This is going to leave a mark. SCOTUS affirms "faithless elector" laws constitutional

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
5,037
2,615
136
I really believe the intent of the EC was to cast a vote so the process moves along in a timely manner as in all votes weren’t counted or tallied all the time and decide whom the winner is if the vote gives something weird like I said earlier Jesus or King of England or more likely Tomas Johnson won and in the past we could have had hundreds of people running for President there could have been multiple Tomas Johnson’s. Someone needed to have the power to decide this.
All of this is all but impossible in modern times.
Yes. This is true.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,248
16,716
136
The only valid statement here is #2. The reason for that is that the people don't elect the president, the states do. The individual states are free to decide how those votes are distributed, either proportional split or winner take all.
Without the EC, smaller states wouldn't have any say in the presidential election. So while the EC may be unfair on a personal level, it's fair on a state level.
The same is true of the senate, each state gets two, no matter the population, isn't that unfair? Why should California and Montana have the same number of senators? Shouldn't those be proportional like the house?

Smaller states already get two Senators as do big states. They also get more Representatives per capita than big States.
As someone here said, why are farmers more qualified at deciding who the President should be?
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,202
18,670
146
It's always nice to be reminded whose votes count the most. Who's minority voice can make a majority difference
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
I really believe the intent of the EC was to cast a vote so the process moves along in a timely manner as in all votes weren’t counted or tallied all the time and decide whom the winner is if the vote gives something weird like I said earlier Jesus or King of England or more likely Tomas Johnson won and in the past we could have had hundreds of people running for President there could have been multiple Tomas Johnson’s. Someone needed to have the power to decide this.
All of this is all but impossible in modern times.
That’s part of it, but without the EC the 3/5 compromise would not have worked and the south would not have approved the constitution.

Unsurprisingly the south wanted slaves counted as people when it came to apportioning representatives and electoral votes but counted as property when it came to taxes.

The south ended up with 1/3 more representation than their free citizens would have apportioned them via the EC and 3/5 compromise.

At its heart the EC is directly tied to slavery. It’s time for it to go.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
In the beginning, the EC favored white people in slave states enormously. Counting slaves as 3/5 of a person gave them more weight than the popular vote would have done since slaves can't vote. Check the data from the first census-


After reconstruction, the same held true in Jim Crow states because they wouldn't let black people vote, anyway.

The EC & the popular vote gave the same result between 1888 & 2000 so there wasn't much concern about it. Either way it's an honest result & what people reasonably expect. That ceased being true in 2000. The result in 2016 was even more anomalous. Knowing that a majority of Americans don't support their right wing agenda Trump & the GOP don't seem to care at all.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
The only valid statement here is #2. The reason for that is that the people don't elect the president, the states do. The individual states are free to decide how those votes are distributed, either proportional split or winner take all.
Without the EC, smaller states wouldn't have any say in the presidential election. So while the EC may be unfair on a personal level, it's fair on a state level.
The same is true of the senate, each state gets two, no matter the population, isn't that unfair? Why should California and Montana have the same number of senators? Shouldn't those be proportional like the house?
Right and it’s a good thing too. Because people like you shouldn’t count nearly as much as others in this country when it comes to choosing the president.

Our commitment to democracy says you get some say but quite frankly others deserve more than 3 times the say you have.

I’m sure you agree.
 

SmCaudata

Senior member
Oct 8, 2006
969
1,532
136
The only valid statement here is #2. The reason for that is that the people don't elect the president, the states do. The individual states are free to decide how those votes are distributed, either proportional split or winner take all.
Without the EC, smaller states wouldn't have any say in the presidential election. So while the EC may be unfair on a personal level, it's fair on a state level.
The same is true of the senate, each state gets two, no matter the population, isn't that unfair? Why should California and Montana have the same number of senators? Shouldn't those be proportional like the house?
Except the Senate already accounts for that. If both the senate and president disproportionately favor small rural states, you get the broken system we have. The president should cater to the people, not the states.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,248
16,716
136
Right and it’s a good thing too. Because people like you shouldn’t count nearly as much as others in this country when it comes to choosing the president.

Our commitment to democracy says you get some say but quite frankly others deserve more than 3 times the say you have.

I’m sure you agree.
Three times? You guys are lucky. I think someone voting in AK counts 6x as my vote in MA.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
17,117
14,484
146
Three times? You guys are lucky. I think someone voting in AK counts 6x as my vote in MA.

Not that bad. Someone in AK is only worth 58% more than someone in MA. However someone in Wyoming is worth 3.65 times more than you.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,086
146
The only valid statement here is #2. The reason for that is that the people don't elect the president, the states do. The individual states are free to decide how those votes are distributed, either proportional split or winner take all.
Without the EC, smaller states wouldn't have any say in the presidential election.

not really...and this legislative problem is fixed with:

So while the EC may be unfair on a personal level, it's fair on a state level.
The same is true of the senate, each state gets two, no matter the population, isn't that unfair? Why should California and Montana have the same number of senators? Shouldn't those be proportional like the house?

