Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 08-22-2019, 04:47 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
No. It avoids the problema of a few cities on both coasts determining the results of a federal election. It is exactly the opposite of what you said, it gives more access to minorities.
It's only a problem is you don't believe in democracy.

Democracy is supposed to be whoever gets the most votes wins. If sixty percent of the people live in cities, then they should be winning elections. We shouldn't have a system that's rigged so the forty percent who live outside of cities win.
  #52  
Old 08-22-2019, 04:50 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
Why can't the Democrats want to rig elections too?
I'm just looking at the historical record. Republicans are generally the ones who rig elections.
  #53  
Old 08-22-2019, 04:53 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Maybe I'm completely missing the boat, but I see this ruling (if it stands) as turning the electors into a bunch of wild cards, subject to no one's control. If they have consciences, that could be a good thing.
You could substitute federal judges for electors in that post and it would be equally true in theory. But then we can look at the reality of judicial appointments.
  #54  
Old 08-22-2019, 06:46 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,129
Yes, if someone bribed electors into voting unfaithfully, it would be under federal jurisdiction. But it would also be under state jurisdiction. Both the Feds and the state could pursue charges, even if the other decides not to. Our system is weird that way.

Back to the OP, I think our system for electing the President is completely whack, but given the system we have, and the Constitutional language that laid it out, I think that this decision is the only valid reading of how it works. If you don't like the implications of this decision, the proper response is a Constitutional amendment.
  #55  
Old 08-22-2019, 08:44 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,925

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
It's only a problem is you don't believe in democracy.
That's enough. Right there.

Do not personalize nor make assumptions about another poster's motivations.
  #56  
Old 08-22-2019, 09:31 PM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
And replaces it with the problem of our elections being decided by a whote paste in the middle of the country. There is more diversity of interests between the different neighborhoods of the city of Los Angeles, then there is between the states of Montana, Wyoming and North and South Dakota.
Sure, but it's a feature, not a bug, of the EC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
No, one person, one vote isn't "semantics." "Semantics" is making the case that the majority of voters should find their results disproportionately reduced by an arcane system of squiggles and geography.
All states have "one person, one vote" as far as I know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
There’s no plausible scenario in which a “few cities” on each coast can prevail against a consensus within the rest of the country. The numbers just don’t add up.
If the US was like Peru, where you have NO idea which party will win or even exist in a year's time, you'd be right. In the US, something like 80-85% of the votes are already in, no matter the candidate. So, yes, a relatively small number of people can shift elections.

Quote:
I’m not even getting into the issue of how this silly electoral system undermines “one person, one vote.”
[/QUOTE]

The US is a republic, not a democracy. "One man, one vote" still exists, by the way, with the EC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
This is a common right wing trope..
Since i haven't made such a claim, I don't feel the need to say anything about it.

Quote:
Somehow the logic is that the more land that your voters are spread over, the more your vote ought to count. It's a bunch of crap, and its proponents can't even get the facts straight.
Yup, it's a sort of electoral affirmative action, it's a feature, not a bug.

Quote:
Christ. Counties don't vote. Land doesn't vote. It's the people who vote, but this current system gives rural votes much disproportionate power than what they should have.
The expression "cities vote" has a clear meaning that is clearly understood. You just want to obfuscate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
If you want to have a system of weighting rural or state votes versus urban voting, that's one thing. What I'm telling you is having 538 electors completely free to do whatever the fuck they want once they show up to cast their ballots on behalf of millions of voters is a powderkeg and a fuse looking for a struck match.
That's why the selection of such people is of utmost importance and it should be done carefully. However, they can vote as they see fit, that's how it was designed. The US electoral system is astonishingly strong and it has produced the most stable one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
It's only a problem is you don't believe in democracy.
Since the US is a republic and not a democracy, it shouldn't be a problem.

Quote:
Democracy is supposed to be whoever gets the most votes wins. If sixty percent of the people live in cities, then they should be winning elections. We shouldn't have a system that's rigged so the forty percent who live outside of cities win.
See previous answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I'm just looking at the historical record. Republicans are generally the ones who rig elections.
Cite?
  #57  
Old 08-22-2019, 10:10 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
The US is a republic, not a democracy.
I didn't think anybody actually said this in real life. Mostly because it's absolutely not true.

The U.S. doesn't meet the definition of classical democracies. So what? Words change their meaning and accrue new ones all the time. The U.S. begat a new definition of democracy. It is now the dictionary definition of what a democracy is. When you need to point at something called a democracy the U.S. is what you point at.

