Rep Andy Harris (R-MD) says it "makes a lot of sense" for North Carolina legislature to award its electoral votes to Trump without vote, due to Helene

essentialsaltes said:

The chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus says the North Carolina Legislature should consider allocating the state’s presidential electors to Donald Trump even before votes are counted in the swing state.

Potential difficulties with voting in the hurricane-damaged area would be a basis for the state Legislature to declare in advance that Trump should win the state’s 16 electoral votes, Harris said at a Republican Party dinner in Maryland’s Talbot County.

“You statistically can go and say, ‘Look, you got disenfranchised in 25 counties. You know what that vote probably would have been,’” Harris said during an exchange with a speaker at the dinner. “Which would be — if I were in the Legislature — enough to go, ‘Yeah, we have to convene the Legislature. We can’t disenfranchise the voters.’”

Harris’ comments were in response to a keynote speech by Ivan Raiklin, a pro-Trump activist who has long embraced a radical strategy of state legislatures guaranteeing Trump’s reelection if they deem the 2024 election tainted by fraud and corruption.

Under the Constitution, state legislatures have the power to choose how to allocate their votes in the Electoral College. All 50 states assign their electors based on the popular vote of their citizens.

Click to expand...

If only the US voted by popular vote as more than half of all democracies do on this world, we would not have these issues. Time to ditch the electoral college at this point.

From Pew: "In more than half (65) of the world’s 125 democracies [in 2016], the head of state – nearly always called a president – is directly elected by voters."

Source:

N Carolina had the opportunity yo extend the voter registrati9n deadline and refused.

Now someone says they should pull this bologna?

Enough time has elapsed so that anyone who wants to vote can.

If there are one or two tiny towns let them set up a mobile office going from town to town and fill out voting forms for their district by hand.

AlexB23 said:

If only the US voted by popular vote as more than half of all democracies do on this world, we would not have these issues. Time to ditch the electoral college at this point.

From Pew: "In more than half (65) of the world’s 125 democracies [in 2016], the head of state – nearly always called a president – is directly elected by voters."

Source:

Among democracies, U.S. stands out in how it chooses its head of state

No other democratic nation fills its top job quite the way the U.S. does, and only a handful are even similar.

www.pewresearch.org

Click to expand...

Great idea, let's let NYC, LA, Miami, and Dallas decide who the president is and completely ignore the interests of rural voters.

Fervent said:

Great idea, let's let NYC, LA, Miami, and Dallas decide who the president is and completely ignore the interests of rural voters.

Click to expand...

Cities dont vote. We The People are the citizens and vote.

Or we could take every minority interest and "power up" their vote so theyre on par with the majority. Black people get x2.25 factor. Gay people get x9.9 factor. Or whatever parity demands.

Fervent said:

Great idea, let's let NYC, LA, Miami, and Dallas decide who the president is and completely ignore the interests of rural voters.

Click to expand...

Rural voters are ignored either way. Yes, it isn't NYC, LA or Dallas (though arguably Miami did decide the 2020 election), it is instead Atlanta, Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Detroit, Madison, Las Vegas and Milwaukee deciding the elections. The Electoral College does not protect small states or rural areas, it merely gives power to "purple" states.

Additionally, a direct vote does not give power to large cities, it instead gives power to the minority in some of these states. currently if you live in NYC or LA as a Republican, your Presidential vote is meaningless. In a direct vote, suddenly those Republican votes in those cities count, as would votes for a Democrat in Dallas -- and those votes count exactly the same as a vote in a rural area. And there is no system where less that 20% of eligible voters (save for maybe Communism) has there interests become equally represented in a national vote.

durangodawood said:

Cities dont vote. We The People are the citizens and vote.

Click to expand...

Semantics...the issue is that if we go straight popular vote, the federal government will cater more to the interests of urban populations even more than they already do. The electoral college was created to prevent metropolitan concerns from having near exclusive say in federal matters, and the concern still stands.

durangodawood said:

Or we could take every minority interest and "power up" their vote so theyre on par with the majority. Black people get x2.25 factor. Gay people get x9.9 factor. Or whatever parity demands.

