Texas part of Electoral College winner take all lawsuit

9,799 Views | 122 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by TechDawgMc
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is something all Americans should pay attention to and get behind:

A Harvard Law professor, former governor William F. Weld, and Al Gore's onetime attorney are making a long-shot bid to change the Electoral College system, arguing that it encourages presidential candidates to devote all their time to a handful of swing states and ignore the vast majority of the country.
The high-powered group is suing two blue states, Massachusetts and California, and two red states, Texas and South Carolina, arguing that the winner-take-all system that they and 44 other states use to allocate electors to the Electoral College effectively disenfranchises millions of voters who back the losing candidates.

In 2016, for example, more than 1 million Massachusetts voters cast ballots for Donald Trump, but that translated into zero Electoral College votes because Massachusetts' winner-take-all system required all 11 of the state's electoral votes to go to Hillary Clinton. Similarly in Texas, nearly 4 million voters cast ballots for Clinton, but all 38 of the state's Electoral College votes went to Trump.


The group contends that the winner-take-all system violates the "one person, one vote" principle because voters who back losing candidates in the general election in November have their votes "discarded when it really counts in mid-December," and the Electoral College picks the president.


Frustration with the Electoral College has increased, particularly on the left, since Clinton became the second Democratic presidential nominee after Gore to win the popular vote but lose the presidency in the Electoral College in the last two decades.
The lawsuits were orchestrated by Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor and longtime critic of the Electoral College, corporate money in politics, and gerrymandering, who briefly ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2015.

He hopes to get the case to the Supreme Court before the 2020 presidential election. While other critics have called for the outright elimination of the Electoral College, which would require a constitutional amendment, the legal challenge targets state laws that require a winner-take-all system in choosing electors.
David Boies, who represented Vice President Gore in Bush v. Gore, the 2000 Supreme Court case that tipped the presidency to George W. Bush, is the lead attorney in the case, and was in federal court in Boston for preliminary arguments on Thursday.

"You shouldn't have voters going to the polls knowing their votes don't count," because they live in blue or red states, Boies told Judge Patti B. Saris. "That's why political candidates don't come here to campaign the same way they go to Ohio or Florida or other so-called battleground states."
Weld, the former Republican governor and 2016 Libertarian nominee for vice president, is one of three plaintiffs in the Massachusetts case. The other two are Republicans a Harvard student and a former Weld administration official.
Weld was traveling in Greece this week, but said in a statement that the winner-take-all system "discards millions of votes for president every four years" and "is at the heart of the unhealthy duopoly that plagues our national politics."
The group argues that if states were to pick electors proportionally, based on the results in each state, it would encourage candidates to campaign nationwide.

Trump, for example, would have had an incentive to campaign in Massachusetts, in hopes of picking up a few Electoral College votes. And Clinton would have had a reason to campaign in Texas perhaps in Austin or San Antonio in hopes of winning some of that state's Electoral College votes.


"They should pay attention to everyone in the country, not just swing-state voters," said Jason Harrow, an attorney for Equal Citizens, a nonprofit founded by Lessig that is coordinating the legal campaign.
Saris was openly skeptical of the effort, saying in court that she would be reluctant to order the Legislature to fix problems with the Electoral College unless there was a "plain violation" of voters' constitutional rights...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/08/09/william-weld-challenges-electoral-college-winner-take-all-system-massachusetts/3MpDZk90evXOcsDxC1WNAP/story.html
Make Racism Wrong Again
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What a waste of a post and of a lawsuit. States are free to send their electors to the college however they deem fit.

There doesn't even have to be a popular vote for them.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If this were to go through, and I don't see how it could, there will be several unintended consequences. Smaller states will not ever see a candidate and large population centers will be catered to with pork promises.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frivolous.
riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JXL
How long do you want to ignore this user?
[never mind]
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LIB,MR BEARS said:

If this were to go through, and I don't see how it could, there will be several unintended consequences. Smaller states will not ever see a candidate and large population centers will be catered to with pork promises.
Not true, if there was proportional allocation of electors within the states.
Make Racism Wrong Again
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A candidate needs to get a return on their investment and, that includes an investment of time. A small, toss up state would never see a candidate because the return on the time invested would not be worth the effort.

No fisherman goes after 1 or 2 small fish. They want a trophy or a full stringer. 2-3 perch are hardly worth the effort.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cinque said:

LIB,MR BEARS said:

If this were to go through, and I don't see how it could, there will be several unintended consequences. Smaller states will not ever see a candidate and large population centers will be catered to with pork promises.
Not true, if there was proportional allocation of electors within the states.


