B-Man Posted July 7, 2020 Posted July 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said: giving up? why? Because I ignore people who would rather insult than discuss the topic at hand? That's an odd way to put it, I only asked because you yourself posted something completely off topic for the thread....................? I remember 1976 -- Carter VS Ford 1
RocCityRoller Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 6 hours ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said: https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-just-pointed-absurdity-150048185.html Here’s one nice thing we can now say about the Electoral College: it’s slightly less harmful to our democracy than it was just days ago. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that states have the right to “bind” their electors, requiring them to support whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote in their state. Justice Elena Kagan’s opinion was a blow to so-called “faithless electors,” but a win for self-government. “Here,” she wrote, “the People rule.” The Electoral College we have today isn’t the one in the original Constitution. Instead, it’s a product of the 12th Amendment – put in place after the 1800 contest between Jefferson and Burr @SlimShady'sSpaceForce @Tiberius The establishment of an electoral college is found in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: 'Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.' Individual citizens vote for candidates they want the state electors who represent their state to vote for. The States elect presidents in this way. The number of electors each state has is based on the total number of senators and congresspersons the state has, a minimum of 3. That is how it is representative. 'The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President.' Back in the day there were not pairings of President and Vice President tickets. Candidates ran for the presidency. This meant no one ran as a 'Vice Presidential running mate paired to a Presidential nominee'. The candidate with the most electoral votes was president, the candidate with the second most was VP. As you can tell, this led to some messy situations. Originally, electors cast votes for two candidates on the same ballot for president; the candidate who finished second place in the tabulation became vice president. Starting in 1804, the president and vice president were elected on separate ballots as specified in the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution which was adopted in that year. Candidates began to realize they could run together as a team for president and vice president instead of running completely separately for each office. So why was this was set up? The largest reason in my opinion is because the United States is a Federal Union. It is right there in our name, United States. By definition a state is a political body with a defined border and independence in rule of law. The several states composing the United States are sovereign and independent, in all things not surrendered to the national/Federal government by the constitution, and are considered, on general principles, by each other as foreign states, yet their mutual relations are rather those of domestic independence, than of foreign alienation. The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism and states' rights, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution; all remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. This actually used to mean something. The amendment was proposed by the 1st United States Congress in 1789 during its first term following the adoption of the Constitution. It was considered by many members as a prerequisite to many state ratifications of the Constitution and particularly to satisfy demands of Anti-Federalists who opposed the creation of a stronger federal government. During the Revolution, each colony was effectively its own state. It printed its own money, had a separate and unique history, had opposing territorial claims, raised its own military regiments and had its own law and governance. After the revolution, each state was effectively its own country. An independent state in all senses. As late as the Civil War, most regiments were called things like 'the New York 140th Volunteer Infantry regiment'. This is why. The states had the right to create their own military units. To ratify the Constitution, all states, large and small in size and population needed assurances of an equal voice. Why would an independent country give up its power to be subordinate in a larger country? (Anti-Federalists) They wouldn't. This is why states (Electors) vote for the president, based on the popular vote in its borders, by its citizens. The Electors are supposed to represent the will of the people, in their state, not on a Federal level. 1 2
