• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Georgia has opened (ETA: criminal) investigation into Trump's election meddling and 'find me votes'

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
12,100
8,349
✟403,219.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Why can't Georgia split EVs proportionately between candidates?
Because Georgia, like all but 2 states, has as state law that all electoral votes be assigned to the person with the most votes in the state. Elections would look very different imo if EVs were split proportionately.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: wing2000
Upvote 0

OldAbramBrown

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2023
857
149
70
England
✟31,618.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
... Ruby Freeman and her crew in Atlanta ...
If some people were only pretending to be "electors" or, much the same, been tricked into acting or appearing to act as "electors", have the real electors come forward yet and if not why not?

In 1946 a pope commended the whole world to the U.S. system. Why do Americans claim the rest of the world shouldn't be worried?
 
Upvote 0

OldAbramBrown

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2023
857
149
70
England
✟31,618.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
... Georgia ... has a state law that all electoral votes be assigned to the person with the most votes in the state ...
1 - Why doesn't Georgia's law get declared unconstitutional?
2 - How do voters (which seems to be something different from "electors") feel about their verdict being distorted? Why not let a close run thing appear as a close run thing?
 
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
12,100
8,349
✟403,219.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
1 - Why doesn't Georgia's law get declared unconstitutional?
Because the states have absolute authority on how they appoint electors.
2 - How do voters (which seems to be something different from "electors") feel about their verdict being distorted? Why not let a close run thing appear as a close run thing?
No idea. That's just the way the system has developed.
 
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
12,100
8,349
✟403,219.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Apart from what I've pointed out, why are there "electors"?
The founder's didn't trust the people to choose the chief executive. They were afraid that a strong regional movement could result in the election of a corrupt demagogue. So they came up with the electoral college. Each state was given a number of electors equal to their congressional delegation. Since it's one body unlike Congress, this tended to benefit larger states actually. And the electors were forbidden from holding any other political office. They were envisioned as mostly being a bunch of elder statesmen. This elite, discerning body, was meant to ensure that the best man was chosen for the job, and the nature of the college required a broad geographical support.

It no longer serves, if it ever did, the function it was meant to. But getting rid of it requires a constitutional amendment, which is almost impossible.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Paulos23
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,424
7,159
73
St. Louis, MO.
✟415,046.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Why can't Georgia split EVs proportionately between candidates?

States can split their EVs. Maine and Nebraska already do. It would just require both houses of the state legislature to pass a law to that effect and the governor to sign it.

 
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
10,611
10,357
the Great Basin
✟400,582.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Apart from what I've pointed out, why are there "electors"?
The founder's didn't trust the people to choose the chief executive. They were afraid that a strong regional movement could result in the election of a corrupt demagogue. So they came up with the electoral college. Each state was given a number of electors equal to their congressional delegation. Since it's one body unlike Congress, this tended to benefit larger states actually. And the electors were forbidden from holding any other political office. They were envisioned as mostly being a bunch of elder statesmen. This elite, discerning body, was meant to ensure that the best man was chosen for the job, and the nature of the college required a broad geographical support.

It no longer serves, if it ever did, the function it was meant to. But getting rid of it requires a constitutional amendment, which is almost impossible.
It is also because of the 3/5ths compromise. Because Black slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person but couldn't vote, they also needed a way to inflate the vote count of states with slaves. The Electoral College was devised so that every vote would get 1 vote for president for each Senator (of which every state has two) and for each representative (with the number determined by the state's population). So the Electoral College granted a way to "adjust" the Presidential vote to account for the number of Black slaves so the Southern states ended up with roughly equal power in Presidential elections to the Northern states.

One last reason, and a bit different from what was stated above, it gave a bit more power to the smaller states -- since they got their two senators, the same number as all other states had -- combined with their number of Representatives; thus every state, no matter how small the population, gets at least 3 votes for President.
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,424
7,159
73
St. Louis, MO.
✟415,046.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I strongly doubt either party would like it if a state's EVs are split between candidates. Democrats would never want California's, or New York's, or Illinois's EVs split. Republicans would feel the same if Texas', Florida's, or Ohio's EVs were divided up. But the fact remains that the EC is an obsolete relic of 18th century thinking, and is totally unfit for the modern world. It makes geography, i.e., states, more important that people. And the idiotic winner-take-all arrangement in effect disenfranchises all those who voted for the candidate(s) winning fewer popular votes.