Going to need to amend the Constitution then. Electoral votes are based on senate plus congressional representation. Montana gets 3 but should have only one in your world.

Have you done the math on "portioned" but without amending the Constitution, meaning Montana keeps its 3 votes?

Did it "mirror" the "popular vote?"

States elect the president, not the people.
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This isn't about candidates. It's about the reasonable expectation of American citizens to have their votes matter.
One guy in Washington state recalled his first vote in a presidential election in 1980. He remembers heading to a nearby polling location with his dad when the national networks called the election for Reagan before they left the house. Is that what the framers intended? I don't think so,
If Reagan had to work for a proportional share of those votes, the concerns of citizens might have been heard, rather than being ignored, as is the case today.
Make Racism Wrong Again
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I heard the Democrats lost in 2016.

Something must be terribly wrong with the system.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cinque said:

This isn't about candidates. It's about the reasonable expectation of American citizens to have their votes matter.
One guy in Washington state recalled his first vote in a presidential election in 1980. He remembers heading to a nearby polling location with his dad when the national networks called the election for Reagan before they left the house. Is that what the framers intended? I don't think so,
If Reagan had to work for a proportional share of those votes, the concerns of citizens might have been heard, rather than being ignored, as is the case today.

Yes, which is why they wrote it down. Say it with me . . . "States elect the president per the constitution. Not the people."
contrario
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I like the idea because it still gives some power to the smaller states, but it gives an incentive for the candidates to at least step foot in the states that they have no chance of winning outright. It's silly that the candidates don't spend anytime trying to get votes in some of the most populous states because they know the results are a forgone conclusion.
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GrowlTowel said:

cinque said:

This isn't about candidates. It's about the reasonable expectation of American citizens to have their votes matter.
One guy in Washington state recalled his first vote in a presidential election in 1980. He remembers heading to a nearby polling location with his dad when the national networks called the election for Reagan before they left the house. Is that what the framers intended? I don't think so,
If Reagan had to work for a proportional share of those votes, the concerns of citizens might have been heard, rather than being ignored, as is the case today.

Yes, which is why they wrote it down. Say it with me . . . "States elect the president per the constitution. Not the people."
What they wrote down is what it SAYS and what it MEANS.
Make Racism Wrong Again
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
People like cinque read the constitution of the United States like '47 reads the Bible - skipping over the parts they don't like because no one in their right mind would write down things disagreeable to them... at least disagreeable at this moment.
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why don't presidential candidates ever campaign in Texas?
Make Racism Wrong Again
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Constitution is fairly clear on this matter, the solution is an amendment if you don't like it, not a lawsuit.
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

The Constitution is fairly clear on this matter, the solution is an amendment if you don't like it, not a lawsuit.
How do you know?
Make Racism Wrong Again
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

The Constitution is fairly clear on this matter, the solution is an amendment if you don't like it, not a lawsuit.
How do you know?
I have a degree from Baylor. Required class.
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

The Constitution is fairly clear on this matter, the solution is an amendment if you don't like it, not a lawsuit.
How do you know?
I have a degree from Baylor. Required class.
And Professor Lessig has degrees from Penn and Yale and he doesn't think it's that clear. So...
Make Racism Wrong Again
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

The Constitution is fairly clear on this matter, the solution is an amendment if you don't like it, not a lawsuit.
How do you know?
I have a degree from Baylor. Required class.
And Professor Lessig has degrees from Penn and Yale and he doesn't think it's that clear. So...


Go read the Constitution, it assigns responsibility for the selection of electors.
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

I'm The Constitution is fairly clear on this matter, the solution is an amendment if you don't like it, not a lawsuit.
How do you know?
I have a degree from Baylor. Required class.
And Professor Lessig has degrees from Penn and Yale and he doesn't think it's that clear. So...


Go read the Constitution, it assigns responsibility for the selection of electors.
Why don't presidential candidates in Texas?
Make Racism Wrong Again
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

I'm The Constitution is fairly clear on this matter, the solution is an amendment if you don't like it, not a lawsuit.
How do you know?
I have a degree from Baylor. Required class.
And Professor Lessig has degrees from Penn and Yale and he doesn't think it's that clear. So...


Go read the Constitution, it assigns responsibility for the selection of electors.
Why don't presidential candidates in Texas?