Can one also call it a republic? Sure. Totally accurately, too, given the modern definition of a republic.

Both, not one or the other.
  #58  
Old 08-22-2019, 11:24 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
It's only a problem is you don't believe in democracy.

Democracy is supposed to be whoever gets the most votes wins. If sixty percent of the people live in cities, then they should be winning elections. We shouldn't have a system that's rigged so the forty percent who live outside of cities win.
We should change voting in the United Nations, too. States should have votes based on their population; the one vote per country setup is ludicrous!
  #59  
Old 08-22-2019, 11:46 PM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,579
This ruling is unfortunate and I hope it is overturned. These laws are the least-problematic solution, within the confines of the constitution as currently written, to what could one day cause an actual constitutional crisis (not the kind cable news declares every 48 hours, the actual kind with tanks). We're not immune to that kind of thing, as a country, and we should be mindful of keeping out of situations where it's very difficult to get out. The vote of a faithless elector is nothing short of an attempt at a coup d'etat, and the legitimate responses to that kind of thing can be much worse than some party activist being kicked out of a ceremonial office; I wish the judges hadn't decided we would have to g eveno farther down that road to solve this problem in the future.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 08-22-2019 at 11:51 PM.
  #60  
Old 08-23-2019, 12:05 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Wiggler View Post
Ok, I'm still not getting something. If this Baca guy had gotten to be an elector because he pledged to vote for Clinton, either somebody didn't do their due diligence or we've okayed false representation among the people ultimately responsible for determining the most powerful position in the country. Does this strike anyone else as being way screwy?
It is screwy, and unfortunately I haven't heard much about states and parties locking this process down after the warning they got in 2016. The Washington Democratic Party did change its rules to give the party officials more control over the selection process (it had four faithless electors) but that's the only change I've heard of.
  #61  
Old 08-23-2019, 06:11 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
Sure, but it's a feature, not a bug, of the EC.
Sure, and counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person was a feature, not a bug at the time the Constitution was written. That doesn’t mean such “features” are eternal.

Quote:
So, yes, a relatively small number of people can shift elections.
That makes no sense. Let’s say 1,500 people work on a large building, but one person puts on the finishing touch. That doesn’t negate the work of the other 1,499 people. Same with elections.

Quote:
The US is a republic, not a democracy. "One man, one vote" still exists, by the way, with the EC.
That first phrase is meaningless and only intended to make some citizens better than others. The second is untrue, as you are arguing that some voters should have 1.25 votes, and others 0.89 votes, based on whether they like city life or prefer country living. That’s absurd and indefensible.

Quote:
Yup, it's a sort of electoral affirmative action....
So you DON’T believe in one person, one vote.

Quote:
The US electoral system is astonishingly strong and it has produced the most stable one.
When the person with fewer votes gets into office twice within a single generation, that can’t be called strong or stable. That’s broken and fucked up.
  #62  
Old 08-23-2019, 07:21 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,138
"A few cities on both coasts" determining the outcome of an election is quite an overstatement. The flipside is to say that a few farmers in a giant field should have an advantage.
Cities. Yeah, lots of people live there. Stunning news.

Last edited by bobot; 08-23-2019 at 07:21 AM.
  #63  
Old 08-23-2019, 09:12 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Maybe I'm completely missing the boat, but I see this ruling (if it stands) as turning the electors into a bunch of wild cards, subject to no one's control. If they have consciences, that could be a good thing.
What the ruling does is clarify/establish the fact that while the States have authority over the process by which the electors are elected/chosen, their actual participation in the Electoral College is a Federal exercise, and outside the authority of the States.

So basically they're saying that the States can't try to mandate how an elector will vote- they have no authority to interfere in the Federal Electoral College process like that.

The original intent of the Electoral College was that it would be some kind of august body of upstanding citizens, etc.. elected to choose a president. Kind of like a one-time, one-purpose Congress with one thing to vote on, if you want to think about it that way.

But over time, this morphed into something different- rather than electing individual electors, most states have their citizens elect a "slate" of electors chosen by each party, and in some states, there are penalties on the books for electors who don't vote according to what the "slate" is supposed to vote for.

This ruling is saying that no, the electors' votes are not subject to penalties like that, as they're part of a Federal process, and the States' authority ends at the point when they're elected.
  #64  
Old 08-23-2019, 09:51 AM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I didn't think anybody actually said this in real life. Mostly because it's absolutely not true.

