War on the Electoral College

[tttppp]

Pick any state you want.

Romney's odds of winning California are greater than the odds of your one vote deciding a national election. So are Obama's odds of winning Mississippi.

At least in the national vote, it does switch from democrat to republican occasionally. It rarely does that in non swing states.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/wall-street-prepares-for-the-end-of-a-crucial-era/ar-AAGnVgN

At issue is whether states can require their appointed electors to cast ballots for the candidate favored by most of the state’s voters on election day, or if electors may instead choose whomever they wish when convening a few weeks later. Rebellions by state electors have been a rarity in history, but a recent court ruling gave electors greater freedom to vote their conscience, and that could tip the outcome in a close election.

Article II of the Constitution created the electoral college to elect the president, rather than relying on a direct vote of the people. It says that states “shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors” that reflects the population of the state. Those electors in turn would vote for the president and vice president.

Since the early 1800s, this system has operated as “largely a formality,” the Washington state Supreme Court said in May. The electors, by pledge and often by law, cast their votes based on how their states vote. The candidate who wins the most votes in the state wins all the electoral votes, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, where electoral votes can sometimes be split among candidates.

But last week, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upset the conventional understanding by ruling the electors have a “constitutional right” to vote as they wish for president, even if state law requires them to abide by the people’s choice.

The appeals court ruled for Micheal Baca, a Democratic elector in Colorado, who in 2016 cast his ballot for Ohio Gov. John Kasich, even though Hillary Clinton won the majority of Colorado’s votes. He was among several so-called faithless electors who in 2016 voted against the choice of their state’s voters.

Writing for a 2-1 majority, Appellate Judge Carolyn McHugh focused on the words used in 1787.

“The definitions of elector, vote and ballot have a common theme: They all imply the right to make a choice or voice an individual opinion. We therefore agree with Mr. Baca that the use of these terms supports a determination that the electors, once appointed, are free to vote as they choose,” she said in Baca vs. Colorado. “The text of the Constitution makes clear that the states do not have the constitutional authority to interfere with the presidential electors who exercise their constitutional right to vote for the president or vice president candidates of their choice.”

Colorado’s Secretary of State Jena Griswold said the decision “takes power from Colorado voters and sets a dangerous precedent.” State officials said they expect to appeal.

Los Angeles lawyer Jason Harrow, who represented Baca and the group Equal Citizens, said he will appeal the issue to the Supreme Court in a similar case from Washington state that resulted in an opposite ruling.

“We now have a split, and there’s no need to wait longer,” he said. “We want a decision before the 2020 election, and the sooner the better.”

Unlike the 10th Circuit, the Washington state Supreme Court said the Constitution “gives to the state absolute authority in the manner of appointing electors. ... The power of electors to vote comes from the state, and the elector has no personal right to that role.”

By an 8-1 vote, the state court rejected a constitutional claim brought on behalf of Levi Guerra and two other Democratic electors from Washington who were fined $1,000 because they did not cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton, who had won the state.

Harvard law professor Larry Lessig, who founded the Equal Citizens project and argued the Washington state case, said the aim is to “reform” the electoral college. “We know electoral college contests are going to be closer in the future than they have been in the past, and as they get closer and closer, even a small number of electors could change the result of an election,” he said in response to the Colorado ruling. “Whether you think that’s a good system or not, we believe it is critical to resolve it before it would decide an election.”

If the Supreme Court receives an appeal in the weeks ahead in either the Washington or Colorado case, the justices are not likely to act on it for several months. They could opt to steer clear of the issue, but some legal experts said the specter of another Bush vs. Gore election dispute case could prompt them to decide the issue as soon as possible.

In December 2000, the Supreme Court chose to intervene in the ballot-recount battle in Florida, where the outcome would determine whether then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush or Vice President Al Gore would win the White House.

Ohio State law professor Ned Foley, an expert on the electoral college, said the justices “could easily avoid” deciding on the role of the electors, but “the strongest argument for taking it up now is they don’t want to decide it on the Bush vs. Gore timetable.”

He was referring to the fact that the justices had only a few days to decide a complicated dispute.

Pepperdine law professor Derek T. Muller, who also has written extensively on the electoral college, said the Supreme Court may see a need to review the 10th Circuit’s broad view of the role of electors.

