SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Once again when Democrats can't win they change the rules.Colorado governor will sign bill aimed at bypassing Electoral College
Page 1 2 3 4 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Once again when Democrats can't win they change the rules.Colorado governor will sign bill aimed at bypassing Electoral College Login/Join 
Ammoholic
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
Have you actually seen and interacted with 16 year olds recently?


Yes. Some of them are quite capable, rational, and responsible. Conservative 2A supporters even. Sadly, some them are not. Kinda like the so called adults one runs into.
 
Posts: 6872 | Location: Lost, but making time. | Registered: February 23, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Rick Lee
posted Hide Post
The problems start when this stuff goes unchallenged until it really matters, the day after a razor-thin presidential election, when one or two states can make all the difference. And we know, when this kind of thing happens and the Republican candidate is ahead, the Dems always, always erase that lead with recounts. It was bad enough when it was just Norm Coleman vs. Al Franken or Martha McSally vs. Kyrsten Sinema. When it's Trump and Kamala Harris or Joe Biden, the stakes will be very high and the shenanigans will go to a new level of ridiculous. I'd like to avoid that.
 
Posts: 3492 | Location: Cave Creek, AZ | Registered: October 24, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Muzzle flash
aficionado
Picture of flashguy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
It's un-Constitutional.
Para, I agree that it should be, but I don't think it is. The Constitution clearly gives full control of how Electors are chosen and vote to the states and makes no limitations on how it is done. New Jersey is considering a law that removes the President from their ballots entirely, and this might also be considered Constitutional if they choose the "overall popular vote" method for their Electors--one could argue that NJ voters would not have an effect on the popular vote (which might be a good idea), however.

The whole idea of the Electoral College was two-fold: first, back then a popular vote for President was very impractical because no candidate would be able to successfully become well enough known throughout the country to conclusively win an election; second, by adding the 2 Senate positions to the Elector count, the smaller states were give a slight edge against their larger counterparts, thus neutralizing to some extent the "tyranny of the majority". Electors were chosen by their states to be honest (supposedly) and educated persons who would make a considered decision on who to elect. The "winner take all" policy that most states eventually adopted based on voting in that state was a later phenomenon--the chief advantage of that method was that choice of President was virtually guaranteed to be conclusive.

Some states have now adopted a "proportional" method of assigning their Electors--their votes conform to how each Congressional district voted, with the Senate votes going to the overall winner. This method does approach giving the choice directly to the people while still preserving the slight advantage of the small states. If every state adopted this method, though, given the current makeup of the voting public we'd have a lot of very close Presidential elections.

flashguy




Texan by choice, not accident of birth
 
Posts: 27902 | Location: Dallas, TX | Registered: May 08, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Now in Florida
Picture of ChicagoSigMan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by flashguy:
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
It's un-Constitutional.
Para, I agree that it should be, but I don't think it is. The Constitution clearly gives full control of how Electors are chosen and vote to the states and makes no limitations on how it is done. New Jersey is considering a law that removes the President from their ballots entirely, and this might also be considered Constitutional if they choose the "overall popular vote" method for their Electors--one could argue that NJ voters would not have an effect on the popular vote (which might be a good idea), however.

The whole idea of the Electoral College was two-fold: first, back then a popular vote for President was very impractical because no candidate would be able to successfully become well enough known throughout the country to conclusively win an election; second, by adding the 2 Senate positions to the Elector count, the smaller states were give a slight edge against their larger counterparts, thus neutralizing to some extent the "tyranny of the majority". Electors were chosen by their states to be honest (supposedly) and educated persons who would make a considered decision on who to elect. The "winner take all" policy that most states eventually adopted based on voting in that state was a later phenomenon--the chief advantage of that method was that choice of President was virtually guaranteed to be conclusive.

Some states have now adopted a "proportional" method of assigning their Electors--their votes conform to how each Congressional district voted, with the Senate votes going to the overall winner. This method does approach giving the choice directly to the people while still preserving the slight advantage of the small states. If every state adopted this method, though, given the current makeup of the voting public we'd have a lot of very close Presidential elections.

flashguy


So you think that the Constitution gives the states the ability to (1) essentially amend the Constitution with out going through the amendment process and (2) fundamentally change the structure of the country from republic to direct democracy? I don't think that's gonna fly.
 
Posts: 6061 | Location: FL | Registered: March 09, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Cogito Ergo Sum
posted Hide Post
Once all this passes, I can hardly wait for a Republican to win the popular vote but would have lost the electoral college.
 
Posts: 5691 | Registered: August 01, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Armed and Gregarious
Picture of DMF
posted Hide Post
Some people who think this is a good idea are unfamiliar with the following concept:

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

So far only one party has benefited from their candidate winning in the electoral college, despite another party's candidate winning a majority of the popular vote.

With popular vote margins being so close in all of the recent election, it is foolish for many of those who support this concept, to think this strategy will guarantee a particular outcome.


