POL - A movement for direct election of the president

[cartman]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Crawl back under "Ignorance is Bliss" Rock. If you think the constitution wasn't designed to adjust to the times and society then we wouldn't be able to AMMEND IT.

My god your an ass.

Sorry, Rend, but I've got to point something out to you. Ignorance means currently unaware of something. Stupid means never will be aware of it.

[Huckleberry]

First things first. My disclaimer - coincidentally being on the same "side" of a debate as Bubba Wheels should in no way be interpreted as support for him, his reasoning - if such a beast exists, or his philosophies. Now that that's out of the way:

Originally Posted by RendeR

See this is the ting, it was desgned that way over 200 years ago, it IS broken in modern society. This current system was antiquated as soon as telephones reached 99.99 percent of homes back in the 30's and 40's. The designers had to deal with the fact that 200+ years ago the young states and new territories had little or no population and would have been steamrolled buy the original colonies in any election.

That isn't the case today. As it is the electoral college doesn't give every state any real say in things as has been shown before, its design and implementation make all but a dozen of the large states all but irrelevent.

Create a direct election and suddenly everyone, everywhere matters, its no longer a win these states and yer in election. its about individual votes. I don't care what effect this would have had on past elections, seriously, I'd still be pissed with W in office, I doubt I'd be any happier with a democrat, they're all bought and paid for losers. What I WANT to see is individual rights and votes of every american citizen to MATTER.

We might be one in 300 million, but thats better than being a 0 in the current system. Thats what about 40% of voters are right now, 0 meaning in elections.

Nowhere in here did you offer any reason why equality of states should be removed from the equation. Every citizen's vote does matter. It matters as a citizen of your state. That is as it was intended and it's a good system. I don't believe it's perfect, but I also reject the notion that this country is supposed to be organized as a single entity with sub-departments. That is what each state can create for their own government. The nation is not that way. There are 50 equal states making up the USA. Not the USA and then lesser entities known as states.

[cuervo72]

Haven't read through it yet, but this might (or might not) be an interesting read/opinion: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by RendeR

So, your premise for keeping a broken system like the electoral college is "because we started out with it"?

Preposterous. Its antiquated and unnecessary in todays era of mass communications and access to information. Your so called "modified electoral college" is no more useful than the old one, it doesn't change the election , it does get closer to a true vote for each american, but its still not complete.

There is NO valid reason to not have direct elections of all officials. Save perhaps a genuine fear of what the american populace might choose. From both sides. Turning a possible 300 million votes into 600 or so is idiocy and fraudulates the actual voting numbers.

Is fraudulates a real word? it sounded good....ahh well. Invalidates sounds too harsh for what I'm trying to say.

That whole NO valid reason thing, I don't buy for a second. I'm happy that I live in a Republic, and not a direct Democracy. Direct Democracy is too much to me like government by whim of the masses. The masses are wrong from time to time. I prefer the status quo. In my mind it was devised by men far wiser than the average citizen today. They had their reasons, and some may certainly seem outdated today, but I believe that some of their motives are still relevant today. The simple insulation from a direct democracy is enough for me.

[cartman]

I think one point that has been missed in all of this discussion is that the members of the Electoral College aren't bound legally to vote for the candidate their state chose. I think that might be a little bit of the friction people feel about the process. Maybe people might feel a little bit better if the electors themselves were removed, and the process of the electoral votes is automatic, to elminate the "rogue" electoral voters.

I myself don't have a problem with the whole Electoral College concept, but I do have a little bit of uneasiness about the big loophole that doesn't bind an elector to vote for who their state wants. It has never been a problem in the past, but to me that isn't a reason to keep that loophole open.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by cartman

I think one point that has been missed in all of this discussion is that the members of the Electoral College aren't bound legally to vote for the candidate their state chose. I think that might be a little bit of the friction people feel about the process. Maybe people might feel a little bit better if the electors themselves were removed, and the process of the electoral votes is automatic, to elminate the "rogue" electoral voters.

I myself don't have a problem with the whole Electoral College concept, but I do have a little bit of uneasiness about the big loophole that doesn't bind an elector to vote for who their state wants. It has never been a problem in the past, but to me that isn't a reason to keep that loophole open.

The slate of electors are essentially chosen by the Party hardliners. You don't become an elector if the party mucky mucks don't approve of you. If you seem like you have an inkling of integrity, individuality, or any other characteristic they think might conceivably cause you to stray from the "party" line, they you aren't elector material.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

The slate of electors are essentially chosen by the Party hardliners. You don't become an elector if the party mucky mucks don't approve of you. If you seem like you have an inkling of integrity, individuality, or any other characteristic they think might conceivably cause you to stray from the "party" line, they you aren't elector material.