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted July 8, 2020 Author Posted July 8, 2020 4 minutes ago, RocCityRoller said: The establishment of an electoral college is found in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution: did it define gerrymandering? and before someone goes off by both sides Don was and may still be against it. the 9-0 vote is indicative of a need for it to be addressed. When the borders are moved to sway votes then the system is being cheated. 30 minutes ago, B-Man said: That's an odd way to put it, I only asked because you yourself posted something completely off topic for the thread....................? I remember 1976 -- Carter VS Ford I off thread huh. what exactly are those pictures
Reality Check Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 7 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said: did it define gerrymandering? and before someone goes off by both sides Don was and may still be against it. the 9-0 vote is indicative of a need for it to be addressed. When the borders are moved to sway votes then the system is being cheated. ...the electoral college will remain as is... ...and there is nothing you can do about it... 1
B-Man Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 18 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said: I off thread huh. what exactly are those pictures An obvious difference. I am having fun responding to Dallas bills fan's post. You...............on the other hand, after getting 3 or 4 posts in a row pointing out the fallacy of your thread, decided to return to your fallback nonsense. 5 hours ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said: Is he now? 130 thousand dead, the heartland is breaking records in infections every day 7 months into a pandemic. Hows the unemployment rate doing? Great job Don. Great job just great ?? 1
RocCityRoller Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 Just now, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said: did it define gerrymandering? and before someone goes off by both sides Don was and may still be against it. the 9-0 vote is indicative of a need for it to be addressed. When the borders are moved to sway votes then the system is being cheated. I appreciate us having a civil conversation. We are clearly going to argue different points of view. That is both of our rights. Since I am 'red-pilled' only in the last few years, I can appreciate the anti-EC point of view. On the surface it looks unfair. Gerrymandering is terrible, and both parties have used it to their advantage. I will agree with you in principle there. Gerrymandering is an issue in determining who is elected for a defined Congressional seat or Senatorial seat. It does not however determine how many Congressional seats a state has. Let's agree that all states have 2 Senators for the same reasons noted above (big and small states wanted an equal say in one of the chambers of Congress) so every state has 2. Every state has to have at least 1 Congressperson. This means at minimum, each state will have 3 Senators & Congresspeople. By that same math every state will have at least 3 EC electors. (EC count = Congresspersons and Senators count) The biggest thing to wrap ones head around is that the EC is effectively a state level authority. The population of the state, determines the number of Congressional seats. The make up of the districts in 48 states are irrelevant. The EC actually benefits voters, in that a Democrat vote in a highly Republican district, or a Republican vote in a highly Democrat district has equal weight in the state level election. In most states the winner of the popular vote in the entire state carries all of the EC votes. Winner take all. It doesn't matter what gerrymandering district the vote comes from. Two states: Nebraska and Maine do have split EC representation. Using the 'congressional district method', these states allocate two electoral votes to the state popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split electoral vote. I think it leads to higher voter turn out as well. This is where, your question about gerrymandering holds up. Since Maine has 4 EC, and Nebraska 5 EC, no one has looked at it yet. If more states took the 'split EC' approach, this would be a big political topic. Then things would get hot in the Gerrymandering debate. If there is to be a conversation about EC reform, it won't be about throwing away the EC. Small states would never go for that. I think an interesting avenue would be to look at reform along split EC lines instead. I hope I addressed your question in a respectable and civil manner. I need to read more about the Supreme Court ruling, I am ignorant to that as of the moment, but thank you for bringing it up. I have a feeling the media may not be telling us the simple facts. 1 1 2