The U.S. doesn't meet the definition of classical democracies. So what? Words change their meaning and accrue new ones all the time. The U.S. begat a new definition of democracy. It is now the dictionary definition of what a democracy is. When you need to point at something called a democracy the U.S. is what you point at.

Can one also call it a republic? Sure. Totally accurately, too, given the modern definition of a republic.

Both, not one or the other.
It means that it's a collection of states which have all the rights except those specifically given to the federal government. That's the difference as it is used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Sure, and counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person was a feature, not a bug at the time the Constitution was written. That doesn’t mean such “features” are eternal.

The 3/5 was to take power away from slaveowners and to actually make ONE country out of the colonies. It was a compromise.
Definitely, change the EC if it is not right, but the way it Works. IT was made specifically to give a greater proportional vote to smaller states.

Quote:
That makes no sense. Let’s say 1,500 people work on a large building, but one person puts on the finishing touch. That doesn’t negate the work of the other 1,499 people. Same with elections.

One of them was the Lead Architect. Her contribution is much more important than Jane's just pouring cement.

Quote:
That first phrase is meaningless and only intended to make some citizens better than others. The second is untrue, as you are arguing that some voters should have 1.25 votes, and others 0.89 votes, based on whether they like city life or prefer country living. That’s absurd and indefensible.
As I said, the made it with that express intention. That's how they made smaller, less populous states, want to be part of the compact.

Quote:
So you DON’T believe in one person, one vote.
I, personally, sure I do.
The EC as it was set for the puropse it was set, not quite.


Quote:
When the person with fewer votes gets into office twice within a single generation, that can’t be called strong or stable. That’s broken and fucked up.
In the US electoral system, the total number of votes is irrelevant. There is no such thing, legally, as "popular vote."

And, yes, a system with no coups, no interruptions of civil governemt, with the same constitution for 240 years, it is stable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
"A few cities on both coasts" determining the outcome of an election is quite an overstatement. The flipside is to say that a few farmers in a giant field should have an advantage.
Cities. Yeah, lots of people live there. Stunning news.
It's abit too much to say like that, but sure. The whole puropse of the EC is an uneven distribution of votes and population so as to not turn states into meaningless part of the election. Should the US go to simple popular vote? Maybe, I don't know. What's clear is that, states should not by simple law overturn the clear intent of the constitution; even when said constitution is wrong.
  #65  
Old 08-23-2019, 10:44 AM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
The vote of a faithless elector is nothing short of an attempt at a coup d'etat, and the legitimate responses to that kind of thing can be much worse than some party activist being kicked out of a ceremonial office; I wish the judges hadn't decided we would have to g eveno farther down that road to solve this problem in the future.
There have been 167 instances of faithless electors going back to the 1796 Election. Were they all attempts at a coup?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
  #66  
Old 08-23-2019, 11:15 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,439
Thank you for your service, D'Anconia. Without you holding the line, the internet would be overrun by hyperbole. Pedantry is so refreshing.
  #67  
Old 08-23-2019, 12:23 PM
Folacin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: North of the River
Posts: 3,674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Sure, and counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person was a feature, not a bug at the time the Constitution was written. That doesn’t mean such “features” are eternal.
Just a reminder that the slave states would have been very happy to count their property as whole persons for purposes of representation in the House.
  #68  
Old 08-23-2019, 12:41 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post


Since the US is a republic and not a democracy, it shouldn't be a problem.







Cite?
Its a Republican Form of Democracy. Saying the USA is a republic and not a democracy is like saying a German shepherd is a dog, not a canid.


Certainly in recent time, the 2016 election is noted. However, in the past the Dems fixed elections also.

It's just now the Dems have such a lead in numbers, the GOP needs to fix elections, i.e. it's current run of Jim Crow laws. oh sorry, "Voter ID".
__________________
I am not a real Doctor
  #69  
Old 08-23-2019, 02:02 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
One of them was the Lead Architect. Her contribution is much more important than Jane's just pouring cement.
What was the political party created by the "Lead Architect" of the Constitution, again?
  #70  
Old 08-23-2019, 02:23 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
When the person with fewer votes gets into office twice within a single generation, that can’t be called strong or stable. That’s broken and fucked up.
It happened twice in a single generation 150 years ago. Kinda looks stable.

