U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 10:03 PM
 
354 posts, read 129,568 times
Reputation: 464

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ladybug07 View Post
Sorry I don't want LA, NY City, Seattle or other big cities that support democrats electing a president for the whole country.

Cities don't vote, people do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 06:16 AM
 
13,292 posts, read 4,568,594 times
Reputation: 6516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosep View Post
Cities don't vote, people do.
The people don't elect the POTUS the states do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:17 AM
 
376 posts, read 41,457 times
Reputation: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
So as a result of this ruling, states cannot pass laws directing the votes of electoral college electors.
Just out of curiosity but currently most states have passed laws forcing electors to vote with the popular vote of that state. Now they don't have to? So Trump can win a state but the electors can vote for another candidate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:19 AM
 
376 posts, read 41,457 times
Reputation: 182
I'd be perfectly glad to trade with progressives - an amendment to end the electoral college with an amendment to end birthright citizenship.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:22 AM
 
13,292 posts, read 4,568,594 times
Reputation: 6516
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenPineTree View Post
Just out of curiosity but currently most states have passed laws forcing electors to vote with the popular vote of that state. Now they don't have to? So Trump can win a state but the electors can vote for another candidate?
I'm not sure about that. I think they have to vote for the winner. It's designed like that. If not then elections could be manipulated by the electors. How would that work anyway? So and so wins the state but the electors vote for someone who got 1% of the vote? I would think that would be illegal since it's subverting the will of the people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:25 AM
 
376 posts, read 41,457 times
Reputation: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones View Post
I'm not sure about that. I think they have to vote for the winner. It's designed like that. If not then elections could be manipulated by the electors. How would that work anyway? So and so wins the state but the electors vote for someone who got 1% of the vote? I would think that would be illegal since it's subverting the will of the people.
That's originally how the EC was designed to be. The Electors themselves are elected by the people but not actually beholden to vote with the people as how the FF envisioned. These laws forcing them to vote with the state popular vote came later. Usually they just result in fines but now that this court made this ruling, I'm genuinely curious about the implications.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:49 AM
 
Location: Long Island
33,670 posts, read 14,188,776 times
Reputation: 7216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
So as a result of this ruling, states cannot pass laws directing the votes of electoral college electors. This will effectively void numerous laws recently passed in Democrat led states that allocate all electoral votes from their state to whoever the national winner of the popular vote is.

Just so everyone knows, state parties select the electors for their candidate and if their candidate wins, so do their hand-picked electors.

The US Constitution is a sublimely beautiful and magnificent document. What a great ruling. The US Constitution wins again.

And the Democrats are thankfully blocked in their effort to improperly interfere and try to rig our presidential election process.
You read that entire decision and came up with that title, this was a democratic party representative that voted for Kasich rather than following the popular vote and voting for Clinton. This is the process in most states not just blue states and the ruling is over one individual so you are inflating.


Almost all state electoral college representatives vote with the popular vote, this is not just a democratic issue. Kind of a weird process since one person can change their mind and vote their own opinion negating thousands of voters, so why even bother with the popular vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:53 AM
 
13,292 posts, read 4,568,594 times
Reputation: 6516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
You read that entire decision and came up with that title, this was a democratic party representative that voted for Kasich rather than following the popular vote and voting for Clinton. This is the process in most states not just blue states and the ruling is over one individual so you are inflating.


Almost all state electoral college representatives vote with the popular vote, this is not just a democratic issue. Kind of a weird process since one person can change their mind and vote their own opinion negating thousands of voters, so why even bother with the popular vote.
Duh, the popular vote within the state is who won the damn state. What some states wanted to do was make the electors vote for the popular vote overall, meaning nationwide no matter who won the state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 06:56 AM
 
13,292 posts, read 4,568,594 times
Reputation: 6516
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenPineTree View Post
That's originally how the EC was designed to be. The Electors themselves are elected by the people but not actually beholden to vote with the people as how the FF envisioned. These laws forcing them to vote with the state popular vote came later. Usually they just result in fines but now that this court made this ruling, I'm genuinely curious about the implications.
Can you post a link to the information where the electors voting for the popular state vote came later? I can't see that as a workable system if they didn't. If that was the case then why even have the people vote and just leave it to the electors?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:03 AM
Status: "beware: jokes about biden are against the TOS" (set 1 day ago)
 
970 posts, read 175,674 times
Reputation: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colorado Rambler View Post
God forbid that voters actually get to vote directly for the candidate of their choice. The electoral college plus gerrymandering are the only way that republican candidates can win elections these days.
what kind of stupid are you on that you only blame gerrymandering on republicans? pull your head out
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top