so, had they voted their conscience, the citizens votes would not have been represented in the least. You're just whining because you didn't like the results. Of course, we already knew that but you just proved it for all of uscinque said:Electors were prevailed upon by the left and the right to break with tradition and vote their consciences in 2016, but tradition prevailed.LIB,MR BEARS said:
Correct me if I am wrong but don't the states get to choose how they proportion out their EC votes?
If California or Texas wants to see both candidates, aren't they free to say the votes go out proportionally? And if Montana wants to see both candidates, are they free to say winner takes all?
Correct me if I'm wrong please but, this is a state issue (50 separate state issues) and not a federal one.
Texas part of Electoral College winner take all lawsuit
9,745 Views |
122 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by TechDawgMc
I'm not whining. I'm trying to have a discussion about proportional allocation of electors so that the focus of presidential candidates can be expanded beyond the esoteric group of swing states. What's wrong with that?LIB,MR BEARS said:so, had they voted their conscience, the citizens votes would not have been represented in the least. You're just whining because you didn't like the results. Of course, we already knew that but you just proved it for all of uscinque said:Electors were prevailed upon by the left and the right to break with tradition and vote their consciences in 2016, but tradition prevailed.LIB,MR BEARS said:
Correct me if I am wrong but don't the states get to choose how they proportion out their EC votes?
If California or Texas wants to see both candidates, aren't they free to say the votes go out proportionally? And if Montana wants to see both candidates, are they free to say winner takes all?
Correct me if I'm wrong please but, this is a state issue (50 separate state issues) and not a federal one.
Make Racism Wrong Again
your hypocrisy. Your lack of consistency. Your feigning concern. I'm sure there is morecinque said:I'm not whining. I'm trying to have a discussion about proportional allocation of electors so that the focus of presidential candidates can be expanded beyond the esoteric group of swing states. What's wrong with that?LIB,MR BEARS said:so, had they voted their conscience, the citizens votes would not have been represented in the least. You're just whining because you didn't like the results. Of course, we already knew that but you just proved it for all of uscinque said:Electors were prevailed upon by the left and the right to break with tradition and vote their consciences in 2016, but tradition prevailed.LIB,MR BEARS said:
Correct me if I am wrong but don't the states get to choose how they proportion out their EC votes?
If California or Texas wants to see both candidates, aren't they free to say the votes go out proportionally? And if Montana wants to see both candidates, are they free to say winner takes all?
Correct me if I'm wrong please but, this is a state issue (50 separate state issues) and not a federal one.
corncob pipe
Joined:
Dec 22, 2017
Posts:
3,956
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is really sad, even for you.cinque said:Electors were prevailed upon by the left and the right to break with tradition and vote their consciences in 2016, but tradition prevailed.LIB,MR BEARS said:
Correct me if I am wrong but don't the states get to choose how they proportion out their EC votes?
If California or Texas wants to see both candidates, aren't they free to say the votes go out proportionally? And if Montana wants to see both candidates, are they free to say winner takes all?
Correct me if I'm wrong please but, this is a state issue (50 separate state issues) and not a federal one.
First, some states make it a crime to break and vote for a candidate that you were not pledged to vote for.
Second, have you no clue how the electors come to be? After the primaries close on voting day, both the DNC and the GOP of that specific precinct have a meeting to determine who their delegates will be to the state convention. The only people who show up for these meetings are hard core, party loyalists. During the state convention, each party selects its delegates/electors from the hard core, party loyalists and each of those persons pledge that he/she will cast his/her vote for the party nominee. From the state convention, it is on to the national convention and on to election day.
Now, if at any point in the process someone changed their mind about voting for the candidate, it would have been discovered and that person would have been replaced. Electors are party loyalists that often have their own political aspirations within the party and are not going to "break with tradition." Their consciences already told them who to vote for which is why they participated in the process from day one.
If the Constitution allows electors to be made lawbreakers by the state for voting their consciences, our problem is bigger than previously thought.GrowlTowel said:This is really sad, even for you.cinque said:Electors were prevailed upon by the left and the right to break with tradition and vote their consciences in 2016, but tradition prevailed.LIB,MR BEARS said:
Correct me if I am wrong but don't the states get to choose how they proportion out their EC votes?
If California or Texas wants to see both candidates, aren't they free to say the votes go out proportionally? And if Montana wants to see both candidates, are they free to say winner takes all?
Correct me if I'm wrong please but, this is a state issue (50 separate state issues) and not a federal one.
First, some states make it a crime to break and vote for a candidate that you were not pledged to vote for.
Second, have you no clue how the electors come to be? After the primaries close on voting day, both the DNC and the GOP of that specific precinct have a meeting to determine who their delegates will be to the state convention. The only people who show up for these meetings are hard core, party loyalists. During the state convention, each party selects its delegates/electors from the hard core, party loyalists and each of those persons pledge that he/she will cast his/her vote for the party nominee. From the state convention, it is on to the national convention and on to election day.
Now, if at any point in the process someone changed their mind about voting for the candidate, it would have been discovered and that person would have been replaced. Electors are party loyalists that often have their own political aspirations within the party and are not going to "break with tradition." Their consciences already told them who to vote for which is why they participated in the process from day one.
You google pretty good, btw.
Make Racism Wrong Again
cinque said:If the Constitution allows electors to be made lawbreakers by the state for voting their consciences, our problem is bigger than previously thought.GrowlTowel said:This is really sad, even for you.cinque said:Electors were prevailed upon by the left and the right to break with tradition and vote their consciences in 2016, but tradition prevailed.LIB,MR BEARS said:
Correct me if I am wrong but don't the states get to choose how they proportion out their EC votes?
If California or Texas wants to see both candidates, aren't they free to say the votes go out proportionally? And if Montana wants to see both candidates, are they free to say winner takes all?
Correct me if I'm wrong please but, this is a state issue (50 separate state issues) and not a federal one.
First, some states make it a crime to break and vote for a candidate that you were not pledged to vote for.
Second, have you no clue how the electors come to be? After the primaries close on voting day, both the DNC and the GOP of that specific precinct have a meeting to determine who their delegates will be to the state convention. The only people who show up for these meetings are hard core, party loyalists. During the state convention, each party selects its delegates/electors from the hard core, party loyalists and each of those persons pledge that he/she will cast his/her vote for the party nominee. From the state convention, it is on to the national convention and on to election day.
Now, if at any point in the process someone changed their mind about voting for the candidate, it would have been discovered and that person would have been replaced. Electors are party loyalists that often have their own political aspirations within the party and are not going to "break with tradition." Their consciences already told them who to vote for which is why they participated in the process from day one.
You google pretty good, btw.
No Google involed. I put my two degrees from BU up against . . . Yours?
I know. You're up there and I'm down here. How about you put them up against Professor Lessig's?GrowlTowel said:cinque said:If the Constitution allows electors to be made lawbreakers by the state for voting their consciences, our problem is bigger than previously thought.GrowlTowel said:This is really sad, even for you.cinque said:Electors were prevailed upon by the left and the right to break with tradition and vote their consciences in 2016, but tradition prevailed.LIB,MR BEARS said:
Correct me if I am wrong but don't the states get to choose how they proportion out their EC votes?
If California or Texas wants to see both candidates, aren't they free to say the votes go out proportionally? And if Montana wants to see both candidates, are they free to say winner takes all?
Correct me if I'm wrong please but, this is a state issue (50 separate state issues) and not a federal one.
First, some states make it a crime to break and vote for a candidate that you were not pledged to vote for.
Second, have you no clue how the electors come to be? After the primaries close on voting day, both the DNC and the GOP of that specific precinct have a meeting to determine who their delegates will be to the state convention. The only people who show up for these meetings are hard core, party loyalists. During the state convention, each party selects its delegates/electors from the hard core, party loyalists and each of those persons pledge that he/she will cast his/her vote for the party nominee. From the state convention, it is on to the national convention and on to election day.
Now, if at any point in the process someone changed their mind about voting for the candidate, it would have been discovered and that person would have been replaced. Electors are party loyalists that often have their own political aspirations within the party and are not going to "break with tradition." Their consciences already told them who to vote for which is why they participated in the process from day one.
You google pretty good, btw.
No Google involed. I put my two degrees from BU up against . . . Yours?
Make Racism Wrong Again
cinque said:I know. You're up there and I'm down here. How about you put them up against Professor Lessig's?GrowlTowel said:cinque said:If the Constitution allows electors to be made lawbreakers by the state for voting their consciences, our problem is bigger than previously thought.GrowlTowel said:This is really sad, even for you.cinque said:Electors were prevailed upon by the left and the right to break with tradition and vote their consciences in 2016, but tradition prevailed.LIB,MR BEARS said:
Correct me if I am wrong but don't the states get to choose how they proportion out their EC votes?
If California or Texas wants to see both candidates, aren't they free to say the votes go out proportionally? And if Montana wants to see both candidates, are they free to say winner takes all?
Correct me if I'm wrong please but, this is a state issue (50 separate state issues) and not a federal one.
First, some states make it a crime to break and vote for a candidate that you were not pledged to vote for.
Second, have you no clue how the electors come to be? After the primaries close on voting day, both the DNC and the GOP of that specific precinct have a meeting to determine who their delegates will be to the state convention. The only people who show up for these meetings are hard core, party loyalists. During the state convention, each party selects its delegates/electors from the hard core, party loyalists and each of those persons pledge that he/she will cast his/her vote for the party nominee. From the state convention, it is on to the national convention and on to election day.
Now, if at any point in the process someone changed their mind about voting for the candidate, it would have been discovered and that person would have been replaced. Electors are party loyalists that often have their own political aspirations within the party and are not going to "break with tradition." Their consciences already told them who to vote for which is why they participated in the process from day one.
You google pretty good, btw.
No Google involed. I put my two degrees from BU up against . . . Yours?
I did. He lost. Kinder Morgan hired poorly.
bubbadog said: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.cinque said:
The suit is advocating just what you're suggesting.
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.
Isn't this the reason the system was set up the way it is (same as each state having two senators)?
What did he lose?GrowlTowel said:cinque said:I know. You're up there and I'm down here. How about you put them up against Professor Lessig's?GrowlTowel said:cinque said:If the Constitution allows electors to be made lawbreakers by the state for voting their consciences, our problem is bigger than previously thought.GrowlTowel said:This is really sad, even for you.cinque said:Electors were prevailed upon by the left and the right to break with tradition and vote their consciences in 2016, but tradition prevailed.LIB,MR BEARS said:
Correct me if I am wrong but don't the states get to choose how they proportion out their EC votes?
If California or Texas wants to see both candidates, aren't they free to say the votes go out proportionally? And if Montana wants to see both candidates, are they free to say winner takes all?
Correct me if I'm wrong please but, this is a state issue (50 separate state issues) and not a federal one.
First, some states make it a crime to break and vote for a candidate that you were not pledged to vote for.
Second, have you no clue how the electors come to be? After the primaries close on voting day, both the DNC and the GOP of that specific precinct have a meeting to determine who their delegates will be to the state convention. The only people who show up for these meetings are hard core, party loyalists. During the state convention, each party selects its delegates/electors from the hard core, party loyalists and each of those persons pledge that he/she will cast his/her vote for the party nominee. From the state convention, it is on to the national convention and on to election day.
Now, if at any point in the process someone changed their mind about voting for the candidate, it would have been discovered and that person would have been replaced. Electors are party loyalists that often have their own political aspirations within the party and are not going to "break with tradition." Their consciences already told them who to vote for which is why they participated in the process from day one.
You google pretty good, btw.
No Google involed. I put my two degrees from BU up against . . . Yours?
I did. He lost. Kinder Morgan hired poorly.
