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 Today, 10:38 AM
 
11,150 posts, read 4,149,392 times
Reputation: 5365

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires an elector to base their vote based on the popular vote in the state either. In this specific case an elector in CO cast his/her ballot for Kasich instead of Clinton and the state replaced them with someone that voted for Clinton because state law required them to cast their votes based on the winner of the popular vote. The ruling is they can't do that, why you would think this is good thing I'm not so sure.
The state law required their electors to cast their votes based on the "national" popular vote. So if Colorado narrowly voted for Trump, but the national vote had been won by Hillary, then the electors would have been required to vote for Hillary.

The ruling here said no.

Now it is the responsibility of the state legislatures to regulate this process. But surely it is not within their authority to corrupt this process in a partisan or biased way that is contrary to the intent for how this process was designed to function.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 10:45 AM
 
11,150 posts, read 4,149,392 times
Reputation: 5365
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
As far as I can tell this would nullify a pact like that or anything else. It would be up to the individual elector how they vote. I don't think any side should be cheering for this decision because it puts the outcome of an election into the hands of a very small amount of people. This will go to SCOTUS and hopefully they rule the other way.
The ultimate question is how are the electors selected? For the most part right now, they are picked by the state parties. So if a state voted for Trump in 2016, then the electors picked by the Republican party in that state would be the electors that participate in the electoral college voting for that state. Alternatively, if Hillary won the state, then the electors that the Democrats chose would participate in the electoral college voting for that state.

This is obviously fair and reasonable. It is consistent with the requirements of the US Constitution. It is a system that has worked well and with almost no controversy to speak of.

But now the Democrats are trying to circumvent the electoral college process, obviously because it does on occasion result in candidates winning who are not their own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:50 AM
 
40,254 posts, read 24,546,204 times
Reputation: 12739
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.
The state controls the selection of electors. This decision specifically and emphatically asserts that. So the state is not precluded in selecting electors that will uphold the state's laws. The political parties currently play a role in the selection of electors, but that is a choice by the state, a choice which can be undone. And it should be pointed out, that part of this ruling is based on the premise that the electors filing suit were casting votes that would not have changed the outcome of the election. In other words, what they were doing didn't matter, so the state shouldn't have interfered. And the only elector with standing was the elector that was interfered with, Mr Baca, whose vote was voided, and who was replaced with a substitute elector.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:57 AM
 
13,310 posts, read 4,568,594 times
Reputation: 6527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
The state law required their electors to cast their votes based on the "national" popular vote. So if Colorado narrowly voted for Trump, but the national vote had been won by Hillary, then the electors would have been required to vote for Hillary.

The ruling here said no.


Now it is the responsibility of the state legislatures to regulate this process. But surely it is not within their authority to corrupt this process in a partisan or biased way that is contrary to the intent for how this process was designed to function.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
The ultimate question is how are the electors selected? For the most part right now, they are picked by the state parties. So if a state voted for Trump in 2016, then the electors picked by the Republican party in that state would be the electors that participate in the electoral college voting for that state. Alternatively, if Hillary won the state, then the electors that the Democrats chose would participate in the electoral college voting for that state.

This is obviously fair and reasonable. It is consistent with the requirements of the US Constitution. It is a system that has worked well and with almost no controversy to speak of.

But now the Democrats are trying to circumvent the electoral college process, obviously because it does on occasion result in candidates winning who are not their own.
OK, that's what I thought at first as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:01 AM
 
Location: 130 Miles E of Sacramento
5,537 posts, read 3,350,324 times
Reputation: 3699
What happens when blue states move to giving electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote and they remove Trump from the ballot?

Would they be forced to give Trump electoral votes if he also wins the popular vote?

They're just shooting themselves in the foot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:27 AM
 
11,150 posts, read 4,149,392 times
Reputation: 5365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevroqs View Post
What happens when blue states move to giving electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote and they remove Trump from the ballot?

Would they be forced to give Trump electoral votes if he also wins the popular vote?

They're just shooting themselves in the foot.
The requirement that electors vote according to the outcome of the national popular vote has just been ruled unconstitutional and this latest Democrat state legislative trend of passing laws removing the presidential opponents of the Democrats from ballots is almost certainly going to get the same treatment.

