What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

SJHovey said:
Let's be clear. Assuming you could get Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to do away with the electoral college, it would then have to be ratified by at least 38 of the 50 states. Thus, the very states whose ox would be gored by eliminating the electoral college would have to vote to approve it.

Notwithstanding the dim view some of you take of our more rural states and the people in them, I personally see zero chance of those people to take that step. Once global warming kicks in and we force people in California, New York and Florida to relocate, there may be a window of opportunity, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Thus, any sort of discussion regarding the elimination of the electoral college, especially when done in conjunction with election results that one side is particularly sore about, does nothing but undermine our system of seamless and peaceful transitions of power, which is bad, imho.
Click to expand...

You don't even need to do that. State electors are chosen by the states. The states can enter a compact, and are, to pledge their electors to the national popular vote winner. They're up to like 170 already. Once they hit 270 it's all over.

Totally legal and within the bounds of the Constitution and (as a bonus!) it's a states' rights issue.
 
Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

aparch said:
If anything is going to get "fixed," let's get rid of the gerrymandering of congressional districts.
https://pjmedia.com/zombie/2010/11/...congressional-districts-in-the-united-states/
Click to expand...

We might be well on our way to that. A federal court (I think) rejected a proposed redistricting based on an algorithm.

Edit: Found the story - http://www.salon.com/2016/11/22/unc...ikes-down-wisconsins-gop-drawn-redistricting/

Cool stuff. Hope it stands up when it hits the SCOTUS

Edit 2: Another good story on it: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...er_the_supreme_court_could_take_the_case.html
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

I hate the "End the Electoral College" debate. It always sounds like sour grapes. I see no issues with tweaking the rules though.
 
Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

dxmnkd316 said:
You don't even need to do that. State electors are chosen by the states. The states can enter a compact, and are, to pledge their electors to the national popular vote winner. They're up to like 170 already. Once they hit 270 it's all over.

Totally legal and within the bounds of the Constitution and (as a bonus!) it's a states' rights issue.
Click to expand...
Totally legal according to supporters. I think there is some disagreement over that however.

If the compact is adopted, one major problem I see is this. Let's say Michigan adopts it, but we have another election like this year where Michigan voters vote for Trump but the popular vote goes to Clinton. According to the compact the Michigan electors are now pledged to Clinton, notwithstanding the vote in Michigan? How is that going to sit? I'll tell you what will happen. The first time that occurs, the state drops out of the "compact" and now you are back down below 270.
 
Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

SJHovey said:
Totally legal according to supporters. I think there is some disagreement over that however.

If the compact is adopted, one major problem I see is this. Let's say Michigan adopts it, but we have another election like this year where Michigan voters vote for Trump but the popular vote goes to Clinton. According to the compact the Michigan electors are now pledged to Clinton, notwithstanding the vote in Michigan? How is that going to sit? I'll tell you what will happen. The first time that occurs, the state drops out of the "compact" and now you are back down below 270.
Click to expand...

Then the residents of Michigan can vote for state legislators who don't support it. This is all fairly simple.

What legal challenges could there be? The Constitution doesn't prescribe how electors are to vote, just a few ground rules on who can and can't be an elector.
 
Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

Handyman said:
I hate the "End the Electoral College" debate. It always sounds like sour grapes. I see no issues with tweaking the rules though.
Click to expand...

Agree. Rules changes proposals (including, in fact especially in sports) have more credibility when someone who benefits from an odd rule (e.g. "tuck rule", "football move after a catch", hockey replay of a goal for an offside two minutes and three possession changes between the alleged offside and the goal), recognizes the unfairness or absurdity and proposes the change.

I think eliminating the Electoral College entirely has a host of unintended and unforseen consequences attached to it. One change that I think is reasonable, and doesn't require constitutional amendment is for the state to award the two "senate" electoral votes to the winner and the "rep" votes proportionally to the popular vote.
 
Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

dxmnkd316 said:
I have this amazing montage playing in my head of Donald trump crashing through the poorest neighborhoods on a bulldozer *cuts to* him walking around with two huge bags of cash *cuts to* him throwing wads of cash down to billionaires beneath his escalator *cuts to* him slapping some homeless guy in the face and stealing his shopping cart *cuts to* some guy left to die because his Medicaid was taken away, single tear running down his cheek *fade to black*
Click to expand...

So. Robert Moses?
 
Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

dxmnkd316 said:
You don't even need to do that. State electors are chosen by the states. The states can enter a compact, and are, to pledge their electors to the national popular vote winner. They're up to like 170 already. Once they hit 270 it's all over.

Totally legal and within the bounds of the Constitution and (as a bonus!) it's a states' rights issue.
Click to expand...

That is definitely the way to do it.

There is a problem, though. What happens if the national popular vote is very close? Right now you only have to recount a close state, and you only care if it tips the balance (i.e., FL 2000). But in that case, you'd need a national recount.

Also, my God if the Slave States are cheating now, just wait until every vote they suppress counts equally towards a president, regardless of how skewed the state is. NC and FL are cheating, but can you imagine what MS and AL will be like? It will be Jim Crow cubed.
 
