be up to the states to make their own rules - which would include binding electors.

 

Being naïve in some areas of political details does not make him a "bad" President. He is accomplishing a lot of good things for the country...at least half the country thinks so. Obama was fairly naïve too, coming from a mostly academic and "community organizer" background.

It's a good thing that our Presidents have all sorts of cabinet people and advisors to help them avoid the most significant pitfalls.

 

Not which would include binding electors, but which could include binding electors.

My opinion and preference is for electors to be able to vote their conscience, as we do here in Texas. It is also my opinion and preference for states to have rights to not be carbon copies of each other and to set more strict or more lenient rules.

 

You certainly have the right to that opinion.

 

I voted in my state for my state's electors. Where is this national ballot we all voted on in the same election. Explain how a national election can have 51 different rules and laws depending on where you live and that being equal protection under the law? No you did NOT vote in the same election I did unless you live in my state.

What don't you understand about our government and our elections and that the STATES not the PEOPLE elect the President, your state does not even have to allow you to vote.

 

that I do, and you are free to disagree

 

your correct, there are many reasons Trump is a bad President, lack of civics knowledge is at the bottom of the list

agree with last statement, the problem is Trump has a very fragile ego and is unable to accept that he may be wrong and listen to others that disagree with him

 

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct....." your state is not obligated to let you vote.

 

ROFL not nearly as much as you it seems, he knew you win by winning STATES you still think we all vote in one big election.

 

Many people who have met him personally and who have known him for years say that Trump listens to people very intently and weighs the advice he is given before making a decision.

Obama was also a narcissist with a fragile ego. He had a smoother, more diplomatic "style" is about the only difference there (besides the obvious differences in policy direction).

 

we will see what the SC says

I say voting is a right, not a privilege the state can deny free citizens

 

lol, why lie about what I believe.... to defend Trump?

I believe Trump lost the popular vote...

if the truth makes Trump look bad... sad!

 

A popular vote you pretend exist in order to believe that. You're not the one stating a truth. Tallying up all the 51 individual unique elections as some reflection of what the results would have been had there been a national popular vote is utter folly. And is of no matter, a moot point, the STATES elect the President not the PEOPLE a truth of our system of government you refuse to acknowledge.

Tell me of what importance is this number you keep talking about anyway? What does it matter to you?

 

Bluesguy said: ↑
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct....." your state is not obligated to let you vote.

That's not being challenged but that has been constitutional law since our founding. In fact the first few elections some state did not have a citizens vote for the electors they were appointed by the state legislature. But eventually all the state decided to have the citizens vote, the DECIDED. Your state could vote to go back to the state legislature selecting them or they vote to let the governor pick them. It's entirely up to them and you would have no case to make to the SCOTUS or any court. Read the Constitution

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct....."

Nothing about an election or a vote.

 

A compromise may be that you Grant electors based on number of voted but whoever wins the state gets +2

 

If there is only one vote per state, then the smaller states have more influence per person.

 

If each state has one vote, then the smaller populated states has more influence per person.

 

Never happened.

 

The bicameral Congress - adding a Senate with 2 from each state regardless of population - was "The Great Compromise of 1787."



https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/A_Great_Compromise.htm

 

The importance relates to how many of the people support him.

A true leader - someone who wants to unite the country - would recognize that he might have won the presidency, but had not won the approval of the majority (or even the plurality) of the nation's citizens. He would work towards winning those people over. Trying to bring the country together. So at the next election, he wins not only the presidency but also the most votes.

Instead, his strategy is to get re-elected even if that means polarizing the country. He cares about his own political survival more than he cares about the country.

 

Tallying the 52 separate and unique does not tell you that. It is NOT an accurate representation of that. We did not all vote in the same election. There was not a national single vote to determine what would be that majority. If you tally up all the separate and unique votes when Bill Clinton first ran he did not get a majority of them. And there's not one Democrat running who will "bring the country together" so stop with the platitudes.

 

Each state does not have one vote and the People do not elect the President. You have as much influence in the election in which you voted as any other person. The STATES elect the President by design why do you have such difficulty understanding that?

 

I think you got the reponses mixed up, I was repsonding against someone that wanted one vote per state. I think they should leave the EC as is.

 

For all your talk of 51 (or is it 52) separate and unique votes, that only relates to the EC. Across the entire nation, there was a simple choice: Trump, Clinton, or one of the other candidates.
Clinton got millions more votes than Trump. That doesn't change the outcome of the election, but it most definitely IS a measure of his relative popularity with the citizens of the nation. And that does actually matter.

You are wrong about Democrats not being able to bring the country together. I am quite certain that the next president after Trump - whether that be in 2020 or 2024, and whether that person is R or D - will make every effort to heal the destructive polarization that has been the hallmark of Trump's approach to governing.