User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 73

Thread: House Democrats introduce constitutional amendment to ban Electoral College.....

  1. #61
    Points: 665,289, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,553
    Points
    665,289
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    I think if you will check the pertinent laws, you will find that Electors are required in every state to cast their ballots for the winner of the popular vote in their respective states.

    "Electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State's voters have chosen."

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...9-465_i425.pdf

    So the "power" ostensibly being given to the State by the Electoral College is an illusion - a mirage - and the process is nothing but an exercise in pro forma redundancy.

    That finding supports what I've argued though, that the Constitution leaves it to state legislatures to decide: "The States have devised mechanisms to ensure that the electors they appoint vote for the presidential candidate their citizens have preferred. With two partial exceptions, every State appoints a slate of electors selected by the political party whose candidate has won the State’s popular vote. Most States also compel electors to pledge in advance to support the nominee of that party...." If that's what state legislatures decide, then so be it.

    "Electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State's voters have chosen" because the individual states have so decided that.

    The power is not an illusion when it is upheld. As Justice Thomas concurs: "The Court correctly determines that States have the power to require Presidential electors to vote for the candidate chosen by the people of the State."
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    carolina73 (01-17-2021),MMC (01-17-2021)

  3. #62
    Points: 74,636, Level: 66
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 814
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314975
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,625
    Points
    74,636
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,717
    Thanked 21,092x in 12,286 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    ... The power is not an illusion when it is upheld. As Justice Thomas concurs: "The Court correctly determines that States have the power to require Presidential electors to vote for the candidate chosen by the people of the State."
    The anger, disruption and civil disorder that would result in a state's Electors casting their ballots for an active candidate other than the one chosen by the citizens cannot easily be imagined. It would make our current situation, in terms of tenseness and outrage, seem like a calm stroll in the park by comparison. It would, and rightly so, be considered a slap in the face by a political elite directed toward the people. "Faithless Electors", as they're known, have never swung a Presidential election, and you have to go all the way back to 1796 to find an instance of an Elector casting their ballot for the other active major Party candidate (as opposed to casting their ballot for a third-party candidate or even a non-candidate).

    Nevertheless, discrepancies that exist between a state's population and the way Electors are allocated do result in the voting power of one state's citizens to be, in effect, a fraction of that of the citizen of another state.

    The Electoral College only exists because the Founders, not having access to a crystal ball with which they could foresee the coming of political parties and nationwide campaigning, believed that the voters in one state would be ignorant about candidates from other states and so could not be trusted to make good voting decisions. In addition, the slave states pushed hard for the EC's adoption.

    Slave states – with many people and with fewer – insisted on the Electoral College to preserve this advantage to give them a similar advantage in presidential selection. Ultimately, delegates to the Constitutional Convention decided that each state would receive votes in the Electoral College equal to their representation in both houses of Congress.
    As a result, after the 1790 census, Virginia got 21 electoral votes and Pennsylvania got 15, though both were home to just over 110,000 free white male adults, who were then the only Americans allowed to vote. That’s because Virginia had 292,627 enslaved residents, to Pennsylvania’s 3,737, the country’s very first census shows.

    Similarly, South Carolina and New Hampshire had nearly identical numbers of free white men – right around 36,000. But South Carolina got two more electoral votes, for a total of eight, because more than 100,000 enslaved people lived there, compared to New Hampshire’s 158 enslaved people.


    https://theconversation.com/electora...y-shows-142600


    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  4. #63
    Points: 84,563, Level: 70
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 287
    Overall activity: 52.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    testsubjectalpha's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    9017
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    29,361
    Points
    84,563
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    214
    Thanked 9,014x in 6,835 Posts
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No it wouldn't.



    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    The anger, disruption and civil disorder that would result in a state's Electors casting their ballots for an active candidate other than the one chosen by the citizens cannot easily be imagined. It would make our current situation, in terms of tenseness and outrage, seem like a calm stroll in the park by comparison. It would, and rightly so, be considered a slap in the face by a political elite directed toward the people. "Faithless Electors", as they're known, have never swung a Presidential election, and you have to go all the way back to 1796 to find an instance of an Elector casting their ballot for the other active major Party candidate (as opposed to casting their ballot for a third-party candidate or even a non-candidate).

    Nevertheless, discrepancies that exist between a state's population and the way Electors are allocated do result in the voting power of one state's citizens to be, in effect, a fraction of that of the citizen of another state.

    The Electoral College only exists because the Founders, not having access to a crystal ball with which they could foresee the coming of political parties and nationwide campaigning, believed that the voters in one state would be ignorant about candidates from other states and so could not be trusted to make good voting decisions. In addition, the slave states pushed hard for the EC's adoption.



    https://theconversation.com/electora...y-shows-142600


    "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." - Patrick Henry

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to testsubjectalpha For This Useful Post:

    The Booman (01-17-2021)

  6. #64
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496580
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,590x in 94,419 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    But, again, the electors are bound to cast their ballots in accordance with the results of the popular vote. It's an extra step, a procedural redundancy, without any practical purpose.

    Back when we were having a discussion about the 17th Amendment it was argued by some here that it would have been preferable to retain the original system of state legislators appointing U.S. Senators, and I was told that those state legislators were - paraphrasing - better suited, better equipped to make those selections than was the citizenry. How would you feel about a system whereby Presidential Electors were empowered to ignore the popular vote and cast their ballots for the candidate they preferred? If state legislators are smarter about these things than the people, and one was concerned about "the State" getting its vote (and getting it right), wouldn't it make sense to simply let those legislatures decide the winner and do away with the popular vote altogether?
    The 17th Amendment should be repealed.