RocCityRoller Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Tiberius said: That and adding ding two more states, DC and PR. @Tiberius @SlimShady'sSpaceForce Tibs - DC is already the exception to the EC rule. In all 50 states the EC count is decided by the number of Senators and Congresspeople a state has. Even though DC has 0-0 it has 3 Electoral College votes. At best DC picks up 1 EC vote by population, and that may be negligible. As for PR, why would a territory that effectively pays no taxes, but offers citizens the rights of a US Citizen agree to start paying taxes? PR has regularly vetoed statehood. I am all for a one time, winner takes all vote. Become a tax paying state, or forfeit your special status and become a sovereign nation. Flimsy argument at best. As for the 'Hot Headlines' about the 9-0 Supreme Court Decision. This may not be the 'big victory' you were thinking of SlimShady. The Supreme court ruled in favor of states being able to legally penalize Electorates in the EC for not voting the way the popular vote went. On November 16, 2016, journalist Bill Lichtenstein published an article entitled, "The Way Out of Trumpland: Hail Mary Pass to Save the Nation" in the Huffington Post, detailing the plans by presidential elector Micheal Baca to seek to derail Trump's ascent to the presidency by convincing Democratic and Republican presidential electors to vote for a more moderate candidate on December 19, 2016, when the Electoral College voted. Lichtenstein's article soon went viral, and on December 5, 2016, several members of the electoral college, seven from the Democratic Party and one from the Republican Party, publicly stated their intention to vote for a Republican other than the nominee Donald Trump at the Electoral College vote on December 19, 2016. Texas Republican elector Christopher Suprun publicly pledged to not cast his vote for Donald Trump as allowed by Texas state law. Suprun indicated that he had also been in confidential contact with several Republican electors who planned to vote faithlessly, stating that they would be "discussing names specifically and see who meets the [fitness for president] test that we could all get behind." A number of Democrat EC voted for Colin Powell instead of Hillary in protest in Washington state, long after Trump had the Election tied up. Two EC in Texas voted against Trump and for a Kasich and for Paul. Over 58 elections, 165 electors have not cast their votes for president or vice president as prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those: 71 electors changed their votes because the candidate to whom they were pledged died before the electoral ballot (in 1872 and 1912). 1 elector chose to abstain from voting for any candidate (in 2000). 93 were changed typically by the elector's personal preference, although there have been some instances where the change may have been caused by an honest mistake. in 2016 the number was 10. 10 of 93 by preference. The Supreme Court clearly ruled in favor of strengthening the integrity of the EC, not against it. 2016 showed the worst discipline among the EC for voting for the candidate of choice by a wide margin. 9-0 is a pretty strong ruling IMO to maintaining the institution and its integrity. But hey, that doesn't generate clicks. Edited July 8, 2020 by RocCityRoller 1 2 4
Tiberius Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 The Post reports that Texas experienced a $650 million drop in tax revenue last month and now faces surging costs as coronavirus cases spike, the inevitable result of a decision to reopen early and eschew until last week a statewide mask mandate. The Post explains: “Tax collections in Texas in the meantime are down by roughly $5.7 billion over the past four months of the pandemic. … The state’s most lucrative revenue stream, sales taxes, plummeted more than $200 million between mid-May and mid-June, falling roughly 6.5 percent compared with collections in June 2019, state budget officials said.” One can only imagine how sales tax receipts will look going forward given the measures to return to shutdown. Don’t it turn your red states blue... Crystal Gayle reference there
ALF Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 10 hours ago, RocCityRoller said: As for PR, why would a territory that effectively pays no taxes, but offers citizens the rights of a US Citizen agree to start paying taxes? PR has regularly vetoed statehood. I am all for a one time, winner takes all vote. Become a tax paying state, or forfeit your special status and become a sovereign nation. With the new standard deductible for federal income tax very few in PR would pay that tax. 1
TH3 Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 The EC will likely be under greater and greater pressure. Sure it’s in the constitution.....but.... in 2000 and 2016... the candidate who won the popular vote was not put in office. I would think this is unsustainable no matter what party does what. That being said...the GOP is going to have a tougher and tougher time winning the popular vote moving forward.....They continue to rely more and more on Bellicheckian tactics to win....and if POTUS elections continue to put the candidate in office who did not win the popular vote....can’t see that holding up.
