I voted this morning

[Chu Gai]

Rumor has it that Trump is considering making Sarah Palin the Secretary of the Interior. That is not a joke. Considering what he cabinet picks are likely to be already, his administration is already a failure, and it hasn't even begun. Many of the people he is considering placing in his administration are grossly unqualified, and all of them are hard-right ideologues. His presidency is already shaping up to be as bad as I had feared. He already makes G.W. Bush look like Dwight Eisenhower.

Lol!
But that's offset by BO in charge of red lines and HC running workshops on "Speeches & Stock Tips For Dummies". Has Madonna given any BJ's to males who voted for Hillary? That might have been the game changer!

 

[everettT]

O'Reilly's opening statements and his first guests sums it up for me. If anyone cares to watch or record the 11pm est replay it is insightful.

I hate arguing politics and I always hope whomsoever is elected president will do good. The same can't be said about career politicians in Congress that stir the pot more than anyone. I vote my local and state elections during each cycle as I believe they are they are the first line of policy.

I can nitpick political appointees on the federal level all day long, but unless people stop listening to rhetoric and start be free thinkers who cares. 95% of the press is in the bag for one puticuclar candidate, how does that help educate the masses to facts? When leaders lie regularly knowing that a percentage of their base will parrot it, who benefits?

When tenure professors only teach what they believe and punish via grades , who does that benefit?

This county has always had a far right/ progressive divide and when candidates pander deeply to either , what's the outcome? ; even greater unrealistic divide.

The whole process makes me sick. I'm tired of property destruction being promoted and the destructors having no clue what they are doing it for or are just plain bad people that enjoy anarchy, again on either side.

I can certainly break it down in the favor of my political affiliation but it wouldn't make it right.

Just ask any of your friends who their state or local elected officials are, I can promise most no little to none

 

[KEW]

First off, this is not about spilled milk. This election is over and Trump won using the methods of election at the time of his election. Period!
However, listening to the way China and Russia are having a hey day with how our "great democracy" is electing presidents other than who the majority of people voted for, with the associated corruption concerns, they have a point.

The question of implementing the popular vote seems easier than thought. States have a large degree of control of how their electoral college process works. Apparently eleven states have already written their laws such that if enough other states use the same rules to achieve the 270 vote requirement, their current electoral process will be waived and replaced with the electoral votes of that state going to the winner of the popular vote.
If enough states sign up for this to accomplish the 270 vote count, it will effectively render the state electoral college system irrelevant, while not bothering with new legislature.

I can understand people liking the electoral college system when it advantages their own candidate, but no one has offered a reason it is a better system than using the popular vote.

 

[Steve81]

The question of implementing the popular vote seems easier than thought.

Easier on paper perhaps, but I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future all the same. There's no incentive for deep red states or swing states to make that happen. Such a plan would also certainly face legal pushback as it's clearly subverting the intent of the Constitution.

but no one has offered a reason it is a better system than using the popular vote.

It can be better, it can be worse. Implementation matters. Most people advocating for the popular vote are making a huge assumption that the majority will always make the "right" choice. Given that the popular vote was decided by less than 1% (last I checked anyway), that doesn't seem like a very smart assumption regardless of who you opt to support/demonize. Having an electoral college with enough autonomy to actually act as a sanity check (as opposed to a rubber stamp) can be a useful hedge against a horrible choice.

 

[Swerd]

Easier on paper perhaps, but I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future all the same. There's no incentive for deep red states or swing states to make that happen. Such a plan would also face certain legal action as it's clearly subverting the intent of the Constitution.

I understand your thinking, but the Electoral College, as it's done now and since about 1824, was not the intent of Constitution or it's framers. It's a complex problem. Read a synopsis of from Wikipedia.

 

[Steve81]

I understand your thinking, but the Electoral College, as it's done now and since about 1824, was not the intent of Constitution or it's framers. It's a complex problem. Read a synopsis of from Wikipedia.

I caught that earlier in the thread, particularly Hamilton and Madison's displeasure with the concept of all or nothing pledged delegates (and as mentioned in my previous post, I agree that electors need some autonomy). OTOH, as KEW noted, there's not a lot within the Constitution itself to dictate how states choose their electors:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

So what's my objection? Unlike the case of states gaming the system with all or nothing pledged delegates, KEW's suggestion effectively deletes paragraphs 2-4 of Article II. That's big deal sans an actual Constitutional amendment. I would fear even if it did manage to pass legal challenge, that you'd end up dividing the country further, possibly to the breaking point.

 

[Rickster71]

First off, this is not about spilled milk. This election is over and Trump won using the methods of election at the time of his election. Period!
However, listening to the way China and Russia are having a hey day with how our "great democracy" is electing presidents other than who the majority of people voted for, with the associated corruption concerns, they have a point.

The question of implementing the popular vote seems easier than thought. States have a large degree of control of how their electoral college process works. Apparently eleven states have already written their laws such that if enough other states use the same rules to achieve the 270 vote requirement, their current electoral process will be waived and replaced with the electoral votes of that state going to the winner of the popular vote.
If enough states sign up for this to accomplish the 270 vote count, it will effectively render the state electoral college system irrelevant, while not bothering with new legislature.

I can understand people liking the electoral college system when it advantages their own candidate, but no one has offered a reason it is a better system than using the popular vote.

This is an interesting article about the Electoral College:
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/electoral-college-genius
It is one of the Constitution’s accidentally great procedural features for deterring the concentration of political power.

 

[cel4145]

So what's my objection? Unlike the case of states gaming the system with all or nothing pledged delegates, KEW's suggestion effectively deletes paragraphs 2-4 of Article II. That's big deal sans an actual Constitutional amendment. I would fear even if it did manage to pass legal challenge, that you'd end up dividing the country further, possibly to the breaking point.

