Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Politics & Elections (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   Fed Court: Presidential electors can vote as they wish (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=880811)

ThelmaLou 08-22-2019 05:58 AM

Fed Court: Presidential electors can vote as they wish
 
A court ruling just changed how we pick our president
Quote:

A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that presidential electors who cast the actual ballots for president and vice president are free to vote as they wish and cannot be required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states.

The decision could give a single elector the power to decide the outcome of a presidential election — if the popular vote results in an apparent Electoral College tie.

"This issue could be a ticking time bomb in our divided politics. It's not hard to imagine how a single faithless elector, voting differently than his or her state did, could swing a close presidential election," said Mark Murray, NBC News senior political editor.

It hasn't been much of an issue in American political history because when an elector refuses to follow the results of a state's popular vote, the state simply throws the ballot away. But Tuesday's ruling says states cannot do that.
...

But once the electors are chosen and report in December to cast their votes as members of the Electoral College, they are fulfilling a federal function, and a state's authority has ended. "The states' power to appoint electors does not include the power to remove them or nullify their votes," the court said.

Because the Constitution contains no requirement for electors to follow the wishes of a political party, "the electors, once appointed, are free to vote as they choose," assuming that they cast their vote for a legally qualified candidate.

....
Tweet from WH in 3... 2... 1--

bobot 08-22-2019 06:09 AM

I guess it wasn't good enough that the candidate with the most votes lost the last election. That wasn't safe enough. Lets take another step away from the voice of the people mattering to our "democracy". Are we still calling it a democracy?
Although, this sounds like an unpredictable case of "be careful what you ask for".

RTFirefly 08-22-2019 06:24 AM

Given that this was clearly the original intent of having Electors in the first place, laws requiring them to vote as their state directed were always kinda questionable, IMHO.

But if the Electors were ever going to be a deliberative body in its choice of President, the time for that was December 2016. Having failed that moment, we really need a Constitutional amendment that takes Electors out of the picture, and reduces Electoral Votes to no more than a system of tallying the results.

And YES, I KNOW that we could really use a much more substantial reform than this: I'm all for electing the President by direct popular vote. BUT an amendment to get rid of the Electors themselves might actually stand a chance of passage, while any amendment with an apparent benefit to one party or the other would not.

Jonathan Chance 08-22-2019 06:35 AM

Well, I'd argue, ThelmaLou, that this changes how we elect our presidents in any way. There have always been faithless electors. It's a basic part of the process. Courts have ruled that states can require a pledge to vote a certain way but have never ruled that they are required to actually VOTE that way. I'd guess this ruling just affirms that fact.

Hell the first faithless elector goes back to the 1796 election, I believe. Looking, yeah. Samuel Miles voted Jefferson instead of his pledged Adams in 1796. Looking at it, it looks like it was a complicated time.

Grey 08-22-2019 07:18 AM

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?

ThelmaLou 08-22-2019 07:26 AM

The difference appears to be that presently the votes of so-called "faithless electors" can be discarded and not counted. From my quote: "It hasn't been much of an issue in American political history because when an elector refuses to follow the results of a state's popular vote, the state simply throws the ballot away. But Tuesday's ruling says states cannot do that."

The reason I expect objections from the WH (and likely from Uncle Mitch) is that anything that diminishes or appears to diminish control over electors is sumpin' the Pubbies aren't gonna like. Mitch like everyone on a short leash. With a choke collar.

asahi 08-22-2019 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTFirefly (Post 21819408)
Given that this was clearly the original intent of having Electors in the first place, laws requiring them to vote as their state directed were always kinda questionable, IMHO.

But if the Electors were ever going to be a deliberative body in its choice of President, the time for that was December 2016. Having failed that moment, we really need a Constitutional amendment that takes Electors out of the picture, and reduces Electoral Votes to no more than a system of tallying the results.

And YES, I KNOW that we could really use a much more substantial reform than this: I'm all for electing the President by direct popular vote. BUT an amendment to get rid of the Electors themselves might actually stand a chance of passage, while any amendment with an apparent benefit to one party or the other would not.

Good post, and I agree with pretty much all of it. There's no question that faithless electors are a horrifying prospect, but like it or not, it's part of the original constitution, and that mechanism has never been changed.

It's inevitable: there will one day be a day when the nightmare scenario happens, and I suspect that day will come sooner than we think. But imagine the fallout if, say, Donald Trump lost on election night but managed to bribe a handful of electors into changing their votes. He wouldn't even need to get them to switch to Trump; he could just bribe enough of them to vote for a write-in candidate or a third party candidate. He bribes them with some money up front, and then completes the bribe by offering electors political positions. then the election goes to the House, where the House, with a state delegation majority, votes for Trump. Imagine a race in which 55% of the country votes for a Democratic candidate, and yet the Republican loser wins the presidency. We're a lot closer to this moment than people realize.

