So far no surprises as all states have submitted their electoral votes for the candidate that won their state. The only state left that was being challenged by Trump's campaign is Arizona and their electors are meeting currently. By 5:00pm CST all states' electors will have met and voted so we should have the final result. Will that end the nonsense from Trump and his campaign?
Electoral College
- Thread starter TU_BLA
- Start date
i would hope so, but sadly, it may not. There are a couple of oddball ways he could persue it.
Not sure what those are...I was always worried Trump would buy his way into electors in Georgia or Wisconsin but they've already cast their electoral ballots for him. As has Pennsylvania. If he tries to have the Senate do something then our Constitution is dead and we're headed towards a fascist theocracy
And Michigan has now cast their 16 electors for Biden/Harris.
Why is it hard for Trump to understand he won PA, MI, and WI in 2016 by a narrow margin and the help of 2 alternative party candidates that drew a good number of votes (Jill Stein-Green Party, Gary Johnson-Libertarian). Neither of those parties put forth or promoted actual candidates this year and thus those votes likely went to Biden. If you look at Biden's margin in MI, it was almost the exact number of votes Johnson got in 2016.
Why is it hard for Trump to understand he won PA, MI, and WI in 2016 by a narrow margin and the help of 2 alternative party candidates that drew a good number of votes (Jill Stein-Green Party, Gary Johnson-Libertarian). Neither of those parties put forth or promoted actual candidates this year and thus those votes likely went to Biden. If you look at Biden's margin in MI, it was almost the exact number of votes Johnson got in 2016.
BREAKING: Nevada GOP Electors Cast Ballot for Trump, There Are Now Dueling Electors in Three States (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cassandra MacDonald
Updated: This post has been updated to clarify the procedural reasons the Republican electors cast their ballots for President Trump.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Stop putting out fake news, & post accurate sources. US News & World ReportBREAKING: Nevada GOP Electors Cast Ballot for Trump, There Are Now Dueling Electors in Three States (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cassandra MacDonald
Updated: This post has been updated to clarify the procedural reasons the Republican electors cast their ballots for President Trump.
Nothing fake about that. Can’t help it didn’t get reported by your fake news sites! 😂. Does it not bother you that your fake news keeps you in the dark? Wake up. There is still time!
You are an imbecile. I can't believe you believe that, but you are an imbecile either way. Spell check one of your 'sources'. ( Annoucement)
Here's some quotes, all from today, shon:
“I understand there are people who feel strongly about the outcome of this election, but in the end at some point you have to face the music. And I think that once the Electoral College settles the issue today, it’s time for everybody to move on.” -Senator John Thune (R-S.D.), the #2 ranking Senate Republican.
“There’s clearly a constitutional president-elect,” - Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the #4 ranking GOP Senator.
“The Electoral College vote today makes clear that Joe Biden is now president-elect.” - Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
“It’s time to turn the page and begin a new administration.”- Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)
“Vice President Biden is the president-elect based on the electoral count.” - Sen Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)
“I understand there are people who feel strongly about the outcome of this election, but in the end at some point you have to face the music. And I think that once the Electoral College settles the issue today, it’s time for everybody to move on.” -Senator John Thune (R-S.D.), the #2 ranking Senate Republican.
“There’s clearly a constitutional president-elect,” - Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the #4 ranking GOP Senator.
“The Electoral College vote today makes clear that Joe Biden is now president-elect.” - Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
“It’s time to turn the page and begin a new administration.”- Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.)
“Vice President Biden is the president-elect based on the electoral count.” - Sen Mike Rounds (R-S.D.)
I'm not in favor of these nor do I think they will happen but they have appeared on the internet.
1. The results are unsealled by the Vice President. The theory is Pence could do something to disallow some state votes. PROBABILITY ZERO. Pence has a future to look out for and it wouldn't work anyway.
2. Some Republican Reps might try to have some votes not count. While likelyhood of this is Non Zero, it is unlikely and wouldn't work anyway.
It is over and some people are just not able to let go. Trump should tell them to let it go, but he probably won't.
Trump won't, and it wouldn't do any good if he did. 99.9% of his core constituents will not change there stance, even if Trump would tell them to let it go, and mean it. And that's the one's who need to be convinced it was a fair election.
We keep teetering back and forth on this precipice of autocracy... it's concerning and the fact that some people are supporting it is disgusting.
