Law Did a court ruling just invalidate the electoral college?

[oldshadow]

That has nothing to do with why the EC was set up the way it was. The discrepancy we have now is an unintended result of the capping of the size of the House of Representatives, which happened in 1929.

It was one of the reasons the EC was set up but not the main one. The main one was logistics of voting.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Trump was stupid to even suggest it and the overwhelming number of conservatives that support the constitution will fight it.

I don't think you've been paying attention to politics the past 20 years. What happened to all the conservatives who were saying we needed to slash deficits while we were still recovering from a massive global financial collapse? What happened to the conservatives who were saying that we needed to raise interest rates with unemployment high and inflation super low? See my point about Bush and Trump (who has 85% support among Republicans). What happened to Evangelicals? Libertarians? Where were this "constitutional conservatives" when there was an angry mob chanting for the imprisonment of someone who had already been cleared by law enforcement? The moral and intellectual rot on the right is much deeper than you realize if you think they'd hold to a principled position that would be harmful to them politically.

 

[oldshadow]

No shit? Taking away people from small states' privilege wouldn't make the US "one huge single state".

The effect of a straight popular vote would be to nullify the rural vote.

The the urban heavy states would control the federal government for the most part from now on.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It was one of the reasons the EC was set up but not the main one. The main one was logistics of voting.

The main one was that founders didn't think voters would know anything about the candidates and didn't trust them to make good decisions. They thought they'd know people in their area that they trusted to make good decisions about voting (and, as I mentioned, the expectation would be that few would win EC majorities, so most presidential elections would be decided by the House, with the EC vote acting like a primary). Either way, it had nothing at all to do with giving some states disproportionate say in the election.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Gerrymandering wouldn't be relevant to the EC, but there is a perception on the right that demographic change is dooming them in fair elections and that various forms of fuckery are going to be needed for them to hold power (apparently, the thought of, like, not basing an electoral strategy on appeals to white resentment and instead switching to good governance that will have broad appeal hasn't come up). But I don't know that the EC is inherently favorable to the right; it's just kind of worked out that way recently. Hence my point that if it ever is responsible for Democrats winning an election they would have lost, it's gone. No one with principles who isn't a moron thinks it's actually a good way to do things.

Interesting and thx.

I don't think the current GOP is capable of looking beyond short term benefit even if they know that in future elections what they do will come back to hurt them. You see that now in Moscow Mitch blocking all efforts to keep Russia from meddling in the elections again. Why? Because NOW he thinks that any such meddling is disproportionately going to help the Republicans and the more help the merrier so why rush to fix it?

That said if China tomorrow became the main meddler and favoured Democrats he would quickly find his moral outrage for the sanctity of US elections and demand and expect the Dem's to immediate support shutting it down. And they would. And Mitch knows that. He knows he is in a no lose situation as 'we can always fix it later but only once it favours the other side'.

I think they probably view the EC issue the same way. No need to rush to fix anything as long as we are the one benefiting as the Dems will gladly do it when they start benefiting.

You see that currently now, as Mitch is eyeing the possibility of falling to minority status in the Senate after the next election and he is pre-emptively now setting the stage to shore up Filibuster rules and other such Minority party tactics to block the ruling parties agenda. He did not care about the issue when the Repubs had a firm hold on both Houses but suddenly he is concerned about minority party rights.

Mitch literally mocked and laughed at the idea that he would be consistent on the appointing judges issue in the last year of Trump's presidency heading into the election. He laughed saying he would fill them.

 

[oldshadow]

I don't think you've been paying attention to politics the past 20 years. What happened to all the conservatives who were saying we needed to slash deficits while we were still recovering from a massive global financial collapse? What happened to the conservatives who were saying that we needed to raise interest rates with unemployment high and inflation super low? See my point about Bush and Trump (who has 85% support among Republicans). What happened to Evangelicals? Libertarians? Where were this "constitutional conservatives" when there was an angry mob chanting for the imprisonment of someone who had already been cleared by law enforcement? The moral and intellectual rot on the right is much deeper than you realize if you think they'd hold to a principled position that would be harmful to them politically.

The only reason Trump won was the democrats move to the hard left.

If they had run one of the blue dogs the results would have embarrassed Trump.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The only reason Trump won was the democrats move to the hard left.

If they had run one of the blue dogs the results would have embarrassed Trump.

There's been a long-term leftward drift, but the GOP has moved hard right. But Democrats could have nominated Paul Ryan, and Republicans would portray him as a communist.