“The breath of this opinion — a suggestion that there’s a virtually unfettered choice — is what’s the most remarkable part of it,” he said. “For decades, electors and states have had an uneasy kind of truce. Electors typically aren’t faithless, and states have wielded the threat of replacement. This opinion, however, collapses that truce. Electors are now instructed that they can vote for whomever they want, and replacement is not an option. One wonder whether electors will be more inclined to stray in 2020, particularly given fawning attention from disgruntled voters.”

 

[Pauls' Revere]

Can anyone tell me who the hell are the electors anyway? and what prevents them from being paid off? and why aren't we electing them?

 

[Swordsmyth]

Can anyone tell me who the hell are the electors anyway? and what prevents them from being paid off? and why aren't we electing them?

They are picked by the campaigns and you are actually voting for them, I would prefer that the voters just control the EC votes of their states in the current system but in my system you would be voting directly for the electors some or all of whom would be the Presidential contenders themselves.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

They are picked by the campaigns and you are actually voting for them, I would prefer that the voters just control the EC votes of their states in the current system but in my system you would be voting directly for the electors some or all of whom would be the Presidential contenders themselves.

Not sure I trust it. I understand no system is perfect. Maybe, a proportional popular vote weighted by population density? IDK, spitballing here.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Not sure I trust it. I understand no system is perfect. Maybe, a proportional popular vote weighted by population density? IDK, spitballing here.

My system is entirely different, each state would get two EC votes to hand out that represent its Senators and the EC votes that represent House seats would be handed out proportionally based on a nationwide vote.
Each Elector candidate could win an unlimited number of EC votes.

You can see more about it here: [h=3]A new system of government[/h]

 

[GunnyFreedom]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/wall-street-prepares-for-the-end-of-a-crucial-era/ar-AAGnVgN

At issue is whether states can require their appointed electors to cast ballots for the candidate favored by most of the state’s voters on election day, or if electors may instead choose whomever they wish when convening a few weeks later. Rebellions by state electors have been a rarity in history, but a recent court ruling gave electors greater freedom to vote their conscience, and that could tip the outcome in a close election.

Article II of the Constitution created the electoral college to elect the president, rather than relying on a direct vote of the people. It says that states “shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors” that reflects the population of the state. Those electors in turn would vote for the president and vice president.

Since the early 1800s, this system has operated as “largely a formality,” the Washington state Supreme Court said in May. The electors, by pledge and often by law, cast their votes based on how their states vote. The candidate who wins the most votes in the state wins all the electoral votes, with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, where electoral votes can sometimes be split among candidates.

But last week, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upset the conventional understanding by ruling the electors have a “constitutional right” to vote as they wish for president, even if state law requires them to abide by the people’s choice.

The appeals court ruled for Micheal Baca, a Democratic elector in Colorado, who in 2016 cast his ballot for Ohio Gov. John Kasich, even though Hillary Clinton won the majority of Colorado’s votes. He was among several so-called faithless electors who in 2016 voted against the choice of their state’s voters.

Writing for a 2-1 majority, Appellate Judge Carolyn McHugh focused on the words used in 1787.

“The definitions of elector, vote and ballot have a common theme: They all imply the right to make a choice or voice an individual opinion. We therefore agree with Mr. Baca that the use of these terms supports a determination that the electors, once appointed, are free to vote as they choose,” she said in Baca vs. Colorado. “The text of the Constitution makes clear that the states do not have the constitutional authority to interfere with the presidential electors who exercise their constitutional right to vote for the president or vice president candidates of their choice.”

Colorado’s Secretary of State Jena Griswold said the decision “takes power from Colorado voters and sets a dangerous precedent.” State officials said they expect to appeal.

Los Angeles lawyer Jason Harrow, who represented Baca and the group Equal Citizens, said he will appeal the issue to the Supreme Court in a similar case from Washington state that resulted in an opposite ruling.

“We now have a split, and there’s no need to wait longer,” he said. “We want a decision before the 2020 election, and the sooner the better.”

Unlike the 10th Circuit, the Washington state Supreme Court said the Constitution “gives to the state absolute authority in the manner of appointing electors. ... The power of electors to vote comes from the state, and the elector has no personal right to that role.”

By an 8-1 vote, the state court rejected a constitutional claim brought on behalf of Levi Guerra and two other Democratic electors from Washington who were fined $1,000 because they did not cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton, who had won the state.

Harvard law professor Larry Lessig, who founded the Equal Citizens project and argued the Washington state case, said the aim is to “reform” the electoral college. “We know electoral college contests are going to be closer in the future than they have been in the past, and as they get closer and closer, even a small number of electors could change the result of an election,” he said in response to the Colorado ruling. “Whether you think that’s a good system or not, we believe it is critical to resolve it before it would decide an election.”