Make Racism Wrong Again
cinque said:What did he lose?GrowlTowel said:cinque said:I know. You're up there and I'm down here. How about you put them up against Professor Lessig's?GrowlTowel said:cinque said:If the Constitution allows electors to be made lawbreakers by the state for voting their consciences, our problem is bigger than previously thought.GrowlTowel said:This is really sad, even for you.cinque said:Electors were prevailed upon by the left and the right to break with tradition and vote their consciences in 2016, but tradition prevailed.LIB,MR BEARS said:
Correct me if I am wrong but don't the states get to choose how they proportion out their EC votes?
If California or Texas wants to see both candidates, aren't they free to say the votes go out proportionally? And if Montana wants to see both candidates, are they free to say winner takes all?
Correct me if I'm wrong please but, this is a state issue (50 separate state issues) and not a federal one.
First, some states make it a crime to break and vote for a candidate that you were not pledged to vote for.
Second, have you no clue how the electors come to be? After the primaries close on voting day, both the DNC and the GOP of that specific precinct have a meeting to determine who their delegates will be to the state convention. The only people who show up for these meetings are hard core, party loyalists. During the state convention, each party selects its delegates/electors from the hard core, party loyalists and each of those persons pledge that he/she will cast his/her vote for the party nominee. From the state convention, it is on to the national convention and on to election day.
Now, if at any point in the process someone changed their mind about voting for the candidate, it would have been discovered and that person would have been replaced. Electors are party loyalists that often have their own political aspirations within the party and are not going to "break with tradition." Their consciences already told them who to vote for which is why they participated in the process from day one.
You google pretty good, btw.
No Google involed. I put my two degrees from BU up against . . . Yours?
I did. He lost. Kinder Morgan hired poorly.
8.3 million dollars
Correct - The Great Compromise created the House & Senate - the EC was part of that as well
Those talking about candidates ignoring Texas, don't really understand that Texas is on the verge of becoming a state candidates in both parties are going to be actively catering to. With most of the attention being on the 35 corridor since those voters will determine who carries the state.
we screwed up the original intent of senators already... they are supposed to represent the states interests which is why every state got 2. The state gov was supposed to elect and send these two, not the populous... house represents the people- senate reps the state govs, but we messed that up so the state govs dont have a voice like it should...RioRata said:bubbadog said: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.cinque said:
The suit is advocating just what you're suggesting.
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.
Isn't this the reason the system was set up the way it is (same as each state having two senators)?
Absolutely true.Gruvin said:we screwed up the original intent of senators already... they are supposed to represent the states interests which is why every state got 2. The state gov was supposed to elect and send these two, not the populous... house represents the people- senate reps the state govs, but we messed that up so the state govs dont have a voice like it should...RioRata said:bubbadog said: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.cinque said:
The suit is advocating just what you're suggesting.
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.
Isn't this the reason the system was set up the way it is (same as each state having two senators)?
The original intent of the Framers was that people should be able to change the Constitution if there was enough support in state legislators to do so. That's what happened when the Constitution was amended to allow direct election of senators. The Framers were not morons. They did not intend for everything they wrote to be set in stone forever, so that future generations of Americans had no say in continuing to shape the Constitution. The system worked as they designed it to work.Gruvin said:we screwed up the original intent of senators already... they are supposed to represent the states interests which is why every state got 2. The state gov was supposed to elect and send these two, not the populous... house represents the people- senate reps the state govs, but we messed that up so the state govs dont have a voice like it should...RioRata said:bubbadog said: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.cinque said:
The suit is advocating just what you're suggesting.
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.
Isn't this the reason the system was set up the way it is (same as each state having two senators)?
Um, no.RioRata said:bubbadog said: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.cinque said:
The suit is advocating just what you're suggesting.
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.
Isn't this the reason the system was set up the way it is (same as each state having two senators)?
just the ones who understand how our government workscinque said:You think the majority of people who vote in presidential elections do so with the thought of voting for electors?D. C. Bear said:cinque said:Why do people vote in presidential election if not to elect a president?GrowlTowel said:cinque said:
Would it be a win for representative democracy to have electors in Texas and California proportionally allocated?
No. States elect the president, not the people.
People vote for electors. It is one of a couple of ways a president may be selected. We've never had direct election of the president. A lot of democratic countries select their leader by something other than direct election by the people. The is nothing special or superior about direct election.