Tiberius Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 10 hours ago, RocCityRoller said: @Tiberius @SlimShady'sSpaceForce Tibs - DC is already the exception to the EC rule. In all 50 states the EC count is decided by the number of Senators and Congresspeople a state has. Even though DC has 0-0 it has 3 Electoral College votes. At best DC picks up 1 EC vote by population, and that may be negligible. As for PR, why would a territory that effectively pays no taxes, but offers citizens the rights of a US Citizen agree to start paying taxes? PR has regularly vetoed statehood. I am all for a one time, winner takes all vote. Become a tax paying state, or forfeit your special status and become a sovereign nation. Flimsy argument at best. As for the 'Hot Headlines' about the 9-0 Supreme Court Decision. This may not be the 'big victory' you were thinking of SlimShady. The Supreme court ruled in favor of states being able to legally penalize Electorates in the EC for not voting the way the popular vote went. On November 16, 2016, journalist Bill Lichtenstein published an article entitled, "The Way Out of Trumpland: Hail Mary Pass to Save the Nation" in the Huffington Post, detailing the plans by presidential elector Micheal Baca to seek to derail Trump's ascent to the presidency by convincing Democratic and Republican presidential electors to vote for a more moderate candidate on December 19, 2016, when the Electoral College voted. Lichtenstein's article soon went viral, and on December 5, 2016, several members of the electoral college, seven from the Democratic Party and one from the Republican Party, publicly stated their intention to vote for a Republican other than the nominee Donald Trump at the Electoral College vote on December 19, 2016. Texas Republican elector Christopher Suprun publicly pledged to not cast his vote for Donald Trump as allowed by Texas state law. Suprun indicated that he had also been in confidential contact with several Republican electors who planned to vote faithlessly, stating that they would be "discussing names specifically and see who meets the [fitness for president] test that we could all get behind." A number of Democrat EC voted for Colin Powell instead of Hillary in protest in Washington state, long after Trump had the Election tied up. Two EC in Texas voted against Trump and for a Kasich and for Paul. Over 58 elections, 165 electors have not cast their votes for president or vice president as prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those: 71 electors changed their votes because the candidate to whom they were pledged died before the electoral ballot (in 1872 and 1912). 1 elector chose to abstain from voting for any candidate (in 2000). 93 were changed typically by the elector's personal preference, although there have been some instances where the change may have been caused by an honest mistake. in 2016 the number was 10. 10 of 93 by preference. The Supreme Court clearly ruled in favor of strengthening the integrity of the EC, not against it. 2016 showed the worst discipline among the EC for voting for the candidate of choice by a wide margin. 9-0 is a pretty strong ruling IMO to maintaining the institution and its integrity. But hey, that doesn't generate clicks. DC and PR statehood would help make the senate more representative of the people of the nation. This country has progressed through the years in spite of the regressive nature of the senates makeup
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 12 hours ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said: did it define gerrymandering? and before someone goes off by both sides Don was and may still be against it. the 9-0 vote is indicative of a need for it to be addressed. When the borders are moved to sway votes then the system is being cheated. Do you think gerrymandering has some relation to the electoral votes per state? Gerrymandering is useful for house seats only, and each state handles it there own way. This case has literally nothing to do with gerrymandering. 28 minutes ago, TH3 said: The EC will likely be under greater and greater pressure. Sure it’s in the constitution.....but.... in 2000 and 2016... the candidate who won the popular vote was not put in office. I would think this is unsustainable no matter what party does what. That being said...the GOP is going to have a tougher and tougher time winning the popular vote moving forward.....They continue to rely more and more on Bellicheckian tactics to win....and if POTUS elections continue to put the candidate in office who did not win the popular vote....can’t see that holding up. Then change the constitution- what is wrong with you people who are so proud of being ignorant of the constitution? The reason for the EC was laid out to ensure that we had a president for the whole country not just one section who could overwhelm the ballot box. Reading this thread is depressing because people on here care enough to comment but not enough to be informed. 3 4
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted July 8, 2020 Author Posted July 8, 2020 3 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said: Do you think gerrymandering has some relation to the electoral votes per state? Gerrymandering is useful for house seats only, and each state handles it there own way. This case has literally nothing to do with gerrymandering. ger·ry·man·der gerund or present participle: gerrymandering manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class. achieve (a result) by manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency. It is a practice intended to establish an unfair political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries, which is most commonly used in first-past-the-post electoral systems. An explanation of gerrymandering v https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/01/this-is-the-best-explanation-of-gerrymandering-you-will-ever-see/ Similar WRT the Presidential elections v https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/29/how-the-electoral-college-gerrymanders-the-presidential-vote/