Red Wiggler 08-22-2019 08:00 AM

How do, or did, Colorado Democrats choose their electors who will appear on the ballot and how did the Baca guy fall through the cracks? I guess I don't really understand the mechanics of our convoluted system.

Ravenman 08-22-2019 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThelmaLou (Post 21819493)
The difference appears to be that presently the votes of so-called "faithless electors" can be discarded and not counted. From my quote: "It hasn't been much of an issue in American political history because when an elector refuses to follow the results of a state's popular vote, the state simply throws the ballot away. But Tuesday's ruling says states cannot do that."

Yeah, states that undermined the independence of electors have always been acting illegally. So what?

The EC is about the dumbest possible system for voting, but like other laws, we can’t just decide not to follow the law. That’s Trumpism.

BobLibDem 08-22-2019 08:45 AM

In the future, all one needs to do to become president will be having the financial resources to buy off 270 electors. Or more realistically, either party starts off with 200 guaranteed electors and then they just have to buy 70 more. So we celebrate a Biden win next November, only to find out the Republican elite have bought enough electors to give us four more years of tweets and kleptocracy.

asahi 08-22-2019 08:55 AM

The electoral college reflected the values and prevailing attitudes of the time, notably the belief among free, property-owning, wealthy elite white males that political power must remain in the hands of the elite class because the lower rungs of society are inherently unqualified to manage self-governance. While there may be some truth to the notion that democracy invites many unqualified citizens to participate, there is no evidence that an aristocratic class is capable of governing in the interests of broader society. Moreover, the EC, like other aspects of the original constitution, is squarely at odds with our modern social and political values and our understanding of what a modern democratic and egalitarian society ought to look like.

But I don't see anything or anyone changing it until the system breaks, and maybe that's really what's happening right now, and maybe that's what Trumpism truly represents: the disintegration of the American republic as it has been defined by the Enlightenment era constitution. So perhaps it is the case that the system must first fail incontrovertibly in the eyes of the average person before there can be sufficient critical mass needed to transform America from an Enlightenment republic into something more advanced.

RTFirefly 08-22-2019 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21819497)
It's inevitable: there will one day be a day when the nightmare scenario happens, and I suspect that day will come sooner than we think. But imagine the fallout if, say, Donald Trump lost on election night but managed to bribe a handful of electors into changing their votes. He wouldn't even need to get them to switch to Trump; he could just bribe enough of them to vote for a write-in candidate or a third party candidate. He bribes them with some money up front, and then completes the bribe by offering electors political positions. then the election goes to the House, where the House, with a state delegation majority, votes for Trump. Imagine a race in which 55% of the country votes for a Democratic candidate, and yet the Republican loser wins the presidency. We're a lot closer to this moment than people realize.

It almost happened that way in 2000. In the last week or two before the election, Bush's team was more worried about winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote than the other way around. And his team was prepared to launch a campaign to persuade electors to switch their votes to ratify the will of the people. New York Daily News, Nov. 1, 2000:
Quote:

So what if Gore wins such crucial battleground states as Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania and thus captures the magic 270 electoral votes while Bush wins the overall nationwide popular vote? "The one thing we don't do is roll over," says a Bush aide. "We fight."

How? The core of the emerging Bush strategy assumes a popular uprising, stoked by the Bushies themselves, of course. In league with the campaign - which is preparing talking points about the Electoral College's essential unfairness - a massive talk-radio operation would be encouraged. "We'd have ads, too," says a Bush aide, "and I think you can count on the media to fuel the thing big-time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted."

Local business leaders will be urged to lobby their customers, the clergy will be asked to speak up for the popular will and Team Bush will enlist as many Democrats as possible to scream as loud as they can. "You think 'Democrats for Democracy' would be a catchy term for them?"

asks a Bush adviser. The universe of people who would be targeted by this insurrection is small - the 538 currently anonymous folks called electors, people chosen by the campaigns and their state party organizations as a reward for their service over the years. If you bother to read the small print when you're in the booth, you'll notice that when you vote for President you're really selecting presidential electors who favor one candidate or the other. Generally, these electors are not legally bound to support the person they're supposedly pledged to when they gather in the various state capitals to cast their ballots on Dec. 18. The rules vary from state to state, but enough of the electors could theoretically switch to Bush if they wanted to - if there was sufficient pressure on them to ratify the popular verdict.
Another thing that almost happened in 2000 was that, while the Florida outcome was being debated in the courts, the GOP-controlled Florida legislature considered meeting to choose a GOP slate of electors by fiat.