___________________________________________
"He was never hindered by any dogma, except the Constitution." - Ty Ross speaking of his grandfather General Barry Goldwater

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - William Tecumseh Sherman
 
Posts: 12591 | Location: Nomad | Registered: January 10, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Muzzle flash
aficionado
Picture of flashguy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
quote:
Originally posted by flashguy:
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
It's un-Constitutional.
Para, I agree that it should be, but I don't think it is. The Constitution clearly gives full control of how Electors are chosen and vote to the states and makes no limitations on how it is done. New Jersey is considering a law that removes the President from their ballots entirely, and this might also be considered Constitutional if they choose the "overall popular vote" method for their Electors--one could argue that NJ voters would not have an effect on the popular vote (which might be a good idea), however.

The whole idea of the Electoral College was two-fold: first, back then a popular vote for President was very impractical because no candidate would be able to successfully become well enough known throughout the country to conclusively win an election; second, by adding the 2 Senate positions to the Elector count, the smaller states were give a slight edge against their larger counterparts, thus neutralizing to some extent the "tyranny of the majority". Electors were chosen by their states to be honest (supposedly) and educated persons who would make a considered decision on who to elect. The "winner take all" policy that most states eventually adopted based on voting in that state was a later phenomenon--the chief advantage of that method was that choice of President was virtually guaranteed to be conclusive.

Some states have now adopted a "proportional" method of assigning their Electors--their votes conform to how each Congressional district voted, with the Senate votes going to the overall winner. This method does approach giving the choice directly to the people while still preserving the slight advantage of the small states. If every state adopted this method, though, given the current makeup of the voting public we'd have a lot of very close Presidential elections.

flashguy


So you think that the Constitution gives the states the ability to (1) essentially amend the Constitution with out going through the amendment process and (2) fundamentally change the structure of the country from republic to direct democracy? I don't think that's gonna fly.
No, I think the Constitution does not specify how Electors must be chosen at all. Like some other things, that is an omission that may be critical (like not defining "natural born"). If the Constitution sets no procedures or limits on the process, anything done is "Constitutional".

flashguy




Texan by choice, not accident of birth
 
Posts: 27902 | Location: Dallas, TX | Registered: May 08, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Eric Holder calls for an end to the electoral college: 'It's undemocratic'

https://www.washingtontimes.co...ferrer=recirculation

Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who is considering a 2020 presidential bid, called Tuesday to abolish the electoral college, saying it’s a “vestige of the past.”

“It’s undemocratic, forces candidates to ignore majority of the voters and campaign in a small number of states. The presidency is our one national office and should be decided - directly - by the voters,” Mr. Holder said on Twitter.

The potential Democratic presidential candidate issued the tweet while linking to an article from The Washington Post that notes nearly a dozen traditionally blue states have passed legislation to circumvent the electoral college.

The push comes after President Trump won in 2016 by 77 electoral college votes, but lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by more than 2.8 million.

Mr. Holder has said he’ll decide whether to seek the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination sometime in March.


_________________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."
Mark Twain
 
Posts: 12575 | Registered: January 17, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Rick Lee
posted Hide Post
While Holder is a d-bag who belongs in prison, he's not exactly wrong here. The EC does force candidates to ignore large population centers. Not that there's anything wrong with that. And it's not a candidate's fault that a ginormous state like CA is winner-takes-all, is solid blue and would thus be a waste of time for a GOP candidate to campaign in.

Anyway, I don't think Holder is gonna sway any states toward trying to abolish the EC.
 
Posts: 3492 | Location: Cave Creek, AZ | Registered: October 24, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
"It's undemocratic"

I think there would be a strong Constitutional argument that the measure would be overturned under some "changing the structure of government" argument. The EC is "undemocratic", because it is SUPPOSED TO BE UNDEMOCRATIC. It is part of the "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" system. I think this has to be nipped in the bud or we really will be under the rule of LA and NYC.


"Crom is strong! If I die, I have to go before him, and he will ask me, 'What is the riddle of steel?' If I don't know it, he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me."
 
Posts: 6641 | Registered: September 10, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie
Picture of Balzé Halzé
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by wcb6092:
Eric Holder calls for an end to the electoral college: 'It's undemocratic'



That's the point, ya' dickhead.


~Alan

Acta Non Verba
NRA Life Member (Patron)
God, Family, Guns, Country

Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else. ~Andrew Klavan

"Once there was only dark. If you ask me, light is winning." ~Rust Cohle
 
Posts: 30297 | Location: Elv. 7,000 feet, Utah | Registered: October 29, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Veeper:
quote:
Originally posted by divil:
Not intended to offend right leaning CO forum members but WTF happened to CO? Why is this state turning into a blue cesspool (electorically speaking)?


The same thing that happens everywhere, and is bound to happen everywhere. People invested in ruling over you and your means of production have nothing but time to make this happen, and can spend all day screaming at the politicians and scamming elections. Liberty-minded people generally have little time to squander on these issues, usually pull the eject lever on local politics, and generally speaking, aren't having as many children as they used to be.

