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

Well which is it you guys want a vote where the person who gets the most votes wins but then want a vote where the guy who gets the most votes doesn't really win, he gets a part win. What if we had a national popular vote and it the winner gets 55% of the vote he gets to be president for 55% of the time and the other guy gets to be president 45% of time?

 

Yes. All these NPV states will have to vote for Trump even though he didn't win their states.

 

Check what two of the three groups that had overwhelming support for trump, those with less than a high school diploma and the elderly (65+), also look at what states receive more in federal aid and total receipts per population percentage and get back with me.

Hint: they are paying very little taxes and are bright red

 

Political parties are not required to select their candidates by any kind of public vote or process.

 

40% of the potential voters don't vote.

 

Wait, did you just acknowledge that the electoral college just elected a populist? So it’s not any sort of protection from the one reason we need it?

 

You sure about that?

I honestly had to look it up....,

It sound’s like they can’t make any changes to the Electoral College without a constitutional amendment.

 

The way Electors vote is not set out in the constitution. Currently most states - but not all - give all their EC votes to the candidate that wins the most votes in the state.
It would be constitutionally valid for a state to allocate its EC votes in a different way. For example, to give all the state’s EC votes to the winner of the national vote. Or to give EC votes in proportion to the voting outcome in the state. Or nationally.

Changing the system would require a constitutional amendment. Keeping the system but changing the way it works wouldn’t.

 

Of course I did. Trump is certainly a populist. That isn't evidence that the electoral college doesn't prevent any populism. Its evidence that is cannot prevent all populism. I put on bug spray when I go outside. It doesn't prevent all bugs. But my problem is much worse if I don't use it.

Madison was deeply concerned about the rule of one large faction over many small ones. He knew that the unity of many factions is fleeting, and that eventually violence would erupt between groups of people with different interests and with conflicting viewpoints. The electoral college is a check against this issue. It's not 100% fool proof, but it's not a bad road block. Trump's populism didn't win the popular vote. Instead it won the popular vote of many different factions of people. That's far better in my opinion.

It's so strange to me that a party that purports to be dedicated to the interests of minorities, the impoverished, and the persecuted would want to hand the reigns of power directly to a majority that they describe as racist, bigoted, homophobic...yada yada. So for a third time, I'll ask. If the electoral college is a stupid policy, what's your better solution to the problem of minority representation?

 

Maybe we should do just that. The problem with all elected officials is somehow they believe their constituents are only those that elected them. In the case of the Office of the President, for example, the entire citizenship of the United States are the President's constituents, not just the liberals or conservatives that elected them. I am fairly certain no President has ever lived up to that fact and unfortunately the divide is wider than ever and only getting worse. Jimmy Carter may have tried, but we saw how ineffective he was.

 

You apparently did not read the Court's opinion here

 

GOP will be up in arms if they get rid of the "winner takes all" rule for Electors

 

As always, I prefer to leave it in the hands of the states. They should be able to have any election laws they like. Moving power downward from federal government is always positive.

 

The judgment did not change what I wrote.

 

Actually it did...it stated that State's can't bind electors to the popular vote.

 

I learned the following in junior high school:

"In the current Electoral College system, the presidency is awarded to the candidate who wins at least 270 of the 538 available electoral votes. The Constitution gives state legislatures the right to choose how presidential electors are chosen. Since the 19th century, each state (with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska) has awarded its electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in that state. But under the NPV system, states would commit to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead."

Personally, I have no complaints against the NPV/Electoral College System. As far as I am concerned, the ONLY ones that complain about the NPV are those who wish to have a Communist style system of governance over these United States of America; some people are not satisfied unless there is something for them to complain about, like a spoiled child. With the current system in place, the selected candidate MUST have a CLEAR MAJORITY to win. There are 538 current Electoral College votes, half of which is 269, but the candidate MUST have the favor-ability of 270; it is a tie breaker based system which is fair and suitable to have orderly Presidential elections, unless one side has a tizzy and stomps their feet or holds their breath.

 

That’s the way it’s always been. So it didn’t change anything.

 

It wasn’t in CO. Hence why CO lost

 

Still doesn’t change what I wrote.

Have you actually read the judgement?

 

Oh, so The President of the United States Senate, e.g., THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION presides over the readings of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE'S VOTING OUTCOME! This is why I protest the call for direct Democracy in the choosing of the winner of the Presidential Election. Some people just use the gullibility factor of certain others to stir the pot, e.g. call for pseudo revolution. Such people are clearly some of the enemies of a free society, with their striving of all out degeneration of society. A POX on their houses!

 

I did...and it said the opposite of what you suggested the States could do. The States can not mandate how the electors vote is what the opinion stated. This puts a direct stop to the push by liberals to force electors to vote a certain way.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1173.pdf

 

Ahem . . .
All lives do not matter! I will leave my comment at that.

 

After reading this thread, it is quite apparent that many people do not know how the Electoral process works and what this ruling means.

1. There are not people assigned as Electoral voters for each State.
2. What happens is that each registered political party in each State creates a list of people they will used for Electoral voters.
3. For instance, Oregon has 7 Electoral votes. The Republicans submit a list with 7 people they will use as Electorals....as does the Democrat party and every other party registered with the State.
4. The people listed by each party are normally people that are dedicated to that party and their assignment as Electoral for the party is seen as a type of award or honor.
5. However, the people on the "list" are not obligated to vote for the candidate of the party that assigned them (per the recent court ruling).....though they have normally pledged to do so.
6. For instance, a person on the list for the Republican party CAN vote for the Democrat candidate.
7. When we vote for President, we are really selecting which "list' to use.
   
8. In most States, if the Democrat candidate wins the State's popular vote, then the Democrat's "list" is used. If the Republican candidate win's the State's popular vote, the Republican list is used.
9. Some States use a % selection from each list that is consistent with the % each candidate received.
10. The Electorals are suppose to vote for the President AND the Vice President.

Vice President:

1. The position of Vice President is suppose to go to the candidate with the second highest Electoral votes.
2. Originally, the Electorals would cast 2 votes, without distinction between which vote was for president and which vote was for VP.
3. The person with the highest EC vote would be President and the second highest vote would be VP.
4. This was change with the addition of the 12th Amendment.
5. Today, the EC votes for both positions separately.
6. It is possible that the running mate of a Presidential candidate is NOT selected as the VP, but it is very unlikely.

 

Less than 10% of the country doesnt have a high school diploma...

Kinda the same as half the country.

Cool argument.

Point being, mob rule is a dumb idea, and only dumb people (or those who are the least productive and thus would benefit most) would support it.

 

Is that you Ilhan Omar ?
You talking about the Jews again?

Tell me what lives don’t matter?