The last time we had disputed electors in a race it was disasterous for the country. It was 1876 and Rutheford Hayes was nearly deadlocked with Democrat Samuel Tilden to replace a dirty Grant administration. The two parties ended up coming to an agreement that effectively meant an end to Reconstruction in the South as Hayes promised to remove Union Troops and cede control of southern governments in order to take the presidency. It was the beginning of the Jim Crow south.
The last time we had disputed electors in a race it was disasterous for the country. It was 1876 and Rutheford Hayes was nearly deadlocked with Democrat Samuel Tilden to replace a dirty Grant administration. The two parties ended up coming to an agreement that effectively meant an end to Reconstruction in the South as Hayes promised to remove Union Troops and cede control of southern governments in order to take the presidency. It was the beginning of the Jim Crow south.
If Trump had been alive back then I bet he would have taken Rutherford's deal in a second. His presidency would have enacted the same Jim Crow laws in a flash.
Give it up on getting rid of electoral college.
This election won't change the issue that the electoral college will be around for the foreseeable future.
The point is, you shouldn't have to make a deal with your opponent to become president.
You have to admit that if we went to popular vote that there still would be ways to cheat. There would still be disputes with claims and counter claims. Money would still out weigh honesty. A shorter time frame for campaigns and spending limits would help. But now or 1876 or 1798 and the Allien and Sedition Acts with John Adams, people always have the temptation towards corruption or gaming the system. Doing away with the electoral college won't stop that. But go ahead and try for an Amendment.
No, my point is there are good points to the Electoral College and the GOP won't let it go for that reason. You won't get a constitutional amendment over this election. And it's the only time that ever happened as far as I know. As well, changing to a pure democracy wouldn't stop votes from being contested. It really wouldn't make it any more secure or decisive. And just because it was during the time with the most upheaval in the history of our nation, doesn't signify that if it ever happened again, we would have something as repulsive as Jim Crow laws.
It has happened once. Trump may have got a large minority to buy that it happened again, but it really didn't. If you had any chance of convincing anybody to change it, it would be something along the lines of giving DC electoral voters and making sure it came out an odd #.
It has happened once. Trump may have got a large minority to buy that it happened again, but it really didn't. If you had any chance of convincing anybody to change it, it would be something along the lines of giving DC electoral voters and making sure it came out an odd #.
If you got rid of the electoral college and went with the popular vote, the big city political views by default of population size would then decide the presidency. The middle of the country, not as populated as the big metropolitan cities, and certainly with differing belief systems would then have their vote essentially overridden every time. I’m not denying that our current system has flaws but at least with the electoral college system, each States vote counts as an equal. Without that, there would be nothing stopping the middle of the country and the South from leaving the Union.
Shon, you're smarter than this. The so called GOP electors that are voting are not legal electors according to any of the state's where they are voting and have not been sworn in by the SoS in those states. The majority of the state laws require that the slate of electors chosen by the party that wins the state be the one that is empaneled and sworn in.BREAKING: Nevada GOP Electors Cast Ballot for Trump, There Are Now Dueling Electors in Three States (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Cassandra MacDonald
Updated: This post has been updated to clarify the procedural reasons the Republican electors cast their ballots for President Trump.
You need to have more reliable sources you link to...the ones you are constantly citing are going further and further right and border on the political absurd. Their reporting is so heavily skewed to the right, there is virtually zero factual correctness. Articles like this are meant to do nothing but inflame. The only votes that will be read into the record during the joint session of Congress will be the ones certified by the respective states yesterday. Anything that strays from that will be a violation of the Constitution.
There are a few differences with the way the electoral college worked back then as opposed to now. Many states have enacted laws to empanel the slate of electors chosen by the party of the candidate who has won the popular vote for that state. Because those electors are selected by and part of the party, there are very few instances of electors voting for a different candidate, and even in rare cases where you have faithless electors, its more of a political message than anything meaningful towards the outcome of the election.
We won't ever get rid of the electoral college as there are too many red states who wield the same power in the Senate as CA and NY. Hell, Washington, DC has a permanent population larger than the entire state of Wyoming. DC has no congressional representatives, Wyoming has 2 Senators and 1 Rep. All those tiny states with lots of empty land actually skew the balance of power in Congress to where fewer voices are heard.
