Electorates apparently don't have to honor the popular vote.

[panteragstk]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/faithless-elector-court-ruling-just-changed-how-we-pick-our-n1044961

A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that presidential electors who cast the actual ballots for president and vice president are free to vote as they wish and cannot be required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Outstanding. The Constitution is upheld. If this gets to the USSC I suspect they will either refuse to hear the case or will uphold the appeal.

 

[markw]

Nevada already stated they will all cast their votes for the candidate who has the most votes nationally in the presidential election, which goes totally against the concept of the electoral college as implemented by the authors of the constitution.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Nevada already stated they will all cast their votes for the candidate who has the most votes nationally in the presidential election, which goes totally against the concept of the electoral college as implemented by the authors of the constitution.

Not anymore! Of course, there has to be electors who have the guts to have an independent vote.

 

[markw]

I such case, large, densely populated metropolitan areas will control the direction of the entire country. That's akin to two chickens and a pig voting to have ham and eggs for breakfast.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I such case, large, densely populated metropolitan areas will control the direction of the entire country. That's akin to two chickens and a pig voting to have ham and eggs for breakfast.

I doubt very many electors would not follow the popular vote in their states. But independent electors might use their judgement to keep a really inappropriate candidate out of the Presidency. I suppose I understand how you might be concerned about that, being a Trump supporter, but that's why the Electoral College was put into the Constitution.

Most people don't realize that the House of Representatives were the only directly elected offices in the Federal government, until 1913, when Senators were. The authors of the Constitution did not trust the electorate with the Presidency, the Senate, or the Federal Courts. Looking at the quality of the candidates from both parties in the House, I understand the trepidation. Of course, the previous method of electing senators, state legislatures appointed them, was probably not producing great statesmen either.

 

[Irvrobinson]

A really excellent article on Medicare for All from an unlikely place: CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/what-does-medicare-for-all-mean/index.html

Edit: Oops. Wrong thread.

 

[markw]

Well, I have to pay for medicare and that only covers 80% of my medical for most procedures. I still have to pay for supplemental insurance for the other 20%, plus deductibles are involved. Do you think the voters are aware of this or do they think they'll be getting medicaid?

Add to that that I've paid into Medicare since I started working in the 60's so it's not like we haven't been paying for it all our working lives.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Well, I have to pay for medicare and that only covers 80% of my medical for most procedures. I still have to pay for supplemental insurance for the other 20%, plus deductibles are involved. Do you think the voters are aware of this or do they think they'll be getting medicaid?

The proposed bill, which I really dislike, is really not Medicare for All, it's universal healthcare with a single payer, the USG.

 

[Ponzio]

One more reason to get rid of the electoral college. Or are we going to still pretend this is a democracy?

 

[Irvrobinson]

One more reason to get rid of the electoral college. Or are we going to still pretend this is a democracy?

The Federal government is not a democracy, it is a republic. The cities and states are democracies, some more than others.

 

[Ponzio]

Yes you're right but I always find it amusing that our politicians describe it as a democracy. Maybe we need to send them to a civics class.

 

[lovinthehd]

Reminds me of the West Virginia delegation's electoral votes in the 16 Democratic convention https://archive.is/A2l6d

 

[markw]

One more reason to get rid of the electoral college. Or are we going to still pretend this is a democracy?

 

[Trell]

I doubt very many electors would not follow the popular vote in their states. But independent electors might use their judgement to keep a really inappropriate candidate out of the Presidency. I suppose I understand how you might be concerned about that, being a Trump supporter, but that's why the Electoral College was put into the Constitution.

Or the independent electors might use their judgment to keep an appropriate candidate out of the Presidency and let the inappropriate candidate in. I am not convinced the electors have so much better judgement than most people.

Edit: Spelling

 

[Ponzio]

Great idea, living in the past.

Our southern forefathers, below the Mason-Dixon Line, would be proud. They too protected their property, like your bicycle, but in their case it was slaves, and inevitably led to the Civil War, once it dawned on people that maybe owning another human might be morally problematic and reprehensible.

Giving women the vote? Nah, they don't need it. We don't want to clutter their little minds.
Voting? Only if you're a free man and a landowner.
Child labor? Sure, that's acceptable.

Give me a break.

 

[Gmoney]

And that my friend is the problem, that needs to be done away with. Now think about that for a few minutes. Popular vote as opposed to electoral votes. Who do you think or believe would be the easiest to buy off? In this country now it's whoever has the most money wins!

 

[Gmoney]

View attachment 30713

It's recited every day in kindergarten, grade school, up to high School. "and to the republic for which it stands". you have just posted up what it is to be a legal citizen of the United States of America.

PS, edited still on my first coffee and Camel smoke.. being 40 + year's since I've actually said the pledge of allegiance. For inquiring minds it was first composed and said by a captain in the Union army during the civil war.

 

[Gmoney]

Here is little side note on my thoughts, Trump wants a border wall, why not put army garrisons, station a Post say about every 75 miles apart. Say for about umm, 10 years about the length of a two-term president. Sure will cost billions. But have snipers on the Wall of each Wall with rubber bullets. String out claymores trip wires, but when an illegal trips The wire they get pulled up in a net. They than get dropped automatically in a big Bus, automatically you know the one's that have No actual driver's. Have a road especially built to transport them back to their country. My point is since they all want a Free Ride on the backs of the legal citizens they get a free Ride. Of course there will be snacks and the movie, on how to obtain legal citizenship.

 

[GO-NAD!]

A republic with a constitution does not, by default, protect anyone from tyranny of the majority. The USSR and present day Russia, China, North Korea and Egypt - all are republics with constitutions. I wouldn't put much faith in any rights that might be enshrined in those constitutions.

Maintaining rights, responsibilities and a balanced democracy is no easy task. We probably couldn't get anyone to agree on the definition of "balanced".

Maybe it's because it's one of the oldest "modern" democracies, but I find the American electoral process about as Byzantine and convoluted as it could possibly be.