So, what is next?

If I were a completely unprincipled, anti-democratic, hyper-partisan, Democrat-left control freak who was dedicated to eliminating any behavior or thinking not in conformity to Democrat leftist standards of "Political correctness," I would try to pass laws at the state level gave control of the appointment of electors to the Democrats - no matter what.

So, let's review:
  1. Democrat states legislate requirements that direct electors to vote for the national popular vote winner, even if that state voted for otherwise - Overturned by the federal courts as unconstitutional.
  2. Democrat states legislate requirements that result in opposing party presidential candidates are banned from being on the ballot for the election - In the courts, likely to be overturned.
  3. Democrat states legislate requirements that presidential electors always be chosen by the Democrats and their allies - This has not happened yet, but keep your eyes peeled. This could very well be what they try next.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:42 AM
 
16,343 posts, read 9,196,307 times
Reputation: 6612
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.
yes God forbid. because we don't want the tyranny of direct deomocracy...which is what always happens in a direct democracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:43 AM
 
40,254 posts, read 24,546,204 times
Reputation: 12739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
The requirement that electors vote according to the outcome of the national popular vote has just been ruled unconstitutional and this latest Democrat state legislative trend of passing laws removing the presidential opponents of the Democrats from ballots is almost certainly going to get the same treatment.

So, what is next?

If I were a completely unprincipled, anti-democratic, hyper-partisan, Democrat-left control freak who was dedicated to eliminating any behavior or thinking not in conformity to Democrat leftist standards of "Political correctness," I would try to pass laws at the state level gave control of the appointment of electors to the Democrats - no matter what.

So, let's review:
  1. Democrat states legislate requirements that direct electors to vote for the national popular vote winner, even if that state voted for otherwise - Overturned by the federal courts as unconstitutional.
  2. Democrat states legislate requirements that result in opposing party presidential candidates are banned from being on the ballot for the election - In the courts, likely to be overturned.
  3. Democrat states legislate requirements that presidential electors always be chosen by the Democrats and their allies - This has not happened yet, but keep your eyes peeled. This could very well be what they try next.
This was an extremely convoluted and narrow decision, which may be overruled in the future, but even so, it still does not say what you are stating. The STATE gets to select the electors, based on whatever criteria the STATE wishes, The state can appoint electors without reference to party at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:52 AM
 
11,150 posts, read 4,149,392 times
Reputation: 5365
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
This was an extremely convoluted and narrow decision, which may be overruled in the future, but even so, it still does not say what you are stating. The STATE gets to select the electors, based on whatever criteria the STATE wishes, The state can appoint electors without reference to party at all.
Who is going to believe that? With "no reference" to party, you say. So, in other words, Democrat party loyalists who have no documented linkage to the Democrat party.

Obviously, this kind of corruption would be outrageous in the extreme and could not be tolerated, if we are going to continue to have meaningful presidential elections that are reflective at the state level of the will of that state's presidential election voters.

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court sorts this out, once the Democrats try to corrupt our presidential election process in this manner. Which I could be wrong, but I do believe that they will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:59 AM
 
40,254 posts, read 24,546,204 times
Reputation: 12739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
Who is going to believe that? With "no reference" to party, you say. So, in other words, Democrat party loyalists who have no documented linkage to the Democrat party.

Obviously, this kind of corruption would be outrageous in the extreme and could not be tolerated, if we are going to continue to have meaningful presidential elections that are reflective at the state level of the will of that state's presidential election voters.

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court sorts this out, once the Democrats try to corrupt our presidential election process in this manner. Which I could be wrong, but I do believe that they will.
Why was only one elector out of the three found to have standing in this case? That's part of why I am saying that this ruling was very narrow and very convoluted, and could be overturned at some point. As to what you are arguing regarding the national popular vote, it would actually have to put into practice, and so far not enough states have signed on, before it could be brought to the courts. And even then, to use this case, there would have to be a block of electors sufficient to changing the outcome that would have to sue because one of the points this ruling makes is that the three electors who sued would not have changed the national outcome.
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