I mean...that's just basic civics. You do recall why house is proportional and senate is equal, right? The purpose of the even Senate is specifically to equalize power among small and large states, which is also where it is more important, from the states' perspectives, to have that power balanced.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,700
136
The whole idea of electors is byzantine. It reeks of privilege and aristocracy looking down their noses at the working class, whatever the law or SCOTUS says.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,700
136
I mean...that's just basic civics. You do recall why house is proportional and senate is equal, right? The purpose of the even Senate is specifically to equalize power among small and large states, which is also where it is more important, from the states' perspectives, to have that power balanced.
But is that democratic? Not. The oligarchs of this country only have to control a relatively small electorate to effect policy because of the equal power of Montana and California, etc. Montana's a good example of a red state with really small population and unenlightened electorate, the type that's easily manipulated by the kind of slime that's running this country from behind curtains.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,202
18,670
146
Yeah appears to be true.....who hooo!

Don't worry, you're still a citizen, just not first class. Back to coach, masshole.

Puts a little perspective on the rhetoric from conservatives about "real Americans" and all that. Their lopsided power in federal elections has gone to their head.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,941
5,564
136
But is that democratic? Not. The oligarchs of this country only have to control a relatively small electorate to effect policy because of the equal power of Montana and California, etc. Montana's a good example of a red state with really small population and unenlightened electorate, the type that's easily manipulated by the kind of slime that's running this country from behind curtains.
Red state, unenlightened, easily manipulated. You believe yourself to be better than those people, you believe your political beliefs are obviously superior. You believe they're not bright enough to understand the concepts that you embrace. You believe they're being manipulated. The solution to this problem is to alter the constitution to reduce they're political influence.

I'm pretty sure I don't want to be enlightened.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,425
136
While this ruling was unanimous, I feel that it’s a complete violation of the founding fathers intention but this ruling outcome was required in these times.

The founders picked an electoral system because they wanted a safeguard to protect against a public who could become enamored with a man more than their country, ie exactly like trump and his base. By removing the ability of the electoral college to be independent of the people they’ve removed that safeguard. Whether or not that safeguard is necessary can be debated but make no mistake the ruling is a complete violation of the constitution.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,695
4,204
136
While this ruling was unanimous, I feel that it’s a complete violation of the founding fathers intention but this ruling outcome was required in these times.

The founders picked an electoral system because they wanted a safeguard to protect against a public who could become enamored with a man more than their country, ie exactly like trump and his base. By removing the ability of the electoral college to be independent of the people they’ve removed that safeguard. Whether or not that safeguard is necessary can be debated but make no mistake the ruling is a complete violation of the constitution.

Its just one of the things the founders got wrong from the get go is all. If anything, the EC favors what they feared, as its easier to focus on a few key areas to enamor, than a whole country.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,548
15,425
136
Its just one of the things the founders got wrong from the get go is all. If anything, the EC favors what they feared, as its easier to focus on a few key areas to enamor, than a whole country.

While I agree with you, it doesn’t change my point.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,700
136
Red state, unenlightened, easily manipulated. You believe yourself to be better than those people, you believe your political beliefs are obviously superior. You believe they're not bright enough to understand the concepts that you embrace. You believe they're being manipulated. The solution to this problem is to alter the constitution to reduce they're political influence.

I'm pretty sure I don't want to be enlightened.
To each his own.

Who said I think I'm better than those people? I never intimated that. You don't think people in red states are being manipulated? People in all states are being manipulated. You and I are both being manipulated. Fact is it's easier to manipulate some populace than other. You doubt this, you are a fool.

Changing the constitution to reduce the influence of people who have more influence than they deserve could be thought of as leveling the playing field.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,136
30,086
146
But is that democratic? Not. The oligarchs of this country only have to control a relatively small electorate to effect policy because of the equal power of Montana and California, etc. Montana's a good example of a red state with really small population and unenlightened electorate, the type that's easily manipulated by the kind of slime that's running this country from behind curtains.

Our form of government was created as a constitutional republic, with democratic elections. So yes, the legislature is exactly as designed, and shouldn't be confused as "Democracy."

The only thing that conflicts with our democratic election model is the EC, which only governs one particular election.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,409
8,700
136
Our form of government was created as a constitutional republic, with democratic elections. So yes, the legislature is exactly as designed, and shouldn't be confused as "Democracy."

The only thing that conflicts with our democratic election model is the EC, which only governs one particular election.
OK. But the will of the people should hold sway more than it does. Too many things that the public wants and deserves, the public does not get. The middle class is collapsing, has been for decades. Gun control, elimination of the loop-holes has public support, but it doesn't happen. Taxing the rich so their maids don't pay a higher rate than they do.You yourself complained about being taxed without being represented. The filibuster. Gerrymandering. The systematic disenfranchisement of segments of the electorate cherry-picked by special interest financed agents. I haven't even mentioned universal health care. This is just off the top of my semi-educated head.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
7,695
8,095
136
Red state, unenlightened, easily manipulated. You believe yourself to be better than those people, you believe your political beliefs are obviously superior. You believe they're not bright enough to understand the concepts that you embrace. You believe they're being manipulated. The solution to this problem is to alter the constitution to reduce they're political influence.

I'm pretty sure I don't want to be enlightened.
And there it is.

As the saying goes:

When accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

Abolishing the EC makes EVERYONE'S VOTE EQUAL.

Holy shit, thanks for the amazing example!