I agree. But I don't see it ever happening. It's to the disadvantage of smaller population states to switch to an election derived from the popular vote. The electoral college gives their vote more weight that their popular vote would. Given the current perception by many people that the left dominates large population centers and the right more rural areas, I don't see how there could ever be agreement on this.

 

[Chu Gai]

Here's Slate's duplicitous position on the Electoral College.

 

[KEW]

Rumor has it that Trump is considering making Sarah Palin the Secretary of the Interior. That is not a joke. Considering what he cabinet picks are likely to be already, his administration is already a failure, and it hasn't even begun. Many of the people he is considering placing in his administration are grossly unqualified, and all of them are hard-right ideologues. His presidency is already shaping up to be as bad as I had feared. He already makes G.W. Bush look like Dwight Eisenhower.

Upon reflection, this is starting to look more and more reasonable, but I will still do my best to keep open mind and optimism that Trump may not cater to the worst of what these people bring to the table.

 

[shadyJ]

Those could be articles published by different authors. I don't think it is necessarily a double standard for a magazine to publish articles with opposing perspectives, however the timing is certainly convenient. I am not a fan of Slate, but I did get a really good peanut butter cookie recipe from them once, and for that I will forever be grateful.

 

[Chu Gai]

Those could be articles published by different authors. I don't think it is necessarily a double standard for a magazine to publish articles with opposing perspectives, however the timing is certainly convenient. I am not a fan of Slate, but I did get a really good peanut butter cookie recipe from them once, and for that I will forever be grateful.

Could be but I look at it more in the vein that they'll say anything because they rely on the public not remembering their positions. Just like when all the democrats feigned outrage over Trump repeatedly using the word rigged.

You'll have to share the recipe.

 

[shadyJ]

Agreed that Slate is just printing what is convenient to their readers, but there are good arguments for and against the electoral college. Anyway, I think the Republican's are the kings of relying on people not remembering their positions. Their about-face on NATO and Russian aggression are just gob-smacking, and all it took was one guy to push the entire party that way.

Slate's Peanut Butter Cookies, they are pretty good.

 

[STRONGBADF1]

However, listening to the way China and Russia are having a hey day with how our "great democracy"...

We should remind them that the USA is a constitutional republic...not a democracy.


I believe that, like all things, the electoral process needs to be looked at but I'm not sure changing it is a good idea.

What I believe should be changed is the debate process and who is allowed to participate. This two parties bickering thing is getting old.

majorloser 2020

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[KEW]

Most people advocating for the popular vote are making a huge assumption that the majority will always make the "right" choice. Given that the popular vote was decided by less than 1% (last I checked anyway), that doesn't seem like a very smart assumption regardless of who you opt to support/demonize. Having an electoral college with enough autonomy to actually act as a sanity check (as opposed to a rubber stamp) can be a useful hedge against a horrible choice.

I agree with what you are saying, but do not see that the electoral college system as it is currently implemented adds any extra "knowledge" to a popular vote.
Right now each state has its own popular vote, then that gets processed through the state weightings to accomplish a electoral college vote count.
The problem with giving the electoral college autonomy is then it becomes subject to corruption much like the rest of politics. At least in its current form, the system is not so easily bought.

 

[KEW]

So what's my objection? Unlike the case of states gaming the system with all or nothing pledged delegates, KEW's suggestion effectively deletes paragraphs 2-4 of Article II. That's big deal sans an actual Constitutional amendment. I would fear even if it did manage to pass legal challenge, that you'd end up dividing the country further, possibly to the breaking point.

The program is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and has bi-partisan support.

There is also a commentary on the legal questions of this program in the Wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

 

[Steve81]

The program is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and has bi-partisan support.

Kinda sorta... From the linked wiki:

As of 2016, it has been adopted by ten states and the District of Columbia, whose 165 combined electoral votes represent 30.7% of the total Electoral College vote, and 61.1% of the 270 votes needed for it to have legal force. All of them have been Democratic states, although the Compact passed in 2016 in Republican-controlled chambers in Arizona and New York. Swing states have shown less willingness to join the Compact, although it has passed chambers in states such as Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico.

It's easy to publicly support the idea of a popular vote, but actually making it so when it's to your detriment seems to be another story.

There is also a commentary on the legal questions of this program in the Wikipedia article

Commentary, but nothing in any way definitive. I mean, I sort of assume the people behind the idea think it would pass constitutional muster. Whether a majority of Supreme Court justices would feel the same way? Who knows. Either way, I'd expect the Compact to be challenged the minute it lead to a disputable election result.

 

[KEW]

Either way, I'd expect the Compact to be challenged the minute it lead to a disputable election result.

I don't know how far away we are from that.
It is a very interesting proposition.
On the one hand, I have a hard time seeing a case made against allowing each person an equal vote.
On the other, should it go through, these states are kind of rendering the other states' electoral colleges inconsequential (while valuing the individual votes of the people within those states).

 

[Steve81]

On the other, should it go through, these states are kind of rendering the other states' electoral colleges inconsequential (while valuing the individual votes of the people within those states).

To carry that thought through, it's potentially giving as little as 11 states the power to "change the terms of the deal" from when the other 39 states joined the US and ratified the Constitution. That's a long way from what's prescribed for amending the Constitution, in what is a pretty fundamental way.

The other problem I see is that it allows the state legislatures to totally decouple the selection of electors from the election held within the state. It may be used for democratic purposes in this case, but that's potentially a very dangerous precedent to set.

 

[Swerd]

I'm following this latest line of talk, but have had little time to respond today.

The latest popular (not Electoral College) vote counts from Wikipedia.

Trump 61,296,121 (46.78%)

Clinton 62,490,187 (47.69%)

Clinton got 1,194,066 more votes than Trump.