You either breed or convert liberty-minded people. That's just not happening anymore.


We have been gaining 75-100k people per year to CO for a few decades. I think if I recall correctly, we've added close to 1.5M people in just my time here. That's a big influx of folks for a state with a total population less than 6M people.
 
Posts: 5691 | Registered: October 11, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of fpuhan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
It's un-Constitutional.


Exactly.

The 12th Amendment (Ratified 6/15/1804) of the U.S. Constitution (which altered the original wording of Article 2, Section 1) specifies the manner in which the president and vice president are elected to office. NOT BY POPULAR VOTE. No way, no how.




You can't truly call yourself "peaceful" unless you are capable of great violence. If you're not capable of great violence, you're not peaceful, you're harmless.

NRA Benefactor/Patriot Member
 
Posts: 2857 | Location: Peoples Republic of North Virginia | Registered: December 04, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by esdunbar:
My view of these types of things has changed. Anymore, anything that speeds up the inevitable split of our country is a good thing imo. Let’s just hurry up so those states who are self suffcient can leave the rest behind. I sincerely hope liberals get their socialistic eutopia. I’ll go with the sane states who still believe in personal reaponsivirly and freedom.


I hate to think this way, but I agree with you. It’s time - rid our country of the commie scum.
 
Posts: 3953 | Location: UNK | Registered: October 04, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Big Stack
posted Hide Post
The 12th amendment specifies the process for how the electors enter the electoral college votes. It say NOTHING about how electors are selected. That's the key issue.

Currently they're selected in a state based on how the popular vote in that state turn out. But that is up to the state. There is NOTHING in the US Constitution that specifies ANYTHING about how electors are selection. It is COMPLETELY up to the legislature in a particular state.

quote:
Originally posted by fpuhan:
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
It's un-Constitutional.


Exactly.

The 12th Amendment (Ratified 6/15/1804) of the U.S. Constitution (which altered the original wording of Article 2, Section 1) specifies the manner in which the president and vice president are elected to office. NOT BY POPULAR VOTE. No way, no how.
 
Posts: 21240 | Registered: November 05, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by wcb6092:
Eric Holder calls for an end to the electoral college: 'It's undemocratic'

The EC's entire intent was to make sure rural states votes were not overwhelmed by the large population centers (urban states: NY, PA, MA, SC) as was seen in Europe at the time with its multitude of largely city-states. Rather ironic that a person like Holder, given his minority background, would have a clear understanding of representative-democracy and the need to not suppress/overwhelm smaller groups.
 
Posts: 14571 | Location: Wine Country | Registered: September 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
wishing we
were congress
posted Hide Post
So by 8 pm ET on election night, the western states such as California, Oregon, Washington, etc would know how many votes they needed to win the national election for the DEMs

recipe for corruption
 
Posts: 19502 | Registered: July 21, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Irksome Whirling Dervish
Picture of Flashlightboy
posted Hide Post
The states are free to choose how their electors vote and the Constitution doesn't prohibit that but where they will likely run into problems is in the execution which has the direct effect of voiding the EC to the point that it makes it irrelevant and a state may not override the Constitutional language or intent.

I'm fairly certain this will require a unanimous SC opinion to stop these states. It won't be 5-4, 6-3 or anything besides unanimous like we saw last week with civil forfeitures. You can't leave wiggle room on this.

Very likely constutional by the states but likely voided by The Supremes.
 
Posts: 4069 | Location: "You can't just go to Walmart with a gift card and get a new brother." Janice Serrano | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of sourdough44
posted Hide Post
The populous States(NY,CA,TX etc..) still have strong electoral numbers on their side. The Dems are just trying to stack the deck in their favor, just in case.

Small States(SD,WY,ND) have low numbers, but collectively they ‘usually’ can’t be ignored. The electoral college is an ingenious system, but forces are always at play to change the rules.
 
Posts: 6129 | Location: WI | Registered: February 29, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Muzzle flash
aficionado
Picture of flashguy
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by fpuhan:
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
It's un-Constitutional.


Exactly.

The 12th Amendment (Ratified 6/15/1804) of the U.S. Constitution (which altered the original wording of Article 2, Section 1) specifies the manner in which the president and vice president are elected to office. NOT BY POPULAR VOTE. No way, no how.
I just read your link and I don't see anything in the 12th Amendment that would preclude the actions promoted by the rule to give all Electoral votes to the popular vote winner. The days when each Elector made an individual decision about whom to vote for are pretty much over--nowadays Electors are chosen to vote a specific way, and the states control those choices.

flashguy




Texan by choice, not accident of birth
 
Posts: 27902 | Location: Dallas, TX | Registered: May 08, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Once again when Democrats can't win they change the rules.Colorado governor will sign bill aimed at bypassing Electoral College

© SIGforum 2024