If the Supreme Court receives an appeal in the weeks ahead in either the Washington or Colorado case, the justices are not likely to act on it for several months. They could opt to steer clear of the issue, but some legal experts said the specter of another Bush vs. Gore election dispute case could prompt them to decide the issue as soon as possible.

In December 2000, the Supreme Court chose to intervene in the ballot-recount battle in Florida, where the outcome would determine whether then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush or Vice President Al Gore would win the White House.

Ohio State law professor Ned Foley, an expert on the electoral college, said the justices “could easily avoid” deciding on the role of the electors, but “the strongest argument for taking it up now is they don’t want to decide it on the Bush vs. Gore timetable.”

He was referring to the fact that the justices had only a few days to decide a complicated dispute.

Pepperdine law professor Derek T. Muller, who also has written extensively on the electoral college, said the Supreme Court may see a need to review the 10th Circuit’s broad view of the role of electors.

“The breath of this opinion — a suggestion that there’s a virtually unfettered choice — is what’s the most remarkable part of it,” he said. “For decades, electors and states have had an uneasy kind of truce. Electors typically aren’t faithless, and states have wielded the threat of replacement. This opinion, however, collapses that truce. Electors are now instructed that they can vote for whomever they want, and replacement is not an option. One wonder whether electors will be more inclined to stray in 2020, particularly given fawning attention from disgruntled voters.”

It’s a shame none of this covered Bill Greene of TX who voted Ron Paul in the 2016 EC

 

[Zippyjuan]

Trump's thoughts on the Electoral College (back in 2012- he has probably changed his mind since- like he does on a lot of things). Obama did actually win the popular vote as well.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2012/11/trump-is-election-nights-most-unhinged-goper.html?gtm=top

 

[Pauls' Revere]

It’s a shame none of this covered Bill Greene of TX who voted Ron Paul in the 2016 EC

My worry is this inter-state committee collusion and that it will effectively eliminate the Electoral College.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

My worry is this inter-state committee collusion and that it will effectively eliminate the Electoral College.

Well, one of the ideas here is the States are free to do what they want. Including to collude on electoral votes. I don’t imagine it will ever be enough to change the outcome in the post TV era. The one thing that would be bad here is if the Feds tried to regulate the EC and tell the States what to do. Regulating the electors is a State function. If the States want to go Proportional that’s their decision to make. If the States want to just reflect the popular vote and ignore their own State well that’s on them too. I think it’s stupid, but it’s within their legal right.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Now this is probably some psycho radical idea, but why not have people vote themselves? Instead of having somebody or a few somebodies vote for the entire state who will not all agree with the pick? You pick who YOU want to vote for. Add them all up. Most votes wins.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Now this is probably some psycho radical idea, but why not have people vote themselves? Instead of having somebody or a few somebodies vote for the entire state who will not all agree with the pick? You pick who YOU want to vote for. Add them all up. Most votes wins.

Because that would be a democracy, which idea the Framers explicitly rejected as unworkable.

 

[Zippyjuan]

Because that would be a democracy, which idea the Framers explicitly rejected as unworkable.

They wanted elites in control. The initial concept was that the states would send their best people as Senators and then the Senators would pick the president from among themselves. The elite of the elite. That is of course not the final version. But voters had to be wealthy (landowners) and males. No women or slaves allowed. A corporatocracy if you will.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

Now this is probably some psycho radical idea, but why not have people vote themselves? Instead of having somebody or a few somebodies vote for the entire state who will not all agree with the pick? You pick who YOU want to vote for. Add them all up. Most votes wins.

I would agree but what about rural folks. In this system the five most populated cities decide what a country does. Nope, not onboard with that. I think the electors should be held to vote according to what people vote for. If they can (and do) change their minds, they are effectively cancelling my vote or yours.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

Well, one of the ideas here is the States are free to do what they want. Including to collude on electoral votes. I don’t imagine it will ever be enough to change the outcome in the post TV era. The one thing that would be bad here is if the Feds tried to regulate the EC and tell the States what to do. Regulating the electors is a State function. If the States want to go Proportional that’s their decision to make. If the States want to just reflect the popular vote and ignore their own State well that’s on them too. I think it’s stupid, but it’s within their legal right.

