Supreme Court says states can punish Electoral College voters

PROXY vote, on behalf of the state. Why are you ignoring things you've already been told.

I gave you a link to the definition of proxy vote, and everything.

Where does it state that? STATES get to decide. States that have a law saying the electors are bound to what the state chose, are saying that electors are bound to what the state chose. This has been settled law since the 1950s. Read up on Ray v. Blair.

All the SCOTUS did was validate that states can punish those who violate the state law.

 

There's that leftist hate again.

 

My state already has mail in voting. But that was from when there were intelligent people in charge. Today we have DeSantis, who is hard at work on voter suppression. We'll see once a real leader is in the Presidency

 

Pro tip - you don't have to be on the left to hate Trump. LOL - True story - you can even be on the right and hate Trump.

 

Wait. My opposition to Trump is hate...but yours to ALL Dems is not?

Oh...

 

Proxy vote? I don't think I see such language. Can you please cite the clause to which you are referring?

 

You don't elect intelligent people to your state government?

 

No idea what that has to do with the electoral college.

 

Read a history book, read the constitution, and read the settled SCOTUS cases on the topic. I'm done being trolled by you. You've been given the answers; you are just ignoring them.

\Currently, all nine SCOTUS judges disagree with you, so I'm going with history and what SCOTUS says. My guess is that the nine know law better than you do.

 

This is Florida! The answer to that question is a big fat no! If they're intelligent, they're not honest. Right now the ones in power are neither.

 

Well, as I'm sure you know, it all goes back to when the delegates were hammering out the treaty. The smaller states were apprehensive of being steamrolled by the more populous states.

So the idea of the senate and the method by which the president is elected kind of come from that background. Both of those mechanisms are technically anti-democratic.

So you oppose the system of electing the president, so I was wondering if you also object to the senate.

 

So there's no actual language in the constitution saying anything about a "proxy vote"?

 

But they were selected by majority of the people, so obviously they have to be the most intelligent.

 

Already answered, troll. Your inability to understand is not my problem.

 

I don't think you actually cited the particular article,section,clause. So I'll have to take it as given that there's no such thing as a "proxy vote" in the constitution.

 

It's in the part of the constitution that outlines what to do when alien trolls start making stuff up about what should be in the constitution. Look there.

 

So....you got nothing. Okay.

 

If you read the details you will see they are not actual penetration hacks of amazon servers. They are hackers stealing passwords from merchants and hacking the access of one of AWS clients. But they don't actually get into the servers themselves with any sort of administrative rights. They can't alter anything in the server. They use credentials of companies that use their servers. So they are limited to whatever those users can do.

When voting, what users (voters) can do is only one thing: vote! And it's possible a hacker could trick a voter into giving them their credentials. But it would be too much of a task just to flip one vote. And there are many ways in which they could make this ineffective. For example, with two factor authentication. Or by doing things that only the government could do like verifying the general location where the vote is coming from (through the IP address) against the voters address. So in order for any of this to be effective they would need hundreds of thousands of competent hackers in the areas that could sway an election. And there are many ways in which they could get caught. Too much risk for each one of those hackers to be worth it.

Yes. But I meant to say they are not penetration hacking as explained above. Which would be the only way to make any difference in an election. You cannot do that with proper security on any server.

I am a computer expert. And my area of expertise is (or was before I opened my own business) IT security. They can most certainly build a secure system for these elections. Problem could arise on other aspects such as how to handle the server workloads or educating people on how to use it... things like that. In the area of security of the elections there would be ZERO risk.

 

I don't hate anyone. I do enjoy pointing out how leftists rail at Trump like Don Quixote tilting at windmills.

 

There are pros and cons. It could be better. But I would focus on achievable goals for now.

 

I have never seen the people elect anybody on the basis of being the most intelligent. If it were so, Elizabeth Warren would be the Democratic candidate.

Much less Republicans.

 

So....you oppose the idea of the senate? Or not?

 

But the majority chooses and the rest of us have to live with their choices I guess.

 

I oppose the whole Presidential system of government. I think the closest to a democracy there can be would be somewhat similar to a Parliamentary Democracy. One in which the head of the government can be removed when they have shown an inability to govern. Any system in which the head of state is too comfortable in their position is too close to a dictatorship for my taste. Four years of a head of state feeling completely untouchable and unaccountable to the people for their actions is too much. Not that we should constantly be changing the head of state, but they should never feel comfortable that they are safe from removal.

But that's not going to change. Not in my lifetime. So I look for smaller goals that can be achieved.

 

Interesting. So do you oppose the idea of the senate? Or not?