Go read the Constitution.
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

I'm The Constitution is fairly clear on this matter, the solution is an amendment if you don't like it, not a lawsuit.
How do you know?
I have a degree from Baylor. Required class.
And Professor Lessig has degrees from Penn and Yale and he doesn't think it's that clear. So...


Go read the Constitution, it assigns responsibility for the selection of electors.
Why don't presidential candidates in Texas?


Go read the Constitution.
I have and it doesn't explain why presidential candidates don't campaign in Texas. Do you know why?
Make Racism Wrong Again
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

I'm The Constitution is fairly clear on this matter, the solution is an amendment if you don't like it, not a lawsuit.
How do you know?
I have a degree from Baylor. Required class.
And Professor Lessig has degrees from Penn and Yale and he doesn't think it's that clear. So...


Go read the Constitution, it assigns responsibility for the selection of electors.
Why don't presidential candidates in Texas?


Go read the Constitution.
I have and it doesn't explain why presidential candidates don't campaign in Texas. Do you know why?

It does explain why that lawsuit is garbage.
Yes, I know why. Do you know why I don't care that presidential candidates don't campaign in Texas?
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

cinque said:

D. C. Bear said:

I'm The Constitution is fairly clear on this matter, the solution is an amendment if you don't like it, not a lawsuit.
How do you know?
I have a degree from Baylor. Required class.
And Professor Lessig has degrees from Penn and Yale and he doesn't think it's that clear. So...


Go read the Constitution, it assigns responsibility for the selection of electors.
Why don't presidential candidates in Texas?


Go read the Constitution.
I have and it doesn't explain why presidential candidates don't campaign in Texas. Do you know why?

It does explain why that lawsuit is garbage.
Yes, I know why. Do you know why I don't care that presidential candidates don't campaign in Texas?
Yes I know why. You don't know any better.
Make Racism Wrong Again
bubbadog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If they follow the formula being used in Maine and Nebraska, it would hugely benefit rural voters at the expense of those in cities. Rural voters are already over-represented in that rural districts typically have many thousands fewer voters than urban districts, but each district still gets one representative in Congress. The current winner-take-all formula, bad as it is in some respects, actually remediates some of that disadvantage for cities so that every vote counts equally.

If they just award electors based on the vote in each House district, then the Electoral College results are probably going to look a lot like the composition of the House, which reflects both rural over-representation and gerrymandered districts.

A fairer way to do proportional voting would be to take the results from each state and then assign electors based on candidates' percentage of the vote, leaving congressional districts entirely out of the equation. Thus, if Trump wins 2/3 of the vote in Wyoming in 2020, he would get 2 of the state's 3 electoral votes. The Dems would pick up an electoral vote they otherwise wouldn't have gotten. But if the Dem in 2020 wins 2/3 of the vote in California, Trump would get about 15 electoral votes he otherwise wouldn't have gotten.

But this system could break down when you start trying to compute the fractions in a close race, especially in smaller states. Say a state has 10 electoral votes and one candidate wins with a 54% majority. Does that candidate get 5 electoral votes or 6? Either way, one of the candidate has votes that effectively didn't get counted. What if a state has only 3 electoral votes and a candidate wins 50.9% to 49.1%? Does the winner get 2 of the 3 electors in what was nearly a tie? Do you allow fractional electoral votes?

And if the coalition of plaintiffs in this case REALLY want the candidates to campaign in every state so that every vote matters equally, why don't they just advocate the solution that's simpler and easier to administer: abolish the Electoral College and call for direct popular vote of the President?

(I already know the answer: Their solution doesn't require a constitutional amendment. Even so, if their goal is so important to them, the popular vote would be the most effective way to ensure that every vote matters.)
"Free your ass and your mind will follow." -- George Clinton
twd74
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cinque said:

I have and it doesn't explain why presidential candidates don't campaign in Texas. Do you know why?



I will boldly predict that in 2020 Presidential Candidates will campaign in Texas, provided of course, we are still having Presidential Elections by then...

This story reminds me of why Al Gore is out of politics. His Efforts at the SC in 2000 and this argument now is a dog that just won't hunt. As flawed as the system of electors is, it will only replaced by a Constitutional Amendment.
States have the right to distribute their electoral votes by Congressional District--New Hampshire I think. This is a right clearly assigned to the State however, not the Federal.

Lawyer question--aside from the Microsoft Case, what has David Boies accomplished?
JusHappy2BeHere
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nearly 4 million Californians wasted their time voting for President in 2016....


"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it--always."