Yep. It may end up flipping this thing on its head but states do what they do.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

https://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/why-we-are-republic-not-democracy

Hillary Clinton blamed the Electoral College for her stunning defeat in the 2016 presidential election in her latest memoirs, “What Happened.”
Some have claimed that the Electoral College is one of the most dangerous institutions in American politics.
Why? They say the Electoral College system, as opposed to a simple majority vote, distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population.
To back up their claim, they point out that the Electoral College gives, for example, Wyoming citizens disproportionate weight in a presidential election.
Put another way, Wyoming, a state with a population of about 600,000, has one member in the House of Representatives and two members in the U.S. Senate, which gives the citizens of Wyoming three electoral votes, or one electoral vote per 200,000 people.
California, our most populous state, has more than 39 million people and 55 electoral votes, or approximately one vote per 715,000 people.
Comparatively, individuals in Wyoming have nearly four times the power in the Electoral College as Californians.
Many people whine that using the Electoral College instead of the popular vote and majority rule is undemocratic. I’d say that they are absolutely right. Not deciding who will be the president by majority rule is not democracy.
But the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any other of our founding documents.
How about a few quotations expressed by the Founders about democracy?
In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wanted to prevent rule by majority faction, saying, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”
John Adams warned in a letter, “Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”
Edmund Randolph said, “That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”
Then-Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”
The Founders expressed contempt for the tyranny of majority rule, and throughout our Constitution, they placed impediments to that tyranny. Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule. That is, 51 senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators.
The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.
To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and if an amendment is approved, it requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.
Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule. It makes sure that the highly populated states—today, mainly 12 on the east and west coasts, cannot run roughshod over the rest of the nation. That forces a presidential candidate to take into consideration the wishes of the other 38 states.
Those Americans obsessed with rule by popular majorities might want to get rid of the Senate, where states, regardless of population, have two senators.
Should we change representation in the House of Representatives to a system of proportional representation and eliminate the guarantee that each state gets at least one representative?
Currently, seven states with populations of 1 million or fewer have one representative, thus giving them disproportionate influence in Congress.
While we’re at it, should we make all congressional acts by majority rule? When we’re finished with establishing majority rule in Congress, should we then move to change our court system, which requires unanimity in jury decisions, to a simple majority rule?
My question is: Is it ignorance of or contempt for our Constitution that fuels the movement to abolish the Electoral College?
This article has been republished with permission from The Daily Signal.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

https://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm

Since then, a push to reform the Electoral College has been gaining steam. As of December 2016, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that mandates electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. In addition, 12 other states have passed a reform bill through one house. Still more states are introducing an Electoral College reform bill or discussing it in committee [source: National Popular Vote]. This National Popular Vote law would take effect only when it's been passed by enough states to have a total number of electoral votes of 270.


The DEMS are pushing the Popular Vote. So far the total is 165 electoral votes. Only 105 electoral votes needed to have popular vote become law. If Texas and Virginia go blue it would bring the total to 216. Then, you begin to look at states like PA,NC,OH,WI.

https://www.thoughtco.com/electoral-votes-by-state-in-2016-3322035

The dissolution of the Electoral College will Balkanize the USA.

 

[Swordsmyth]

https://people.howstuffworks.com/electoral-college.htm

Since then, a push to reform the Electoral College has been gaining steam. As of December 2016, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have passed legislation that mandates electoral votes go to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. In addition, 12 other states have passed a reform bill through one house. Still more states are introducing an Electoral College reform bill or discussing it in committee [source: National Popular Vote]. This National Popular Vote law would take effect only when it's been passed by enough states to have a total number of electoral votes of 270.


The DEMS are pushing the Popular Vote. So far the total is 165 electoral votes. Only 105 electoral votes needed to have popular vote become law. If Texas and Virginia go blue it would bring the total to 216. Then, you begin to look at states like PA,NC,OH,WI.

https://www.thoughtco.com/electoral-votes-by-state-in-2016-3322035

The dissolution of the Electoral College will Balkanize the USA.

It's unconstitutional and if allowed to stand it would be the end of the union.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

It's unconstitutional and if allowed to stand it would be the end of the union.

According to the article. 16 states have already passed legislation. I don't know if any of those have been challenged in court. If Texas & Virginia pass similar laws that brings the total to 216. And I agree, it would end the union.

 

[Swordsmyth]

According to the article. 16 states have already passed legislation. I don't know if any of those have been challenged in court. If Texas & Virginia pass similar laws that brings the total to 216. And I agree, it would end the union.

It will go to SCOTUS if it ever becomes active.