Since each state has the authority to determine how to choose its electors, really the only question would have been, is it kosher for them to change the rules after Election Day just because they didn't like the popular outcome? I could easily see a Supreme Court like the one we've got supporting a GOP legislature that overruled the vote in this manner.

RTFirefly 08-22-2019 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21819645)
While there may be some truth to the notion that democracy invites many unqualified citizens to participate, there is no evidence that an aristocratic class is capable of governing in the interests of broader society.

Tru dat!

Exapno Mapcase 08-22-2019 10:31 AM

The linked article also says:
Quote:

The federal court ruling conflicts with a decision from Washington state's Supreme Court in May, which said electors must follow the results of the popular vote. "The power of electors to vote comes from the state, and the elector has no personal right to that role,” the court said.
Two courts with differing decisions. Plop. Right in the laps of the Supreme Court.

And then there's this:
Quote:

The Supreme Court ruled in 1952 that states do not violate the Constitution when they require electors to pledge that they will abide by the popular vote. But the justices have never said whether it is constitutional to enforce those pledges.
This is why so many people hate and distrust the law.

DrDeth 08-22-2019 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThelmaLou (Post 21819493)
The difference appears to be that presently the votes of so-called "faithless electors" can be discarded and not counted. From my quote: "It hasn't been much of an issue in American political history because when an elector refuses to follow the results of a state's popular vote, the state simply throws the ballot away. But Tuesday's ruling says states cannot do that."

...

I believe the state can still punish them, but their vote stands, which makes sense.

DrDeth 08-22-2019 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobLibDem (Post 21819616)
In the future, all one needs to do to become president will be having the financial resources to buy off 270 electors. Or more realistically, either party starts off with 200 guaranteed electors and then they just have to buy 70 more. So we celebrate a Biden win next November, only to find out the Republican elite have bought enough electors to give us four more years of tweets and kleptocracy.

No, they can still throw them into prison for life for accepting bribes.

Czarcasm 08-22-2019 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21819833)
No, they can still throw them into prison for life for accepting bribes.

Do you expect the government that wins because of this to pursue such a case?

BobLibDem 08-22-2019 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 21819854)
Do you expect the government that wins because of this to pursue such a case?

Sure, can't you just imagine William Barr just jumping all over this? Well, if his side was losing maybe.

DrDeth 08-22-2019 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 21819854)
Do you expect the government that wins because of this to pursue such a case?


The State government, not the Feds.

Czarcasm 08-22-2019 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21819894)
The State government, not the Feds.

It may not fall under their jurisdiction. Once the elector is chosen it is out of their hands-presuming the bribery happens after that, it would then be a Federal case.

bump 08-22-2019 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Wiggler (Post 21819532)
How do, or did, Colorado Democrats choose their electors who will appear on the ballot and how did the Baca guy fall through the cracks? I guess I don't really understand the mechanics of our convoluted system.

The way I understand it, we (Americans in general) are voting for a slate of electors who are pledged to vote for one candidate or another.

In other words, we're not electing a President, we're electing a bunch of guys who have said they'll vote for one guy, or a different bunch of guys who have said they'll vote for the other guy.

So when they say that so-and-so won state X, they're saying basically that the majority in that state voted for the slate of electors saying they'll vote for so-and-so.

But some weeks later, the electors themselves actually vote, and the results of that vote are what actually elects the President.

The question that was asked of the Supreme Court is whether a state can decree that each individual elector abide by the results of the vote, or if they can go "rogue" so to speak, and vote for the other guy if they so desire. And the Supreme Court is basically saying that once they're elected, they're participating in a Federal electoral activity where the States themselves have no authority, and there's no Constitutional requirement that the electors hold faith with the popular vote, so the electors can vote how they please without regard to what the State thinks.

DrDeth 08-22-2019 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 21819901)
It may not fall under their jurisdiction. Once the elector is chosen it is out of their hands-presuming the bribery happens after that, it would then be a Federal case.


It's the states which make faithless elector laws.

From the Op cite:
The decision, from a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, is a victory for Micheal Baca, a Colorado Democratic elector in 2016. Under state law, he was required to cast his ballot for Hillary Clinton, who won the state's popular vote. Instead, he crossed out her name and wrote in John Kasich, a Republican and then the governor of Ohio.

Ravenman 08-22-2019 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21819829)
I believe the state can still punish them, but their vote stands, which makes sense.

No it doesn’t. Being thrown in jail for exercising a right is fucking nonsense.