    We need to get back to the Founders intent that the states are sovereign, and only ceded limited and enumerated powers to the federal government.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    CaveDog (01-20-2021)

  8. #65
    Original Ranter
    Points: 388,252, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    70166
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    89,892
    Points
    388,252
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    54,131
    Thanked 39,163x in 27,727 Posts
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Protecting Minorities


    Another interesting side-effect of the Electoral College is that is protects minorities. Here’s how.


    Let’s again look at the fictional nation of Artesia: three states with 1 million voters each. And let’s say that, while 83% of the population is ethnic Artesians, 17% belong to a minority group called the Manganese. So, there are 2.5 million Artesian voters and only 500,000 Manganese.



    In a direct election, a candidate needs 1.5 million votes to win. They could ignore the Manganese—even run on an anti-Manganese platform—and still win. All they would need is 60% of the ethnic Artesian vote.
    But what if the country uses a divided electoral system? In order to become president, a candidate now must win two of the three states. And let’s say further that Manganese live mostly in Central and South Artesia—very few live in the North. Thus, while an anti-Manganese candidate might be able to carry North Artesia, they would have a much tougher time carrying either of the other two states, where Manganese voters are concentrated. Such a candidate would, in fact, have to win about 67% in one of those states—a much tougher task.


    A divided electoral system requires candidates to win states, and minority voters have stronger influence at the state level than at the national level......snip~


    Protecting Minorities | Science Buzz



    Among other things, the system keeps small states from being overwhelmed by big states, and rural areas from being overshadowed by cities.



    While politicians and pundits debate the merits of the Electoral College, mathematicians have made a surprising discovery: Dividing a national election into many separate state elections actually increases the power of each citizen’s vote. As an individual voter, you, in the long run, have more influence on the outcome of presidential elections under the Electoral College system than you would in direct, national elections......snip~


    The Math of the Electoral College | Science Buzz


    How much more depends on the number of states, their populations and how the electoral votes are distributed. But in every case, the Electoral College increases each voter’s influence.



    Again, the Electoral College was set up to prevent the threat of Direct Democracy and mob rules.
    History does not long Entrust the care of Freedom, to the Weak or Timid!!!!! Dwight D. Eisenhower ~

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to MMC For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (01-17-2021)

  10. #66
    Points: 74,636, Level: 66
    Level completed: 65%, Points required for next Level: 814
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocialVeteran
    Standing Wolf's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    314975
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    25,625
    Points
    74,636
    Level
    66
    Thanks Given
    5,717
    Thanked 21,092x in 12,286 Posts
    Mentioned
    415 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    The 17th Amendment should be repealed.

    We need to get back to the Founders intent that the states are sovereign, and only ceded limited and enumerated powers to the federal government.
    Would you have a problem with a state's Electors casting their ballots for the Presidential candidate who didn't win the popular vote, if they were legally able to do so?
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard

    "Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry

  11. #67
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,042, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496580
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,693
    Points
    859,042
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,218
    Thanked 147,590x in 94,419 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    Would you have a problem with a state's Electors casting their ballots for the Presidential candidate who didn't win the popular vote, if they were legally able to do so?
    If certain conditions existed. Yes.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  12. #68
    Points: 665,289, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,553
    Points
    665,289
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Standing Wolf View Post
    The anger, disruption and civil disorder that would result in a state's Electors casting their ballots for an active candidate other than the one chosen by the citizens cannot easily be imagined. It would make our current situation, in terms of tenseness and outrage, seem like a calm stroll in the park by comparison. It would, and rightly so, be considered a slap in the face by a political elite directed toward the people. "Faithless Electors", as they're known, have never swung a Presidential election, and you have to go all the way back to 1796 to find an instance of an Elector casting their ballot for the other active major Party candidate (as opposed to casting their ballot for a third-party candidate or even a non-candidate).

    Nevertheless, discrepancies that exist between a state's population and the way Electors are allocated do result in the voting power of one state's citizens to be, in effect, a fraction of that of the citizen of another state.

    The Electoral College only exists because the Founders, not having access to a crystal ball with which they could foresee the coming of political parties and nationwide campaigning, believed that the voters in one state would be ignorant about candidates from other states and so could not be trusted to make good voting decisions. In addition, the slave states pushed hard for the EC's adoption.



    https://theconversation.com/electora...y-shows-142600



    "anger, disruption and civil disorder" are not good political reasons.

    "discrepancies" are, as I understand it, corrected with each census.

    "nationwide campaigning" would become, I think, the order of the day. There'd be no point in primaries.

    The Southern states foresaw the erosion of state's rights, the right/power to stand in protection between their citizens and the federal government.

    Removing the EC is just one more step in removing federalism and creating a popular, majoritarian democracy where faction would rule (see the Federalist Papers) and, I believe, totalitarianism would follow.
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chris For This Useful Post:

    MMC (01-17-2021),Peter1469 (01-17-2021)

  14. #69
    Points: 665,289, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 85.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    433316
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    197,553
    Points
    665,289
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    31,984
    Thanked 80,905x in 54,720 Posts
    Mentioned
    2011 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    The 17th Amendment should be repealed.

    We need to get back to the Founders intent that the states are sovereign, and only ceded limited and enumerated powers to the federal government.
    hear! hear!
    Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler

  15. #70
    Points: 432,155, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 100.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdriveSocial
    Awards:
    Frequent Poster
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    307974
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    183,457
    Points
    432,155
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,178
    Thanked 76,989x in 55,611 Posts
    Mentioned
    700 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    [QUOTE=MMC;3152840]A group of House Democrats introduced a resolution to amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College and institute a direct national popular vote for president and vice president.


    [COLOR=#212529][FONT=Montserrat]“Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United States,” reads the [U]
    When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.“ - Benjamin Franklin.


    “When people get used to preferential treatment equal treatment seems like discrimination.” - Thomas Sowell

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts