woodguru

I'm hoping they are seeing this for the right way, to take the bias out of this already bad system. So this is about electors who bring their personal bias into the system and vote for the losing candidate, does this even make any sense to you?

My take on the electoral college is that it's already bad enough that in a close race, which we are seeing more and more of, half the voters in the state are effectively being robbed of their vote, it's that simple, their vote does not matter.

So in the scenario where faithless electors enter the picture, say a republican wins a close race in a blue state, or several states, and there are enough of these faithless electors in a few states to swing the electoral college count and take a win away from your candidate, are you really going to be okay with a hard fought win being taken away like this?

As I said the electoral college is bad enough in terms of taking away people's popular votes, but if the rule is that a state awards all of it's electoral votes to the state's popular vote winner, that person gets the votes, not gets them unless the elector wants the other party to win.

The reality here is that this is a built in safety for whichever party has no problem cheating, red states already do not have a problem with which way their electoral votes go, but lose a vote in an upset and they would kick this into gear. I'm not sure how anyone can support the idea of an electoral going in saying I'm not voting for this person or the other if they win.

What is the point of a state saying all of it's electoral votes goes toward the winner if they are going to cheat if the election goes the other way for them? It's one more thing not to trust about elections. As far as I'm concerned there doesn't need to be a person, it's a vote that ties to the policy of the state, some split their electorals to match the vote split.

https://dennismichaellynch.com/breaking-faithless-elector-supreme-court-case-could-change-how-presidents-are-chosen/

Fodaoson Loc: South Texas

If someone is against the electoral college, it does not matter how the vote is taken, if choice loses some thing is a foul How the electors vote is determined by the states After the election, by statutes in 48 states and the District of Columbia, the party that wins the most votes in that state appoints all of the electors for that state. This is known as a "winner-take-all" or "unit rule" allocation of electors, which became the norm across the nation by the 1830's. Currently, the only exceptions to the unit rule are in Maine and Nebraska that allocate their electors by congressional district, plus two at-large electors awarded to the candidate who wins the state's' popular votes. However there might be changes in the wind. Fifteen states have approved the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that gives electoral vote to the national popular vote winner

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Throughout our history, we have only had 157 faithless electors, most switched votes because candidate their state chose died before the electoral college could convene. The Constitution does not specifically require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote in their states, but the laws of 29 states and the District of Columbia bind electors to do so. Some require pledges or threaten fines or criminal action, according to a summary of state laws by the National Assn. of Secretaries of State. A greater threat to our elections are illegal voters.

woodguru

Did you read the article I posted? It lists the faithless votes that were cast in the 2016 election. I think it said one was in Colorado, and another state had two who said that they would not vote for Hillary even if she won, so they replaced them.

In a winner take all my take is that the winner takes all, so why does there even need to be a person? It seems sort of symbolic or unnecessary.

It is my hope that the supreme court is hearing this case to define the rules on the faithless aspect, it is a recipe for cheating.

woodguru

Every threat to our elections needs to be addressed, there is too much focus on the demons and ignoring the rest. I have posted a lot of things about both issues and specific cases. The right seems to have a very uninterested perspective on things that need to be addressed. Talk about any serious case and the response is what about....?

The right doesn't seem to care that the senate won't take up votes on election security bills, we are going into an election year without the senate passing a dozen bills on different election security issues. It's like McConnell doesn't want security stepped up, doesn't care about states that have systems that need to be upgraded.

Liberty Tree

You know the actions by those fifteen states will be challenged.

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

Fodaoson Loc: South Texas

The constitution was written without the two party system in mind. In fact The Founding Fathers Feared Political Factions Would Tear the Nation Apart. Washing ton opposed “factions” as he called them. He warned against them in his farewell address Others did so in the Federalist papers
www.history.com › news › founding-fathers-political-parties-opinion

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Prepping your excuses for your 2020 loss?

woodguru

Not even close, I simply watch these unfolding things going on and try to make sense of them, and try to get people to engage on their rationale.

I'm like okay, we have an electoral college let's at least keep it straight so we don't have it turning a super close electoral win upside down. The electoral has already been deciding elections, let's not allow it to turn a fair electoral win the other way, that would be pure crapola.