Little Nemo 08-22-2019 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThelmaLou (Post 21819493)
The reason I expect objections from the WH (and likely from Uncle Mitch) is that anything that diminishes or appears to diminish control over electors is sumpin' the Pubbies aren't gonna like. Mitch like everyone on a short leash. With a choke collar.

Why assume this diminishes their control? If anything, I feel it gives the Republicans another tool to rig elections. Now they can completely ignore the results of the general election and work on controlling the way three hundred Electors vote.

Czarcasm 08-22-2019 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21819967)
It's the states which make faithless elector laws.

From the Op cite:
The decision, from a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, is a victory for Micheal Baca, a Colorado Democratic elector in 2016. Under state law, he was required to cast his ballot for Hillary Clinton, who won the state's popular vote. Instead, he crossed out her name and wrote in John Kasich, a Republican and then the governor of Ohio.

That's nice, but if you are talking bribery after the elector is picked, then the Feds have jurisdiction.

Czarcasm 08-22-2019 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrDeth (Post 21819967)
It's the states which make faithless elector laws.

From the Op cite:
The decision, from a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, is a victory for Micheal Baca, a Colorado Democratic elector in 2016. Under state law, he was required to cast his ballot for Hillary Clinton, who won the state's popular vote. Instead, he crossed out her name and wrote in John Kasich, a Republican and then the governor of Ohio.

I think you are totally missing the point of the OP and the link provided therein.

Ají de Gallina 08-22-2019 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asahi (Post 21819645)
The electoral college reflected the values and prevailing attitudes of the time, notably the belief among free, property-owning, wealthy elite white males that political power must remain in the hands of the elite class because the lower rungs of society are inherently unqualified to manage self-governance. While there may be some truth to the notion that democracy invites many unqualified citizens to participate, there is no evidence that an aristocratic class is capable of governing in the interests of broader society. Moreover, the EC, like other aspects of the original constitution, is squarely at odds with our modern social and political values and our understanding of what a modern democratic and egalitarian society ought to look like.

But I don't see anything or anyone changing it until the system breaks, and maybe that's really what's happening right now, and maybe that's what Trumpism truly represents: the disintegration of the American republic as it has been defined by the Enlightenment era constitution. So perhaps it is the case that the system must first fail incontrovertibly in the eyes of the average person before there can be sufficient critical mass needed to transform America from an Enlightenment republic into something more advanced.

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.

iiandyiiii 08-22-2019 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina (Post 21820028)
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.

"Cities" don't determine popular vote elections -- voters do. In a popular vote election, each and every voter in rural parts of America has exactly the same voting power as a single voter in coastal cities. All voters would have exactly the same voting power. Right now, voters in California and Texas have virtually no influence on who becomes President, while voters who are lucky enough to live in swing states have much more influence. The first option seems much more fair, as well as representative of popular will, to me.

ThelmaLou 08-22-2019 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 21820005)
Why assume this diminishes their control? If anything, I feel it gives the Republicans another tool to rig elections. Now they can completely ignore the results of the general election and work on controlling the way three hundred Electors vote.

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.

Ají de Gallina 08-22-2019 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Little Nemo (Post 21820005)
Why assume this diminishes their control? If anything, I feel it gives the Republicans another tool to rig elections. Now they can completely ignore the results of the general election and work on controlling the way three hundred Electors vote.

Why can't the Democrats want to rig elections too?

Czarcasm 08-22-2019 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThelmaLou (Post 21820047)
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.

I don't see any evidence that the conscience of those 538 electors will be any better than the conscience of the 153 million they represent. On the other hand it seems likely that it would be easier to manipulate 538 electors than it would 153 million voters...especially now that state control has been stripped away.

Ají de Gallina 08-22-2019 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii (Post 21820038)
"Cities" don't determine popular vote elections -- voters do. In a popular vote election, each and every voter in rural parts of America has exactly the same voting power as a single voter in coastal cities. All voters would have exactly the same voting power. Right now, voters in California and Texas have virtually no influence on who becomes President, while voters who are lucky enough to live in swing states have much more influence. The first option seems much more fair, as well as representative of popular will, to me.

If you want to get semantic, then, we can say that it's the ink on the paper or the electrons on the machine what decides elections.

Buck Godot 08-22-2019 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina (Post 21820028)
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.

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.

Red Wiggler 08-22-2019 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina (Post 21820074)
If you want to get semantic, then, we can say that it's the ink on the paper or the electrons on the machine what decides elections.

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.

Red Wiggler 08-22-2019 12:34 PM

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?

Czarcasm 08-22-2019 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buck Godot (Post 21820079)
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.