TH3 Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said: Do you think gerrymandering has some relation to the electoral votes per state? Gerrymandering is useful for house seats only, and each state handles it there own way. This case has literally nothing to do with gerrymandering. Then change the constitution- what is wrong with you people who are so proud of being ignorant of the constitution? The reason for the EC was laid out to ensure that we had a president for the whole country not just one section who could overwhelm the ballot box. Reading this thread is depressing because people on here care enough to comment but not enough to be informed. To clarify .... If POTUS elections continue to put in office candidates who do not also win popular vote....there will be pressure to amend the constitution... can you grasp that? Edited July 8, 2020 by TH3
Cinga Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 8 minutes ago, TH3 said: To clarify .... If POTUS elections continue to put in office candidates who do not also win popular vote....there will be pressure to amend the constitution... can you grasp that? Good luck... The EC is one of the brilliant ideas our Founders had that assures we remain a Republic so I hope you realize it would have to amend Article 2, Section 1 but also Article 4 Section 4, and the 12th Amendment. Highly doubtful anything would pass re-writing so much of our founding document. 2
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 4 hours ago, TH3 said: The EC will likely be under greater and greater pressure. Sure it’s in the constitution.....but.... in 2000 and 2016... the candidate who won the popular vote was not put in office. I would think this is unsustainable no matter what party does what. That being said...the GOP is going to have a tougher and tougher time winning the popular vote moving forward.....They continue to rely more and more on Bellicheckian tactics to win....and if POTUS elections continue to put the candidate in office who did not win the popular vote....can’t see that holding up. Requires a Constitutional Amendment. That Amendment would require the states whom the EC protects to vote to give up those protections. The popular vote is not supposed to yield the winner by design. This is a feature, not a flaw. It’s why we have the EC rather than a popular vote by construction. Now, if you don’t mind, please explain why the citizens of the states the EC protects would vote to give up those protections? Or are you not familiar with how the Amendment process works? 3
dubs Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 This is precisely why the communists want to pack the court with other communists. So they can rule the constitution is unconstitutional. 2 1
Cinga Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 13 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Requires a Constitutional Amendment. That Amendment would require the states whom the EC protects to vote to give up those protections. The popular vote is not supposed to yield the winner by design. This is a feature, not a flaw. It’s why we have the EC rather than a popular vote by construction. Now, if you don’t mind, please explain why the citizens of the states the EC protects would vote to give up those protections? Or are you not familiar with how the Amendment process works? And maybe while we're on this discussion of changing the Constitution, lets repeal the 17th Amendment while were at it. A part of the Republican Form of Government, the Senate was supposed to be selected by state legislatures, not the popular vote. With Republicans now holding majorities in 30 state legislatures, it would give the Republicans a 60 seat super majority. To the Marxists here, see how this game CAN be played? 4 3
IDBillzFan Posted July 8, 2020 Posted July 8, 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Requires a Constitutional Amendment. That Amendment would require the states whom the EC protects to vote to give up those protections. The popular vote is not supposed to yield the winner by design. This is a feature, not a flaw. It’s why we have the EC rather than a popular vote by construction. Now, if you don’t mind, please explain why the citizens of the states the EC protects would vote to give up those protections? Or are you not familiar with how the Amendment process works? What's funny to me is that his own logic is so flawed. He insists that if the EC format keeps providing a POTUS who didn't win the popular vote, that people simply won't put up with it. But who, exactly, would those angry people be? The people who contributed to the popular vote. So, basically, everyone in NY and CA. The rest of the country won't give a schitt and will only see more clearly the coastal elites for who they are. More to the point: nationwide, Clinton got almost 3M more votes than Trump. Yet she beat him by more than 4M votes in CA and almost 2M votes in NY. Leftists will simply never be able to understand how little the US would want those two states determining POTUS every four years. They simply ain't that smart. Edited July 8, 2020 by IDBillzFan 6 1 1
Recommended Posts