I completely understand that. But there still isn't a legal requirement, once picked, to vote as your state deemed you to vote. There's a world of difference between pissing off political party members, and committing a federal crime. That's the point I was trying to get at. There have been cases in the past when an Elector cast a vote other than what their state decided. But, as I mentioned, it didn't affect the outcome. Why wait for a situation to occur, instead of acting before then to make sure it doesn't happen, using something more than just peer pressure?

[larrymcg421]

Some states do bind their electors, but it's doubtful you will get a change when it really matters. There was an elector that switched for Bentsen over Dukakis in 1988 and it's happened a few other times. There was a Gore supporter who tried to convince Bush electors to switch but the Gore campaign took alot of heat for that. I found that hypocritical. If the argument is about how the founders intended elections to work, well the electors weren't bound back then, so why should they be now?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If the argument is about how the founders intended elections to work, well the electors weren't bound back then, so why should they be now?

I think it was something that was overlooked in the 12th Amendment. Prior to that, the President was the one who received the most electoral votes, and the Vice President was the one who received the second most. The original Constitution was written before political parties really existed in the US. The 12th Amendment came about when Jefferson and Burr both ended up with the exact same number of electoral votes, and there was also a deadlock in the House of Representatives. It took some dealmaking for them to finally choose Jefferson as President. After that, they decided to make Electors for both President and Vice-President, and put in the proviso that in case no one got a plurality of votes, the top 2 were sent to Congress to be decided on.

So the process has changed since the founding fathers originally wrote the Constitution. It's not true that the way it currently works is the way that it has always worked, although the current method has been in place a long time.

[cuervo72]

FWIW, the article I posted was a good informative read, and gave pros and cons on both sides of the issue.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

What? Read that or the article that kicked off the thread. That's ridiculous. We're here to engage in uninformed debate. Don't bother us with facts, please.

[QuikSand]

Colorado just joined the multistate compact. I feel like there has been more recent conversation on this here, but this is the best I could find for some thread necromancy.

BNL NEWS on Twitter: "BREAKING: Colorado's Governor will sign a measure to award his state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, moving a country-wide coalition one step closer to circumventing the electoral college."

[albionmoonlight]

This has nothing to do with anything, but Quik necromancyed this thread, and the last post was from Vinatieri for Prez from 2006.

It is 2019, and Vinateri is still in the NFL.

[QuikSand]

he's running

[cuervo72]

Does this really accomplish anything if it's just the blue states doing it?

[Toddzilla]

Every state doesn't need to participate, only enough states to guarantee 270 electoral votes. That probably wouldn't be just blue states, but even if it was, it still guarantees the winner of the popular vote becomes President.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Colorado just joined the multistate compact. I feel like there has been more recent conversation on this here, but this is the best I could find for some thread necromancy.

BNL NEWS on Twitter: "BREAKING: Colorado's Governor will sign a measure to award his state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, moving a country-wide coalition one step closer to circumventing the electoral college."

lots of measured responses in the twitter thread there.

[JPhillips]

Former Gov. Paul LePage (R) tore apart a bill currently in the Maine state legislature that proposes essentially eliminating the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote because it would only “be minorities that elect” the President.


According to a Thursday Maine Beacon report, LePage told local radio station WVOM that the legislation would render him and other whites “a forgotten people.”

“Actually what would happen if they do what they say they’re gonna do is white people will not have anything to say,” LePage said. “It’s only going to be the minorities that would elect. It would be California, Texas, Florida.”

I think he was supposed to keep this part quiet.

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Colorado just joined the multistate compact. I feel like there has been more recent conversation on this here, but this is the best I could find for some thread necromancy.

BNL NEWS on Twitter: "BREAKING: Colorado's Governor will sign a measure to award his state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, moving a country-wide coalition one step closer to circumventing the electoral college."

Just so I understand...

If the people of Colorado vote for Gerald Ford to be President, but the rest of the country votes for Jimmy Carter, then the Colorado electoral votes will be placed for Jimmy Carter instead?

[stevew]

Can we eliminate the senate after this?

[molson]

If the legislature of a state who signed up for this didn't like the results of a popular vote could they just repeal their version of the statute and swing a close election themselves?

There'd be legal challenges (and the Supreme Court could decide another election - yay), but but would the voters of a state be constitutionally harmed if the state changed course and awarded the state's electoral votes to whom the people actually voted for?

Edit: And I don't think other states would have standing to argue something like reliance, since its unconstitutional to enter into an agreement with other states absent congressional approval. All the states have to be on their own on this, even if there's a potential cumulative effect.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

If the legislature of a state who signed up for this didn't like the results of a popular vote could they just repeal their version of the statute and swing a close election themselves?

There'd be legal challenges (and the Supreme Court could decide another election - yay), but but would the voters of a state be constitutionally harmed if the state changed course and awarded the state's electoral votes to whom the people actually voted for?