Mahatma Gandhi
cinque
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bubbadog said:

If they follow the formula being used in Maine and Nebraska, it would hugely benefit rural voters at the expense of those in cities. Rural voters are already over-represented in that rural districts typically have many thousands fewer voters than urban districts, but each district still gets one representative in Congress. The current winner-take-all formula, bad as it is in some respects, actually remediates some of that disadvantage for cities so that every vote counts equally.

If they just award electors based on the vote in each House district, then the Electoral College results are probably going to look a lot like the composition of the House, which reflects both rural over-representation and gerrymandered districts.

A fairer way to do proportional voting would be to take the results from each state and then assign electors based on candidates' percentage of the vote, leaving congressional districts entirely out of the equation. Thus, if Trump wins 2/3 of the vote in Wyoming in 2020, he would get 2 of the state's 3 electoral votes. The Dems would pick up an electoral vote they otherwise wouldn't have gotten. But if the Dem in 2020 wins 2/3 of the vote in California, Trump would get about 15 electoral votes he otherwise wouldn't have gotten.

But this system could break down when you start trying to compute the fractions in a close race, especially in smaller states. Say a state has 10 electoral votes and one candidate wins with a 54% majority. Does that candidate get 5 electoral votes or 6? Either way, one of the candidate has votes that effectively didn't get counted. What if a state has only 3 electoral votes and a candidate wins 50.9% to 49.1%? Does the winner get 2 of the 3 electors in what was nearly a tie? Do you allow fractional electoral votes?

And if the coalition of plaintiffs in this case REALLY want the candidates to campaign in every state so that every vote matters equally, why don't they just advocate the solution that's simpler and easier to administer: abolish the Electoral College and call for direct popular vote of the President?

(I already know the answer: Their solution doesn't require a constitutional amendment. Even so, if their goal is so important to them, the popular vote would be the most effective way to ensure that every vote matters.)
The suit is advocating just what you're suggesting.
Make Racism Wrong Again
bubbadog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
twd74 said:

cinque said:

I have and it doesn't explain why presidential candidates don't campaign in Texas. Do you know why?



I will boldly predict that in 2020 Presidential Candidates will campaign in Texas, provided of course, we are still having Presidential Elections by then...

This story reminds me of why Al Gore is out of politics. His Efforts at the SC in 2000 and this argument now is a dog that just won't hunt. As flawed as the system of electors is, it will only replaced by a Constitutional Amendment.
States have the right to distribute their electoral votes by Congressional District--New Hampshire I think. This is a right clearly assigned to the State however, not the Federal.

Lawyer question--aside from the Microsoft Case, what has David Boies accomplished?
He and Ted Olsen (his opponent in Bush v. Gore) worked together on the gay marriage case.
"Free your ass and your mind will follow." -- George Clinton
NoBSU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JusHappy2BeHere said:

Nearly 4 million Californians wasted their time voting for President in 2016....



So? They plan to leave the USA and give the Republican part of the state over to a large Indian nation. Pretty fair minded people when they lose.
JusHappy2BeHere
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NoBSU said:

JusHappy2BeHere said:

Nearly 4 million Californians wasted their time voting for President in 2016....



So? They plan to leave the USA and give the Republican part of the state over to a large Indian nation. Pretty fair minded people when they lose.
so Texas doesn't deserve their votes to matter since they threaten secession every time a Democrat wins the White House?

there is no rational reason for a vote in Wyoming being worth 4 votes in California
"When I despair, I remember that all through history the ways of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it--always."

Mahatma Gandhi
bubbadog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cinque said:

The suit is advocating just what you're suggesting.
I'm not really advocating that. I'm just saying that system would be better than awarding electors based on congressional districts. A proportional system would still have problems.

I'm for a popular vote, but that requires a constitutional amendment. And it would be hard to get the requisite number of states when so many small-population states have an advantage under the Electoral College system.
NoBSU
How long do you want to ignore this user?
JusHappy2BeHere said:

NoBSU said:

JusHappy2BeHere said:

Nearly 4 million Californians wasted their time voting for President in 2016....



So? They plan to leave the USA and give the Republican part of the state over to a large Indian nation. Pretty fair minded people when they lose.
so Texas doesn't deserve their votes to matter since they threaten secession every time a Democrat wins the White House?

there is no rational reason for a vote in Wyoming being worth 4 votes in California
Texas has a unique status that California does not have with secession.

There is a very rational reason - United States of America. States. The design was for a reason. They also designed a way to make changes into the system. So if you think the system is dated, then change it.
Last Page
Page 1 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.