Click to expand...

No one says anything about being on par with the majority, simply making sure that the interests and concerns of low population areas are heard and the country doesn't become a tyranny of the majority. There may be ways to improve the electoral college system, but it serves an important function in public polity.

The biggest ripoff is the electoral college.
North Carolina had a month to figure out how to make sure the people near Asheville could vote by mail or a mobile voting site.

SimplyMe said:

Rural voters are ignored either way. Yes, it isn't NYC, LA or Dallas (though arguably Miami did decide the 2020 election), it is instead Atlanta, Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Detroit, Madison, Las Vegas and Milwaukee deciding the elections. The Electoral College does not protect small states or rural areas, it merely gives power to "purple" states.

Click to expand...

To an extent, especially with winner take all policies, but it still helps ensure that the interests of the middle of the country are taken into account in ways that popular vote wouldn't.

SimplyMe said:

Additionally, a direct vote does not give power to large cities, it instead gives power to the minority in some of these states. currently if you live in NYC or LA as a Republican, your Presidential vote is meaningless. In a direct vote, suddenly those Republican votes in those cities count, as would votes for a Democrat in Dallas -- and those votes count exactly the same as a vote in a rural area. And there is no system where less that 20% of eligible voters (save for maybe Communism) has there interests become equally represented in a national vote.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of the disenfranchisement that happens due to the electoral college in hard-line states, but that comes down to state policies rather than the electoral college itself. There may be better ways to handle the electoral college, but the basic principle of it isn't necessarily objectionable. There are pros and cons to both, but to me direct popular vote seems like its more likely to lead to the overall inerests of the nation being set aside for the interests of citizens in a handful of localities and ultimately lead to issues of national stability as the coasts dominate federal politics more than they already do.

Fervent said:

Semantics...the issue is that if we go straight popular vote, the federal government will cater more to the interests of urban populations even more than they already do. The electoral college was created to prevent metropolitan concerns from having near exclusive say in federal matters, and the concern still stands.

No one says anything about being on par with the majority, simply making sure that the interests and concerns of low population areas are heard and the country doesn't become a tyranny of the majority. There may be ways to improve the electoral college system, but it serves an important function in public polity.

Click to expand...

First, as I pointed out, there is no system that will protect the interests of rural voters in a Presidential election; that 19%-ish is jut not enough people to have any type of power. Nor is the President's job to make sure everyone's interests are protected equally.

Where the Founders intended to provide every area of the country a voice is 1) by House districts, with members of the House from rural districts in Congress to promote the interests of their constituents.

Then you have 2) the Senate, which is there to give a voice to the smaller states and their concerns (whether they are rural states, like Montana, or not so rural, like Rhode Island).

Yet, for some reason you believe that a person's vote in Wyoming for President should be worth almost 4 votes to every person who votes in California. Again, if you are claiming that we should do that for "rural" voters, why should other minority groups also have their votes worth more for President to protect their interests -- what makes rural voters more exceptional than any other minority interest group?

SimplyMe said:

First, as I pointed out, there is no system that will protect the interests of rural voters in a Presidential election; that 19%-ish is jut not enough people to have any type of power. Nor is the President's job to make sure everyone's interests are protected equally.

Where the Founders intended to provide every area of the country a voice is 1) by House districts, with members of the House from rural districts in Congress to promote the interests of their constituents.

Then you have 2) the Senate, which is there to give a voice to the smaller states and their concerns (whether they are rural states, like Montana, or not so rural, like Rhode Island).

Click to expand...

The legislature isn't the only branch of government that needs to be involved in protecting the interests of rural areas, the executive needs to have a reason to as well.