Edit: And I don't think other states would have standing to argue something like reliance, since its unconstitutional to enter into an agreement with other states absent congressional approval. All the states have to be on their own on this, even if there's a potential cumulative effect.

The states have the Constitutional right to dictate the "times, places, and manner" of elections, but I'd guess that Congress would hold that any changes have to affect the next proximate future election. Otherwise, for example, you could see an election where a gubernatorial candidate wins on the strength of early voting and the Legislature, controlled by the opposite party, votes to retroactively kill early voting to take those ballots off the table so Their Guy gets to be governor.

Or like what happened with the Maine dude who sued to kill ranked voting because he lost. He wanted to be declared the winner because he won a plurality of first-choice ballots. Maine voters voted knowing that their 2nd and 3rd place choices could impact the election, but that dude wanted the rules to change after he lost, and the courts said 'nope.'

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Just so I understand...

If the people of Colorado vote for Gerald Ford to be President, but the rest of the country votes for Jimmy Carter, then the Colorado electoral votes will be placed for Jimmy Carter instead?

If the pieces were to all fall into place, then yes... but only if enough states to represent an electoral college majority sign onto the compact. If the thing worked as designed, then the electoral college would effectively be overridden by the nationwide popular vote.

[larrymcg421]

Small correction. It's not just the rest of the country. It's the rest of the country including Colorado. Carter would need to win the other states by more than he lost to Ford in Colorado.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The states have the Constitutional right to dictate the "times, places, and manner" of elections, but I'd guess that Congress would hold that any changes have to affect the next proximate future election. Otherwise, for example, you could see an election where a gubernatorial candidate wins on the strength of early voting and the Legislature, controlled by the opposite party, votes to retroactively kill early voting to take those ballots off the table so Their Guy gets to be governor.

Or like what happened with the Maine dude who sued to kill ranked voting because he lost. He wanted to be declared the winner because he won a plurality of first-choice ballots. Maine voters voted knowing that their 2nd and 3rd place choices could impact the election, but that dude wanted the rules to change after he lost, and the courts said 'nope.'

The difference here is that in a Presidential election, Article 2 gives specific mention of state legislatures - "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,"

In Bush vs. Gore, three justices (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas) argued this meant that the state courts couldn't even review the legislature's decision to appoint electors. Kennedy and O'Connor didn't sign on to this (and Kennedy basically made fun of the guy who tried to argue this during oral arguments), but they're not on the court anymore.

I agree with you that the clause doesn't authorize the legislatures to make an ex post facto change of the "manner" they already determined, but I don't know how confident I am of the current court makeup.

[QuikSand]

Interesting twist from my state, and its 10 electoral votes. Bill introduced to create a small-scale version of this, where MD and another red state with the same electoral votes would join in a bilateral pact to just do this on our own. The weakness in the specifics is that the natural counterpart is Wisconsin, and they were only red last go-round by a narrow margin, and are really more purple (or if you're Clinton2016, solidly blue).

It won't pass... but it's yet another clever assault on the electoral college, and as far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier.

[QuikSand]

Even if Maryland isn't the right place, this could conceivably catch on:

MA - IN (11)
CT/OR - OK (7)
Lots of 4s and 3s

Or get nutty and put CA in with TX,LA,AL for 55 each

You could do this piece by piece and while not assuring the popular vote prevails, you could certainly put the rest of the country much more in play than is currently the case, which is kinda the point.

[QuikSand]

The Movement To Skip The Electoral College Is Picking Up Steam | FiveThirtyEight

[JPhillips]

Not only is getting to 270 difficult, but I have no doubt that this pact would end up at the Supreme Court. If the court decides to okay partisan gerrymandering this term, I expect they would also be willing to say this is unconstitutional.

[QuikSand]

Pretty clearly loaded with asterisks, but there is a very solid argument that this is a matter of states' rights. Of course, as we've seen from all parties involved, previous thoughts about structure of government and so forth tend to go right out the window when it becomes a matter of who gets to run the place.

[JPhillips]

Yeah. I think this term is going to be revealing as to how far the conservatives will be willing to go in overturning precedent and past rulings.

[QuikSand]

WTF

This just in

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court to decide whether Electoral College voters are required to support presidential candidate who wins state.

— Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) January 17, 2020

[molson]

There's a federal v. state split on that they'll resolve. Colorado and Washington are two states that can, under their state law, impose punishment to faithless electors. Washington state said it was fine, the 10th circuit said it was unconstitutional for Colorado to do so. Here's the petition for writ that they granted if you want a deep dive into the weirdness of faithless electors.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketP...Certiorari.pdf

Of course, faithless electors are very rare, but, they could theoretically swing an election. There were 7 Dem electors that didn't vote for Clinton in 2016, though, I'm sure they would have if that would have made a difference in the election.

[Kodos]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/08/o...l-college.html

Interesting article on how we came close to abolishing the electoral college in 1970, and why it didn't happen.