CLS said:
Agree. Rules changes proposals (including, in fact especially in sports) have more credibility when someone who benefits from an odd rule (e.g. "tuck rule", "football move after a catch", hockey replay of a goal for an offside two minutes and three possession changes between the alleged offside and the goal), recognizes the unfairness or absurdity and proposes the change.

I think eliminating the Electoral College entirely has a host of unintended and unforseen consequences attached to it. One change that I think is reasonable, and doesn't require constitutional amendment is for the state to award the two "senate" electoral votes to the winner and the "rep" votes proportionally to the popular vote.
Click to expand...

You'd have to remove the gerrymander for that to work.
 
SJHovey said:
Let's be clear. Assuming you could get Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to do away with the electoral college, it would then have to be ratified by at least 38 of the 50 states. Thus, the very states whose ox would be gored by eliminating the electoral college would have to vote to approve it.

Notwithstanding the dim view some of you take of our more rural states and the people in them, I personally see zero chance of those people to take that step. Once global warming kicks in and we force people in California, New York and Florida to relocate, there may be a window of opportunity, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Thus, any sort of discussion regarding the elimination of the electoral college, especially when done in conjunction with election results that one side is particularly sore about, does nothing but undermine our system of seamless and peaceful transitions of power, which is bad, imho.
Click to expand...

The more likely way it will happen will be if/when the national popular vote compact gets enough signatories. No constitutional amendment required since states can pick their electors however they want.
 
SJHovey said:
Totally legal according to supporters. I think there is some disagreement over that however.
Click to expand...

Not really. There would be the partisan challenges by opponents if it were to come to fruition, but states could pick their electors by drawing names out of a hat if they wanted to. There is no constitutional restriction placed on the states with respect to picking their electors.
 
Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

unofan said:
Not really. There would be the partisan challenges by opponents if it were to come to fruition, but states could pick their electors by drawing names out of a hat if they wanted to. There is no constitutional restriction placed on the states with respect to picking their electors.
Click to expand...
It'll certainly end up in the Supreme Court. Someone will claim that it violates the requirement that compacts between states have to be approved by Congress. Supporters will say there is no federal question, so Congress doesn't have to approve. But that issue will undoubtedly make its way to the Supremes, and once there, it is anybody's guess.
 
SJHovey said:
It'll certainly end up in the Supreme Court. Someone will claim that it violates the requirement that compacts between states have to be approved by Congress. Supporters will say there is no federal question, so Congress doesn't have to approve. But that issue will undoubtedly make its way to the Supremes, and once there, it is anybody's guess.
Click to expand...
These things have a way to bite you in the posterior. Sure, it seems a great idea when your candidate has received the most votes, but lost in tbe electoral college. But what happens when the other side has the most votes but loses the EC?

The EC has served the country well since its founding. Let's not mess with it because one side is a sore loser.
 
Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

joecct said:
These things have a way to bite you in the posterior. Sure, it seems a great idea when your candidate has received the most votes, but lost in tbe electoral college. But what happens when the other side has the most votes but loses the EC?

The EC has served the country well since its founding. Let's not mess with it because one side is a sore loser.
Click to expand...
Actually, your example is about the only instance that I can think of where the compact would actually get passed by enough states.

If you look, there hasn't been a ton of activity recently in those states that haven't approved it. In fact, I think the only states that have passed in since 2010 are a couple of states that had actually passed it earlier, but it got vetoed. In other words, there was early support in that state but a governor stood in the way. Once that governor was out of the way, they finally got it enacted into law. Pretty much every other state looked at it 8-10 years ago, and there hasn't been much push since.

I suppose presidential elections have a way of rekindling interest, but unless we see a big push in the next year at the state level, I suspect the compact has gone about as far as it will go, with maybe another state here or there. Furthermore, if it ever gets close to 270, you are going to see a ton of work done at the state level in states considering the move. Real battles will start to occur.

But, if suddenly a Republican candidate won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, you might actually see some of the "red" states pass this. But given the demographics, I don't see that happening.
 
joecct said:
These things have a way to bite you in the posterior. Sure, it seems a great idea when your candidate has received the most votes, but lost in tbe electoral college. But what happens when the other side has the most votes but loses the EC?

The EC has served the country well since its founding. Let's not mess with it because one side is a sore loser.
Click to expand...

What has the electoral college saved us from?

1876 it stopped a democrat from taking office, but still ended reconstruction with the Compromise of 1877. I guess it could've been worse as I haven't read up much on Sam Tilden, but another century of legal racism wasn't the best result.

2000 got us two wars we're still fighting and a recession.

I can't speak for the other three times the electoral college has differed from the popular vote but that isn't the best track record.
 
Re: POTUS Elect Trump II: Lefties whining and regurgitating fake news

joecct said:
These things have a way to bite you in the posterior. Sure, it seems a great idea when your candidate has received the most votes, but lost in tbe electoral college. But what happens when the other side has the most votes but loses the EC?

The EC has served the country well since its founding. Let's not mess with it because one side is a sore loser.
Click to expand...

The people who want to kill the EC object to it in principle. The problem is one side will always see the EC to its partisan advantage and so not want to give up a tool. If there is ever a large movement for an Amendment, it will have to be phrased as somewthing like "does not take effect until 20 years after it is adopted."

Still, I think the small pop states will always want to block it. They've got their cake with their over-representation, and will never willingly give it up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top