The solution to this problem is selecting electors more carefully, not a fairly obviously unconstitutional law. Or change the constitution, I suppose.
  #71  
Old 08-23-2019, 03:21 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Thank you for your service, D'Anconia. Without you holding the line, the internet would be overrun by hyperbole.
I doubt the poster in question intended to engage in hyperbole.
  #72  
Old 08-23-2019, 04:08 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,129
The Electoral College makes it more likely for an election to be swayed by a small number of people, not less. For instance, in 2000, the election was swayed by a few hundred people in Florida. That would not have been possible, without the Electoral College.
  #73  
Old 08-23-2019, 04:56 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
And, yes, a system with no coups, no interruptions of civil governemt, with the same constitution for 240 years, it is stable.
What do you call the American Civil War?

I'd also add that if a Constitution is squarely at odds with the values of the people it supposedly applies to, then you've got a crisis of political faith. And it's not long before you have just a plain ol' political crisis.
  #74  
Old 08-23-2019, 06:46 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The Electoral College makes it more likely for an election to be swayed by a small number of people, not less. For instance, in 2000, the election was swayed by a few hundred people in Florida. That would not have been possible, without the Electoral College.
This. The closest election of modern times, the 1960 election, had a popular vote margin of 112,827 votes. It takes a lot more work to change nearly 113,000 votes than to change, say, the few thousand that were apparently redirected by Palm Beach County's 'butterfly ballot.'
  #75  
Old 08-24-2019, 08:50 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,129
The American Civil War was an attempt at a coup (or something like it), but it was unsuccessful.
  #76  
Old 08-24-2019, 11:09 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The American Civil War was an attempt at a coup (or something like it), but it was unsuccessful.
Yeah, an unsuccessful coup is a historical nothingness.

Civil government was not interrupted in the majority of states. The world went on more or less as normal, especially far from the border - which was where the majority of the population lived.

An item on my bucket list is to write a big tome on The Years Left Out of the History Books. It would be a history of 1861-1865 ignoring the war as much as possible. You'd find out that civil government at all levels did as much and as many interesting, historically important things then as in any other four year period of the country. More, in fact, than from 1857-1860.

One fact that I find amazing is that more than a million people emigrated to the North during the Civil War, the majority of them young men. That's undoubtedly the only time in history when a country in a major war saw a net increase in population. (Refugees might have made this happen at some point, but willing in-migration never.) The North in 1865 had a larger pool of bodies for the army than in 1861 despite all the casualties. I don't think that has ever happened either. Yet another reason why the South had zero chance of winning the war without an abject surrender by the North.
  #77  
Old 08-25-2019, 08:21 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,791
In real life, it doesn't mean anything.

Think about it. Who ARE the electors? A slate of people put forward by each party. So all the parties have to do is to make sure they choose people who are even MORE "faithful" than ever.

Instead of a retired county clerk whose years of service gets rewarded with an all-expenses paid trip to the state capitol, your new electors will be young rural school bus drivers, whose spouses work for the county highway department, and who are terrified that voting against the party line will get both the elector and spouse fired.

This gives a whole new meaning to "elections have consequences." After all,Politics ain't beanbag.
  #78  
Old 08-25-2019, 09:02 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,129
There's no way a school bus driver would get fired, or if they did, they'd be instantly hired by the next district over. There's way too much demand for school bus drivers.
  #79  
Old 08-25-2019, 09:27 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
There's no way a school bus driver would get fired, or if they did, they'd be instantly hired by the next district over. There's way too much demand for school bus drivers.
In rural Missouri where the factories and the mines closed a generation ago, if you're an otherwise unskilled worker, working for a public school is a damn highly sought after job. Same with working for the county highway department. Even if it's only part-time, it pays better than the 10 hours a week you'll be lucky to get at the local Wal-Mart that ran all the other retailers out.

Just ask my aunt. She drove a school bus for a rural district for 30 years.
  #80  
Old 08-25-2019, 11:08 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
Now that they have a green light to do as they please, do you think Democrats can win any close election? If Democrats win <300 EVs, you can bet that millions will be given to enough faithless electors to change the outcome.
So let me get this straight. A slate of very-loyal Democrat electors is offered a bribe to vote Pub and they go for it and not one reports it to the FBI? Seriously?
__________________
When I was a boy, a mere lad, A FAERIE APPEARED UNTO ME AND TOLD ME I WOULD BE BOTH POPE AND KING! But … I am a bastard. And a pretender.