"Whote paste"?
The only definition I can find for "whote" says it is slang for homosexual prostitute...and now "whote paste" is something I'm going to have to drink heavily to forget.

Really Not All That Bright 08-22-2019 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase (Post 21819824)
Two courts with differing decisions. Plop. Right in the laps of the Supreme Court.

SCOTUS does not care overmuch about different results reached by state versus federal courts on federal questions; the federal court's decision controls (at least within that circuit). If the decisions directly conflict, it doesn't matter what the WA Supreme Court thinks because it's an issue of federal constitutional law.

ThelmaLou 08-22-2019 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Czarcasm (Post 21820072)
I don't see any evidence that the conscience of those 538 electors will be any better than the conscience of the 153 million they represent. On the other hand it seems likely that it would be easier to manipulate 538 electors than it would 153 million voters...especially now that state control has been stripped away.

Well, what if in the last election, the electors had decided to make the electoral college vote reflect the popular vote?

Czarcasm 08-22-2019 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThelmaLou (Post 21820173)
Well, what if in the last election, the electors had decided to make the electoral college vote reflect the popular vote?

With or without undue influence?

Northern Piper 08-22-2019 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Wiggler (Post 21820099)
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?

According to interviews with him, he changed his mind after the election in November. He was trying to encourage enough electoral voters, particularly Republicans, not to vote for Trump to deny him the majority. I guess he had to prove his good faith (ha!) to those Republican electoral voters by voting for Kasich.

enalzi 08-22-2019 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Wiggler (Post 21820099)
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?

My understanding was that it went like this.

1) There was no way that Trump electors would switch to Clinton.
2) Even if enough Trump electors switched to a third party so no one got to a majority, it would go to the house, who would presumably just pick a Trump.
3) If it goes to the House, they have to pick from the top three vote getters.
4) Kasich would be a better pres than Trump, and might be palatable enough that if it went to the house, they would pick Kasich over Trump.
5) Baca votes for Kasich, in the hopes that if Trump fails to hit 270, Kasich is the third guy that can be voted on.

It wasn't about not supporting Hilary, it was about stopping Trump.

Ravenman 08-22-2019 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina (Post 21820074)
If you want to get semantic, then, we can say that it's the ink on the paper or the electrons on the machine what decides elections.

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.

I’m not even getting into the issue of how this silly electoral system undermines “one person, one vote.”

Red Wiggler 08-22-2019 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by enalzi (Post 21820301)
My understanding was that it went like this.

1) There was no way that Trump electors would switch to Clinton.
2) Even if enough Trump electors switched to a third party so no one got to a majority, it would go to the house, who would presumably just pick a Trump.
3) If it goes to the House, they have to pick from the top three vote getters.
4) Kasich would be a better pres than Trump, and might be palatable enough that if it went to the house, they would pick Kasich over Trump.
5) Baca votes for Kasich, in the hopes that if Trump fails to hit 270, Kasich is the third guy that can be voted on.

It wasn't about not supporting Hilary, it was about stopping Trump.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northern Piper (Post 21820299)
According to interviews with him, he changed his mind after the election in November. He was trying to encourage enough electoral voters, particularly Republicans, not to vote for Trump to deny him the majority. I guess he had to prove his good faith (ha!) to those Republican electoral voters by voting for Kasich.

Thanks to both for these answers. That was a pretty convoluted plan.

BobLibDem 08-22-2019 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina (Post 21820028)
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.

This is a common right wing trope.. 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.

Quote:

Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.

In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)

Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.

These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.

When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.
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.

Saint Cad 08-22-2019 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThelmaLou (Post 21819394)


This is the case I wrote about in this thread. Suck it Wayne Williams.

Saint Cad 08-22-2019 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThelmaLou (Post 21820047)
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.

I doubt it. What it the percentage of faithless electors in states that do not have faithless elector laws? Very very small.

asahi 08-22-2019 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ají de Gallina (Post 21820028)
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.

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.

Northern Piper 08-22-2019 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Wiggler (Post 21820327)
Thanks to both for these answers. That was a pretty convoluted plan.

To quote the Meadow Party slogan for Bill'n'Opus 88: "A Desperate Choice for Desperate Times"

BobLibDem 08-22-2019 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint Cad (Post 21820370)
I doubt it. What it the percentage of faithless electors in states that do not have faithless elector laws? Very very small.

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.

FlikTheBlue 08-22-2019 04:28 PM

Maybe this would encourage the parties to make sure they chose electors who would have something to lose if they were faithless. Off the top of my head one suggestion is that the electors for each party be the most senior members of their state delegation (state senators, or representatives if their aren’t enough senators).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.