Court rules Electoral College members aren't bound by popular vote

That is exactly what is wrong with the concept of the EC. It gives the minority control over the majority.

 

Ok that is good. Thanks for posting.

 

Well actually it insures that the majority of the states will select the President. The Federal Govt is a creation of the States

 

I think that is the whole idea. The founders did not want a system where the uninformed populous would just vote in the candidate that just promised them the most. They wanted informed electoral representatives to be able to select the best candidate to run our country. Unfortunately, the system does not function as smoothly as anticipated because too many politicians have hijacked the system by forcing Electoral's to cast their votes as the State desires.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch....." - Ben Franklin

 

The EC was created because the FF s feared the great unwashed and did not respect the rights or the wisdom of the common man. They used the big state vs small states argument to puppress democracy. Thatvwas 18th century thinking.

Most all things in our Constitution are excellent and need to stay in perpetuity. Others such as counting a slave as 3/5 of a person, restricting voting rights by gender, and the EC were wrong. We were given the right to change our Constitution and that us not easy to forget but that is a brilliant thing the FFs did for us the following generations. Let's use that right to fix the few things the great FFs got wrong.

 

That is not what is being reported. I have not read the actual ruling yet, so it is possible that the media is reporting this incorrectly:

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/21/electoral-college-members-not-bound-popular-vote-c/

 

The EC balances power between the states and regions and was a brilliant compromise. It's not going away.

 

Nope
"DENVER — A U.S. appeals court in Denver said Electoral College members can vote for the presidential candidate of their choice and aren’t bound by the popular vote in their states."

 

It was supposed to be the balancer between the small states and the larger states. At least that is how it was sold. Read through sources of the Federal papers and the like from those times. The elites , yet we had the elites back then, did not trust the people the common man to make a "good" decision so that was also right up there with balancing the power. Between small vs large states.

In poitics just like like in other issues there is no one true reason why something came about.

 

States and regions and it does. The States elect the President not the People.

 

So if this stands what does it do to the move by the left to circumvent the Constitution and EC with the national popular vote compact. If the delegates are not bound by any state law and say Trump has the lead if you tally up all the state votes but not in California but California is party to the compact do you think the California electors would still cast their votes for him?

 

I am not arguing what the EC does I am saying that it has autlived it's need. I my opinion.

 

The decision is in direct opposition to the State Supreme court decision so it will probably end up in SCOTUS.

 

​

California requires electors to vote per the popular vote.
It's a State thing, not a matter for the Federals.

​

 

I think its a setback for liberals

 

I think it sounds a little silly... why bother holding presidential elections at all then, if the EC members can vote for whoever they feel like voting for?

I've said this on all other voting threads that I feel ALL states' EC votes should be apportioned based on the pct of the vote each candidate receives in that state.... that's the only system that makes sense to me.

I've run the numbers on that concept through 2016 and 2000 and I think it would truly be representative of the American will..

 

In a democratic process the one who receives the most votes cast by the voting public wins not the vote of some politically picked representatives.THE MAJORITY VOTE SHOULD ALWAYS WIN!!!!

 

It served us well until it worked against the left... Only then did it become a bad idea in their eyes!

 

No the States electing the President has not changed at all nor outlived anything and the balancing of that that the EC accomplishes is even FAR more necessary now.

 

And that is what happens now, in what state does the person who wins the majority of votes not win their slate of electors?

 

oopsy

 

Study up some Constitution history.

I could tell you but, then the knowledge would have less value.

Heaven Is Not A Democracy
And Democracy Is Not Heaven
Witness the hell of my H.O.A.​

 

I just ran 2016 and came up with a Trump victory at 276 votes. I did not run 2000. Do you come up with something different for 2016?

 

What would be a more intelligent solution to the problem that the electoral college attempts to address?

Mob rule is not an intelligent alternative.

 

^^^ This is an opinion of someone that doesn't understand why the Electoral College section of the U.S. Constitution is the largest, and most detailed. The poster likely doesn't realize that without the Electoral College, the United States of America would have never been formed and without it the nation will fracture and break apart.

I have seen this same member ridiculously argue that "Hillary won the Popular Vote". That argument is for morons. Why?

A Popular Vote contest never occurred. If it did, Trump would have campaign in New York, California, Illinois, etc. We have no idea what the results would have been. But, crying about it afterwards is like us playing chess and you take my King for the win. But, I protest and claim I should be the winner, because I took more of your pieces off the board. Again, that was not the contest we are having.