-Richard Hariss
  #81  
Old 08-25-2019, 11:57 PM
OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
So let me get this straight. A slate of very-loyal Democrat electors is offered a bribe to vote Pub and they go for it and not one reports it to the FBI? Seriously?
There'd be no need to report it to the FBI. If a slate or a substantial portion of same voted the "wrong" way, everyone would know that had occurred.

But proving there was bribery wouldn't necessarily be easy. I'm not even sure that bribing an Elector is a crime. I would certainly hope it is.
  #82  
Old 08-26-2019, 04:35 AM
dudemanjack is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 57
Once the electors vote, is there any way to undo it? Yeah maybe they get caught and are put on trial, but the result stands, no?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
  #83  
Old 08-26-2019, 07:18 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Its a Republican Form of Democracy. Saying the USA is a republic and not a democracy is like saying a German shepherd is a dog, not a canid.
I never understood why right wingers trot out that line as if it means anything. I've never seen a progressive use it, but every so often a right winger will proclaim "The US is a republic, not a democracy" and we're supposed to be convinced of something as though that proves that they have superior knowledge and we should swallow whatever they're trying to sell us.
  #84  
Old 08-26-2019, 08:07 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,711
North Korea is a republic, not a democracy. Guess the folks who trot out this line must really like the Juche Philosophy.
  #85  
Old 08-26-2019, 09:51 AM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,398
Except their the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, so they are a democracy, at least to the people who believe that the Nazis were socialists since they have socialism in their name.
  #86  
Old 08-26-2019, 10:38 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
North Korea is a republic, not a democracy. ....
North Korea is a communist dictatorship.
  #87  
Old 08-26-2019, 12:19 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,554
All of you libs realize that if you think that your slate of electors - chosen from the most loyal of the the state's party members - are open to bribery to change the election away from their candidate then I say that says more about the Democrat Party than the Republicans..
  #88  
Old 08-26-2019, 12:24 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey View Post
I'm confused. I thought that following the 2016 November election there was a whole host of people calling for the EC to act to prevent an unfit person becoming president. From this outsider's perspective it sounded very much like an unused practice EC voters could, but hadn't, use. I take it that wasn't the case?
Liberals were pleading with electors to go faithless in 2016. I suspect that'll become a standard part of presidential campaigns going forward: influence campaigns against the electors themselves throughout most of November and December every fourth year.
  #89  
Old 08-26-2019, 12:26 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudemanjack View Post
Once the electors vote, is there any way to undo it? Yeah maybe they get caught and are put on trial, but the result stands, no?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I'm not sure of the details, but when Congress tallies the electoral college votes, there's an opportunity for Senators and Representatives to object. Some asshat Dems in the House tried to do it in 2016.
  #90  
Old 08-26-2019, 12:30 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
North Korea is a communist dictatorship.
No, it's a socialist worker's state. There's a WORLD of difference. I mean, the difference between a republic and a democracy is puny compared to the incredible nuances that exist between a "communist dictatorship" -- whatever those words actually mean -- and a socialist worker's state (which is one form of a republic BTW). Obviously, everyone should know that, because it's incredibly important.
  #91  
Old 08-26-2019, 12:31 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
All of you libs realize that if you think that your slate of electors - chosen from the most loyal of the the state's party members - are open to bribery to change the election away from their candidate then I say that says more about the Democrat Party than the Republicans..
Assuming you're speaking of the Democratic Party (rather than some fictional "Democrat Party"), it is indeed filled with humans, and sometimes humans have weaknesses of character like susceptibility to bribery. I don't think this says anything about the Democratic Party as opposed to any other.

It does suggest a rather glaring weakness in the Electoral College system, IMO.
  #92  
Old 08-26-2019, 12:39 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina View Post
Why can't the Democrats want to rig elections too?
They tried everything they could think of to overturn the 2016 results: recounts, persuading electors to go faithless, objecting to the certification of the vote, etc.
  #93  
Old 08-26-2019, 12:45 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Assuming you're speaking of the Democratic Party (rather than some fictional "Democrat Party"), it is indeed filled with humans, and sometimes humans have weaknesses of character like susceptibility to bribery. I don't think this says anything about the Democratic Party as opposed to any other.

