Supreme Court rules states can force electors to abide by popular vote to

public hermit · Jul 6, 2020

Electoral College voters can be forced to abide by state popular vote, Supreme Court says

dogs4thewin · Jul 6, 2020

public hermit said:
Electoral College voters can be forced to abide by state popular vote, Supreme Court says

makes sense.

Fantine · Jul 6, 2020

A unanimous 9-0 vote.

dogs4thewin · Jul 6, 2020

Fantine said:
A unanimous 9-0 vote.

Very rare

Citizen of the Kingdom · Jul 6, 2020

Welcome to Laodocia.

public hermit · Jul 6, 2020

~Cassia~ said:
Welcome to Laodocia.

Are you referring to Revelation 3:14-22? If so, I don't see the relevance. Would you care to expound on your assertion?

Citizen of the Kingdom · Jul 6, 2020

public hermit said:
Are you referring to Revelation 3:14-22? If so, I don't see the relevance. Would you care to expound on your assertion?

Laodocia means the opinion of the masses.

public hermit · Jul 6, 2020

~Cassia~ said:
Laodocia means the opinion of the masses.

I didn't know that. Thank you.

Aryeh Jay · Jul 6, 2020

What is truly amazing is that it took 232 years for the ruling, and months before an election as well. Something must have happened that has shaken our very foundation of democracy and decency in our country. 208 times it has happened since 1796 and nothing is done about it until 4 months before the 2020 election. It really makes you wonder how scared Bunker Boy is.

cow451 · Jul 6, 2020

Now that we don't actually need to elect electors, we can save time and money. Now it can officially be a point system, just like a video game.

Dave G. · Jul 6, 2020

The losing side always wants this. Now if republicans start winning by popular vote the dems will want the electoral college back. Always, that's how it works. They do whatever it takes to win so they can push their agenda forward. Always. Either side by the way. What this means is huge cities with big populations win the elections. Simple as that. And that means slowly policies have everything to do with big cities and small towns might just as well go suck canal water for their needs.

cow451 · Jul 6, 2020

Dave G. said:
The losing side always wants this. Now if republicans start winning by popular vote the dems will want the electoral college back. Always, that's how it works. They do whatever it takes to win so they can push their agenda forward. Always. Either side by the way. What this means is huge cities with big populations win the elections. Simple as that. And that means slowly policies have everything to do with big cities and small towns might just as well go suck canal water for their needs.

When have small towns ever had anything but canal water?

Albion · Jul 6, 2020

Dave G. said:
The losing side always wants this. Now if republicans start winning by popular vote the dems will want the electoral college back.

I don't believe that this Supreme Court ruling deals with any replacement of the Electoral College with some other system (such as a direct popular vote).

Dave G. · Jul 6, 2020

cow451 said:
When have small towns ever had anything but canal water?

Dave G. · Jul 6, 2020

Albion said:
I don't believe that this Supreme Court ruling deals with any replacement of the Electoral College with some other system (such as a direct popular vote).

I don't know yet, would need to hear more about it. I do know it's a common plea with losers to want popular vote till the shoe is on the other foot though. We hear the cry every time they lose .

Albion · Jul 6, 2020

Dave G. said:
I don't know yet, would need to hear more about it. I do know it's a common plea with losers to want popular vote till the shoe is on the other foot though. We hear the cry every time they lose .

That may be so, but this ruling concerns what are called "faithless electors" in the Electoral College, electors who vote for someone other than the winner of the popular vote in their own state.

There often are one or two of them, but in 2016 there were more, and there was a question raised as to whether such people had the right to do that in defiance of the people who had voted for either Hillary or Trump.

JustSomeBloke · Jul 6, 2020

Candidates and their analytical teams naturally tailor their campaigning, areas of expenditure, and geographical areas to target, so as to win with the democratic system that is in place at the time of the election.

That is why the complaint that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 is so meaningless. If the democratic system had been different in 2016, the campaigning, areas of expenditure, and geographical areas to target would have been different. Bearing that in mind, there is absolutely no guarantee that Hillary Clinton would have won if the democratic system was based on the popular vote.

Similarly, any perceived advantages or disadvantages of this change will quite possibly be absorbed by changes in campaigning strategy and tactics.

Sparagmos · Jul 6, 2020

~Cassia~ said:
Laodocia means the opinion of the masses.

Otherwise known as democracy...

Sophrosyne · Jul 6, 2020

I see absolutely no problem with this ruling as the states themselves are the ones choosing how to represent them in the electoral college if the majority is represented properly and the states rules support that then it isn't the electoral college or federal governments business at all. The only problem occurs if states laws require electors to vote a certain way. If states allow the electors personal choice then that is their business. If the electors vote wrong the state needs to make laws prohibiting them from doing so. This may cost one side or another the election if they depend on people "rebelling" against the voters. The fact that some states is "winner take all" vs I think a few divvy electors up based upon percentages and/or districts etc per elector either side can cry fowl.
I often wonder how an election would go if no state did the "winner take all" on electors then it would more closely follow overall popular vote and states that are swing states would have little say in things no promises made to them either they could literally be ignored and maybe we wouldn't have boozaline (gasahol) at all in stations being subsidized as candidates wouldn't care much for states that make a lot of it now for their vote in the college.

Albion · Jul 6, 2020

Sophrosyne said:
The fact that some states is "winner take all" vs I think a few divvy electors up based upon percentages and/or districts etc per elector either side can cry fowl.

No state's Electoral College vote is cast on the basis of percentages.

And only two states vote by Congressional District.

I often wonder how an election would go if no state did the "winner take all" on electors then it would more closely follow overall popular vote and states that are swing states would have little say in things....

That is true. If you are referring to each state apportioning its Electoral College votes according to the percentage of the popular vote received IN THE STATE, those states that are expected to split nearly evenly (like New Hampshire, Michigan, and Wisconsin did in 2016) would likely play almost no part in either the campaigning or in the final result.

Supreme Court rules states can force electors to abide by popular vote to

social troglodyte

dog lover

Dona Quixote

dog lover

Well-Known Member

social troglodyte

Well-Known Member

social troglodyte

Gone and hopefully forgotten.

Standing with Ukraine.

Well-Known Member

Standing with Ukraine.

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Unacceptable Fringe Minority

Well-Known Member

Let Your Light Shine.. Matt 5:16

Facilitator

Similar threads