The EC cannot be salvaged. I'm going a bit off-topic--but not only should the President be elected by direct popular vote, but the candidates running in the November election should also be chosen by the voters in a nationwide presidential primary. Political parties can nominate someone, but the final decision on who runs is up to the voters. I'm sure none of this will occur in my lifetime. But I predict that before this century has ended, the Constitution will be amended. The EC will go the way of the Articles of Confederation. And good riddance.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Aug 3, 2012
29,433
29,117
Baltimore
✟753,456.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I strongly doubt either party would like it if a state's EVs are split between candidates. Democrats would never want California's, or New York's, or Illinois's EVs split. Republicans would feel the same if Texas', Florida's, or Ohio's EVs were divided up. But the fact remains that the EC is an obsolete relic of 18th century thinking, and is totally unfit for the modern world. It makes geography, i.e., states, more important that people. And the idiotic winner-take-all arrangement in effect disenfranchises all those who voted for the candidate(s) winning fewer popular votes.

The EC cannot be salvaged. I'm going a bit off-topic--but not only should the President be elected by direct popular vote, but the candidates running in the November election should also be chosen by the voters in a nationwide presidential primary. Political parties can nominate someone, but the final decision on who runs is up to the voters. I'm sure none of this will occur in my lifetime. But I predict that before this century has ended, the Constitution will be amended. The EC will go the way of the Articles of Confederation. And good riddance.
It's so dumb. I can appreciate the desire to not want big urban areas dominating the political discourse, but the amount of pandering directed towards Iowa and New Hampshire is objectively worse. At least when you're pandering to big cities, you're pandering to a lot of people, not corn fields and mountains. A nationwide, ranked choice popular vote would make everybody happier, except for some of the entrenched partisan interests.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
41,876
44,988
Los Angeles Area
✟1,002,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
(Adjacent to the EC discussion, there is no reason why party primaries have to use the same system (and many don't). This cycle, many states have changed the rules in various ways, including possibly awarding delegates all or nothing (more like the EC). This is widely perceived as benefitting Trump, since he's all but guaranteed to be #1 for the forseeable future.)

Trump gains advantage as states set delegate selection rules

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory [in late July] when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.

“We are pleased the California Republican Party readopted a winner-take-all provision [as long as #1 gets 50%+1], and we look forward to competing across California to win all of its delegates, just as President Trump did in 2016 and 2020. Always Back Down and Ron DeSantis suffered a humiliating defeat as they tried to manipulate the party rules,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung, intentionally misnaming the DeSantis super PAC, said in a statement.
 
Upvote 0

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,424
7,159
73
St. Louis, MO.
✟415,046.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It's so dumb. I can appreciate the desire to not want big urban areas dominating the political discourse, but the amount of pandering directed towards Iowa and New Hampshire is objectively worse. At least when you're pandering to big cities, you're pandering to a lot of people, not corn fields and mountains. A nationwide, ranked choice popular vote would make everybody happier, except for some of the entrenched partisan interests.
Agree. Why would rural voters deserve a handicap? It's grossly unfair to think that your vote should have more weight because you live in
a less populated area. This is lunacy on steroids. Everyone's vote must count exactly the same. Geography/politics/religion/philosophy should make no difference whatsoever.
 
Upvote 0

OldAbramBrown

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2023
857
149
70
England
✟31,618.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
.. candidates running in the November election should also be chosen by the voters in a nationwide presidential primary. Political parties can nominate someone, but the final decision on who runs is up to the voters ...
Your plan will entrench the only two permitted parties / candidates which is what the problem is already surely. Primaries are a bad idea. Party officials should carry the can.
 
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
12,100
8,349
✟403,219.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
And if the individuals in the spotlight were knowingly posing as electors or had been somehow duped into unknowingly doing so, have the real electors come forward yet and if not why not?
Yes, when they voted for President in Dec of 2020.
 
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
12,100
8,349
✟403,219.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
How far in advance of an election are electors appointed? Or is it after the election?
After the election. I think there are nuances for each state, but generally speaking each candidate puts forth a slate of electors and after the election the state appoints those electors who then make the formal vote for President.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 29, 2005
34,371
11,479
✟206,635.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Private
Ah that "sort of" "partly" "explains" it. Sounds like the sort of thing the characters in (the excellent) Mark Twain would invent!

The internet has all kinds on information.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

On August Recess
Mar 11, 2017
21,646
16,342
55
USA
✟410,968.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
After the election. I think there are nuances for each state, but generally speaking each candidate puts forth a slate of electors and after the election the state appoints those electors who then make the formal vote for President.

If you read the link @JustOneWay posted in #239, the electors are appointed no later than the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November (election day). Each candidate has a pre-prepared list of electors that will be appointed if they win that the state receives some point before election day. (In a few states, the electors are actually listed on the ballot next to the candidate's name, or at least have been.)
 
Upvote 0