It does suggest a rather glaring weakness in the Electoral College system, IMO.
How well did bribing electors work for Samuel Tilden?
How many faithless electors have there been from states without FE laws?
Has there ever been a case (besides 1876) that a candidate has tried to bribe electors (from states without FE laws) to change an elector?
How likely is it that an elector will change their vote from their candidate as a result of a bribe?
__________________
When I was a boy, a mere lad, A FAERIE APPEARED UNTO ME AND TOLD ME I WOULD BE BOTH POPE AND KING! But … I am a bastard. And a pretender.

-Richard Hariss
  #94  
Old 08-26-2019, 01:02 PM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 16,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
...
How likely is it that an elector will change their vote from their candidate as a result of a bribe?
What I want to know is "How likely is it that an elector will change their vote to prevent a deranged, ignorant, dangerous, unprincipled candidate who lost the popular vote from attaining the White House?
__________________
* "Former President Trump" -- saying it until it becomes true.
  #95  
Old 08-26-2019, 01:16 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
How well did bribing electors work for Samuel Tilden?
How many faithless electors have there been from states without FE laws?
Has there ever been a case (besides 1876) that a candidate has tried to bribe electors (from states without FE laws) to change an elector?
How likely is it that an elector will change their vote from their candidate as a result of a bribe?
The risk for these things appears to be relatively low, but low is not zero, and it could be eliminated altogether with a popular vote system. With the popular vote, every American voter has exactly the same power -- a New Yorker has the same exact voting influence as an Iowan, a Texan, a Montanan, etc. That seems like a far better (and fairer) system to me -- giving the power to voters, not to states that just so happen to be swing-states at the expense of others.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 08-26-2019 at 01:16 PM.
  #96  
Old 08-26-2019, 01:32 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
If you want to have a system of weighting rural or state votes versus urban voting, that's one thing. What I'm telling you is having 538 electors completely free to do whatever the fuck they want once they show up to cast their ballots on behalf of millions of voters is a powderkeg and a fuse looking for a struck match.
I agree with this. Shit would get real serious real fast if a few faithless electors throw an election one day.
  #97  
Old 08-26-2019, 01:38 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The risk for these things appears to be relatively low, but low is not zero, and it could be eliminated altogether with a popular vote system. With the popular vote, every American voter has exactly the same power -- a New Yorker has the same exact voting influence as an Iowan, a Texan, a Montanan, etc. That seems like a far better (and fairer) system to me -- giving the power to voters, not to states that just so happen to be swing-states at the expense of others.
Personally, I like the idea of possibly amending the Electoral College to be chosen at the district level, and the senatorial votes apportioned by the statewide popular vote.

That way, it retains some of the small state weight, but isn't all-or-nothing at a state level.

So for Texas, we might assume that it would have gone 23/13 Republican/Democrat, with another 2 Republican votes, for a total of 25/13. Better than 38/0, but it also still gives Wyoming 3 electoral votes, rather than an absurdly minuscule 262,000 possible votes (number of registered voters in Wyoming) out of 157,300,000 registered voters nationwide.
  #98  
Old 08-26-2019, 02:07 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Personally, I like the idea of possibly amending the Electoral College to be chosen at the district level, and the senatorial votes apportioned by the statewide popular vote.

That way, it retains some of the small state weight, but isn't all-or-nothing at a state level.

So for Texas, we might assume that it would have gone 23/13 Republican/Democrat, with another 2 Republican votes, for a total of 25/13. Better than 38/0, but it also still gives Wyoming 3 electoral votes, rather than an absurdly minuscule 262,000 possible votes (number of registered voters in Wyoming) out of 157,300,000 registered voters nationwide.
You don't need to "amend the Electoral College" to do this. Each state can choose how it's electors are selected. Most of them have chosen to use a winner-take-all system, based off their vote, but Maine and Nebraska already do something like what you suggest here, and other states could join them if they so desired. Most states just don't want to.
  #99  
Old 08-26-2019, 02:16 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,438
Sure, I meant amend the Constitution to require that method nationwide. I know it has little chance of success, but probably more than going to a straight popular vote would.
  #100  
Old 08-26-2019, 02:18 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Sure, I meant amend the Constitution to require that method nationwide. I know it has little chance of success, but probably more than going to a straight popular vote would.
Ahh, I see. Yeah, given that only two out of 50 states have chosen to select their electors this way, I can't imagine all that many getting on board with an amendment to force the issue. Maybe if the numbers were flipped, and we had 48 states using a proportional system of some sort, and only a couple of hold-outs, maybe an amendment could be passed.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017