SimplyMe said:

Yet, for some reason you believe that a person's vote in Wyoming for President should be worth almost 4 votes to every person who votes in California. Again, if you are claiming that we should do that for "rural" voters, why should other minority groups also have their votes worth more for President to protect their interests -- what makes rural voters more exceptional than any other minority interest group?

Click to expand...

It's not that rural voters are more exceptional, but that serving the interests of those rural areas is essential to having a truly federal government. And this isn't just my opinion, this is why the founders put the electoral college in in the first place. It was to protect the less populace southern states from having their interests subverted by the more populace northern states. There may be tweaks needed to the electoral college to make it better, but switching to a popular vote would render the federal government even more invested in the interests of populous states and we'd likely see issues from that similar to the precipitating issues that led to the great depression. So its not about giving rural voters more power as a minority, but recognizing that even though there are fewer people in those rural areas their interests are often of greater impact to the interests of the federal government since these areas supply critical goods.

As for other minority interest groups, there do need to be protections in the structures of government for those groups. But those protections come from other areas like the Bill of Rights and judicial system. The interests of rural voters is of critical concern to the operation of government, and would likely be ignored if there wasn't some disportionate power given to the individual voters.

Fervent said:

The legislature isn't the only branch of government that needs to be involved in protecting the interests of rural areas, the executive needs to have a reason to as well.

It's not that rural voters are more exceptional, but that serving the interests of those rural areas is essential to having a truly federal government.

Click to expand...

And by this logic, serving the interests of Blacks is essential to having a truly federal government. Serving the issues of gays is essential to having a truly federal government.

Again, one person, one vote allows all to have their interests be equally represented.

Fervent said:

And this isn't just my opinion, this is why the founders put the electoral college in in the first place. It was to protect the less populace southern states from having their interests subverted by the more populace northern states.

Click to expand...

No, it really wasn't. It was a series of compromises that led to the Electoral College. Some was to make it so states (typically state legislatures) be allowed to vote for President rather than holding a popular vote. Some of it was the 3/5ths rule -- to give a way for the Presidential vote to reflect the fact that slaves were counted as 3/5ths of people, even while not being allowed to vote -- so that the Southern states got to count slaves in the tally for President. It is funny you mentioned the "southern states" not having interests subverted but fail to bring up that it all revolved around slavery (both the 3/5ths compromise and to prevent Northern states from making laws about slavery).

The idea of it being to protect the smaller states was not part of the debate -- it was an idea that they came up with after the fact in trying to "sell" the Constitution, and the Electoral College, and get it ratified (particularly to Northern smaller states that had less power because of the 3/5ths compromise).

Fervent said:

There may be tweaks needed to the electoral college to make it better, but switching to a popular vote would render the federal government even more invested in the interests of populous states and we'd likely see issues from that similar to the precipitating issues that led to the great depression. So its not about giving rural voters more power as a minority, but recognizing that even though there are fewer people in those rural areas their interests are often of greater impact to the interests of the federal government since these areas supply critical goods.

As for other minority interest groups, there do need to be protections in the structures of government for those groups. But those protections come from other areas like the Bill of Rights and judicial system. The interests of rural voters is of critical concern to the operation of government, and would likely be ignored if there wasn't some disportionate power given to the individual voters.

Click to expand...

And, again, what is a president going to do to protect those interests? The President cannot pass laws -- he can only sign the laws Congress sends to the White House. Spending bills have to begin in the House of Representatives -- the President's budget can be (and typically is) largely ignored by Congress.

And you keep ignoring the point that the Electoral College really doesn't help the smaller states at all -- the battleground states that get the attention and who the President is interested in are still large states with large urban populations. Though, to be honest, the real issue with elections, that the Electoral College does nothing for, is that "rural issues" that are currently protected by the federal government are those promoted by the groups that donate the most money -- typically companies like Monsanto (now Bayer), Syngenta, Olam, Cargill, Foster Farms, etc -- which is why corporate farms now rule rural areas and are slowly killing off of family farms. The Electoral College does nothing, and has done nothing, to promote the interests of rural voters.