Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by NMG26, Aug 3, 2020.
Yes I know, it was a rhetorical question.
"Following the presidential election, Colorado's nine designated electors meet in the Governor's office to cast their votes for president and vice president. Under current Colorado law, each presidential elector must vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidates who received the highest number of votes in Colorado's General Election."
In my opinion, if the state does not turn in their electoral vote on time to be ratified by Congress, their vote is simply not counted. It would be nice if New York and California missed the deadline. Of course if no one gets 270 electoral votes, then the House votes for whomever they want. President Pelosi??
Disclaimer- I'm not an election lawyer so I could be mistaken.
Maybe this will help:
Not really. It seems the electoral college is not a true representative of a state's geographic vote
Denver goes dem.....but most of Colorado is rep.
Not a good representation of the state as a whole
The states should have their own version of the EC, that's for sure. State population centers are currently controlling where the state vote goes, and this disenfranchises anyone outside of these large, mostly liberal, urban areas...
As long as the state legislators don't care enough to change the rules within the state itself, nothing will change.
An Amendment to the US Constitution would be the best result in my opinion, however unlikely that would be to get passed...
I've never understood this argument or other similar ones. We have counties in CA with less than 1,200 people and we counties with over 10,000,000 people. Why should the two be considered equal? There are huge swathes of land in this country with very few people living on them and small densely packed places with million and millions of people crammed into them. The Constitution doesn't care how many counties you won or how many acres you won. At the end of the day only one thing matters, how many EC votes did you get.
Do you understand the purpose behind the Electoral College? The reason we have one in the first place? Doesn't sound like you do.
I'm not sure where you're getting that. This is the Court's holding:
"Held: A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for President."
The last few sentences of the opinion reinforce that electors can be required to vote in accordance with the popular vote of their State:
"And state election laws evolved to reinforce that development, ensuring that a State’s electors would vote the same way as its citizens.Washington’s law is only another in the same vein. It reflects a longstanding tradition in which electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen."
The Chiafolo opinion doesn't say a State legislature cannot direct the electors to vote in accordance only with its will, or with the 'national popular vote,' or whatever other choice besides the State's popular vote .... but it sure as hell doesn't say it can, either. That question is not yet explicitly answered, but this opinion leans hard against it IMHO.
What does a geographic vote have to do with anything? Last I checked, the Constitution doesn't consider acreage as an important voting criteria in selecting a president.
Exactly. Most "voters" don't realize they don't get a vote, they are "polled".
Yes, in order to give the States more equal footing in the selection of the executive. It has nothing to do with counties and how many people live in them or how big they are.
That talks about the possible impact of the EC vote being delayed, yes. That's not what I asked, though. In states that have legislation dictating how the electors behave based on the popular vote - if the popular vote is delayed, how can the electoral vote not be? (Assuming the popular vote is delayed beyond the historical deadline for that state's electors to have submitted their votes.)
The states need to do the same, to provide equal representation for their residents rather than Mob Rule mentality, giving all the power to specific population centers. Without this sort of divided representation within the state itself, one large city can generally dictate the entire state's vote in the Presidential election. This is counter to the principles that caused the Founders to create the EC in the first place, and should be embraced by the states as well - though it will not happen in my lifetime.
Counties within a State are not the equivalent to States within the US. A State is sovereign, a county is an arbitrary political jurisdiction.
Only true in a minority of states. In most states electors are legally bound to vote according to the popular vote of the state. Those that don't require it include most of the southern states, like Texas, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Arkansas, etc.
So you are in favor of mob rule, citizen initiatives, the "will of the people," and not a representative republic.
So in a state like Washington, where Seattle is a liberal bastion but the rest of the state is relatively conservative, the people living in the one city should decide the fate for the residents of the entire state.
You don't see this as a problem? Be honest. If one city in YOUR state was controlling the entire outcome for your state, and YOU were not aligned with that decision, you would be perfectly OK with the results? You would consider your voice to have been heard?
If you look at the history of the EC, how a state voted was initially decided by the State Legislature, and not by a vote of the people. Why? Because we are a Representative Republic. We elect people who represent us. We are not a social democracy where the people get to vote themselves whatever the mob wants.
The State Legislature is made up of representatives from all over the state, each with an equal vote. This allows for the small districts - legal districts where elected officials represent the people - to have an equal say in how the state votes. This has been abandoned in favor of mob rule by all but 2 states in the Union, however even those 2 states do not allow their legislators to pick, they just use a different version of mob rule.
In a real Representative Republic, as the Founders intended, the people would vote, their Representative would represent their vote in the actual selection of the candidate and there would actually be broad representation across the state, rather than a single, densely populated city controlling the outcome of the election.
Each state's electors must meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. Federal law does not permit a change in that date. If the electors of a State do not meet on that date and submit their results to Congress, in my opinion that State's electoral vote is null and the State electoral vote is forfeit. I'm sure that would spawn lawsuits but too bad.
In those states they are bound by state law, which can be changed by the state government at any time. The recent faithless elector ruling doesn't change that or require a state to use a popular vote to select electors. I've said before that if they so chose, they could select electors based on a best 2 out of 3 roshambeaux game between the candidates and it would be completely constitutional.
2020 election coming up. Let's trot out the usual complaints:
1. the voting is not pure because the counts are flawed.
They are flawed because the taxpayers and politicians put funding of elections and testing of voting methodologies as a totally last priority. They belly ache and do nothing.
2. There are rigged counts.
Sure there are rigged counts - because you will not volunteer or give money to your local party organization to pay people to go and watch the counts.
3. The person with the most votes should win.