 

[oldshadow]

The main one was that founders didn't think voters would know anything about the candidates and didn't trust them to make good decisions. They thought they'd know people in their area that they trusted to make good decisions about voting (and, as I mentioned, the expectation would be that few would win EC majorities, so most presidential elections would be decided by the House, with the EC vote acting like a primary). Either way, it had nothing at all to do with giving some states disproportionate say in the election.

I will agree with this was also a reason. The effect of protecting the rural states is built in and a fact.

 

[oldshadow]

There's been a long-term leftward drift, but the GOP has moved hard right. But Democrats could have nominated Paul Ryan, and Republicans would portray him as a communist.

The democrats have gone left much more then you want to say especially on social issues.

The right has a small part that has gone hard right. However the center right which is the majority has actually moved more left over all.

Most supported gay marriage or at the worst just didn’t care. They do support some service exceptions but that’s a different thing.

When you look at the right has moved more left for the most part and the left has gone way left.

 

[Strychnine]

Because the electors aren't idiots so they do what they're supposed to do.

"The decision, from a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, is a victory for Micheal Baca, a Colorado Democratic elector in 2016. Under state law, he was required to cast his ballot for Hillary Clinton, who won the state's popular vote. Instead, he crossed out her name and wrote in John Kasich, a Republican and then the governor of Ohio."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pick-our-president/ar-AAG8tdZ?ocid=spartanntp

<puh-lease75>

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

"The decision, from a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, is a victory for Micheal Baca, a Colorado Democratic elector in 2016. Under state law, he was required to cast his ballot for Hillary Clinton, who won the state's popular vote. Instead, he crossed out her name and wrote in John Kasich, a Republican and then the governor of Ohio."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...pick-our-president/ar-AAG8tdZ?ocid=spartanntp

<puh-lease75>

You're posting the exception and claiming it as the rule. A lot of that going around these days.

Stay in school, kids.

 

[Squarechoke]

It's funny to read arguments that the smaller states have no say if you go by popular vote, when the electoral votes are still distributed by population size and the most populous states could already dominate the smaller ones if they weren't of differing opinions. Ergo the problem still exists within that system, it just has the added effect of having people be of unequal worth (and of course that states can disregard the people, to tie in with the topic of the thread).

It's also nonsense that only the large states would matter in the popular vote since the candidates in the last election only differed by about 2% of the votes. That's by no means a margin that makes small states irrelevant.

 

[Strychnine]

You're posting the exception and claiming it as the rule. A lot of that going around these days.

Stay in school, kids.

And if you read the OP, the judge ruled that their vote must be accepted with zero repercussions.

Thanks for reading it brah.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The democrats have gone left much more then you want to say especially on social issues.

The right has a small part that has gone hard right. However the center right which is the majority has actually moved more left over all.

Most supported gay marriage or at the worst just didn’t care. They do support some service exceptions but that’s a different thing.

When you look at the right has moved more left for the most part and the left has gone way left.

Not really. What happens is what always happens--propagandists try to tie the mainstream to the fringe. But one can hardly deny that the president, vice president, and Senate majority leader are mainstream.

 

[oldshadow]

Not really. What happens is what always happens--propagandists try to tie the mainstream to the fringe. But one can hardly deny that the president, vice president, and Senate majority leader are mainstream.

And that are not alt right no matter what the left wants to cry.

 

[Jack V Savage]

And that are not alt right no matter what the left wants to cry.

Far right, though.

 

[Seano]

Seems like this ruling does as much to invalidate the popular vote as well.

 

[oldshadow]

Far right, though.

Not even far right.

Trump is certainly not far right, unless you view him from a very left point of view. Which may be where the democrats sit now.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Not even far right.

Trump is certainly not far right, unless you view him from a very left point of view. Which may be where the democrats sit now.

Hmm. This is an odd statement. What is your understanding of the meaning of "far right"?

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's funny to read arguments that the smaller states have no say if you go by popular vote, when the electoral votes are still distributed by population size and the most populous states could already dominate the smaller ones if they weren't of differing opinions. Ergo the problem still exists within that system, it just has the added effect of having people be of unequal worth (and of course that states can disregard the people, to tie in with the topic of the thread).

It's also nonsense that only the large states would matter in the popular vote since the candidates in the last election only differed by about 2% of the votes. That's by no means a margin that makes small states irrelevant.

You're overthinking it. The real process is:

1. Republicans would have lost with a popular vote.
2. Therefore the popular vote is bad.

Then there's just a search for some kind of bullshit justification for 2 that doesn't invoke 1. Just like the arguments against any policy that would have sped up the recovery or the Garland thing or whatever. No real principles from the right in American politics today.