But I do think states need to appoint their electoral votes in a different way, that equally represent both candidates and what is actually happening in an election. How many times did Biden and Trump go to Massachusetts or California to campaign (for themselves, not some down ballot congressional or state rep seat)? Zero. How many times did Biden come to Oklahoma, Arkansas, or Missouri to campaign? ZERO. Why? Because electoral votes are winner take all. What if they weren't? What if electors reflected what the vote in the state was? In OKlahoma, Trump won 65% of the vote to Biden's 32%. Oklahoma has 7 electoral votes. Trump would be awarded 5 electoral votes to Biden's 2. California and Texas have 55 and 38 electoral votes respectively. Biden won CA 64% to 34%; Trump won Texas 52% to 47%. If electors were appointed proportionately, that would mean Biden would get 35 electoral votes, Trump would have gotten 19 (rounded up). Any extra electoral votes would be appointed to the winner of the state. In Texas Trump would have gotten 20 electoral votes, Biden would get 18. Imagine if Trump went and campaigned in CA? Imagine if Biden campaigned in any of the flyover states and pulled 4-5% higher than they normally would have? Appointing electors this way would be more directly reflective of the actual people's vote. You would see more campaigning across the country because in this case every last vote would count. Democrats in OK basically feel as though their vote in national elections never matters. I'm sure some CA Republicans feel the same way. I haven't broken down all of the states but I'm sure this election would be a lot closer if electors were assigned proportionally to the popular vote.
I respectfully disagree with you Sir and here is why I disagree. The POTUS electors met on the day the electors were supposed to meet, cast their ballots, and they sent their ballots to congress. This preserves POTUS‘s right, should he win any of the cases in the swing States currently disputed, POTUS electors will replace the incumbent electors. The second possible outcome is that the person who opens up the electors and reads them (under the 12th Amendment of the Constitution) is the President of the Senate who is the Vice President. Pence could open up the electors and he could make his own determination at that time and declare that the dissident Republican electors are the ones he will officially recognize, not the ones approved by the Secretary of State yesterday. The Dems have acknowledged that multiple times. Ultimately on Jan 6th the Vice President will tell the House and Senate, who are observers, who the electors are. Theoretically the VP has non reviewable power to say the Republican dissident electors cast on 14 Dec were valid and recognize them. Its unclear if Congress can reverse that or the courts can reverse that. I understand your apprehension to accept new media sites however your media preference does not mitigate constitutional law!
This is just a different form of popular vote.
My solution:
Modify the EC.
A state gets one vote for each house of representative district and two more for the senators
Eliminate the state wide winner take all.
Replace it with the winner in a disrtict gets that vote. The winner of the state vote gets the two extra votes
My solution:
Modify the EC.
A state gets one vote for each house of representative district and two more for the senators
Eliminate the state wide winner take all.
Replace it with the winner in a disrtict gets that vote. The winner of the state vote gets the two extra votes
Only if all of the heavily gerrymandered districts in Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas, Arizona, (hell even Oklahoma has heavily gerrymandered districts), Missouri, etc. are redrawn by a bipartisan committee in each state. And your solution still gives advantages to land vs people. Mine is more equitable and gives the power to the statewide vote and if the candidates want to receive more electors, they need to sway the people in those states.
This is that one time out of the year that aTUfan makes an intelligent and moderately interesting point worth debating.
Except his solution still doesn’t have logic to it and is inequitable because of arbitrary congressional district lines and arbitrary state borders.
We put too much credence in where you live determining much your vote will count. When you’re voting for a representative (The President) who’s power to govern isn’t determined by which internal border you live near all votes should count equally within that representative’s realm of governance. (Just like they do in Governor’s races. Counties don’t get greater voting power in governor’s races for being rural)
Your voting power for a president that represents the entire country shouldn’t be determined by which side of the street you live on, or which side of the highway you live on, or which side of the Mississippi River you live on, or which side of the Rocky Mountains you live on.
The only thing that should effect your voting equity is your ability to understand the merits of the issues and the candidates you are voting for, and the fact that you have an inherent interest in the nation as a whole (citizenship in good standing with the law).
If the process we use to determine executives for States (popular vote) is sufficient and fair, then it should be sufficient and fair for national elections as well.
Last edited:
Listen to yourself. He is 1 for 60 in all of the frivolous lawsuits with no actual evidence of coordinated fraud or wrongdoing. Many of their lawsuits centered on telling states that the laws the legislature passed were improper. But he only challenged the states he lost...North Carolina's mail-in vote law was changed to make it easier and to accept ballots until Nov. 12th. Where is the lawsuit challenging that? You can disagree all you want, but what I stated was actual law. When the votes were ready into the record yesterday, that was it. All of the individual states have certified their vote results and both empaneled the appropriate slate of electors, sworn them in, and recorded their votes. Those votes are certified by the respective states and sent to Congress to be read in. IF any state electoral college votes are read into the record other than those certified by the states, VP Mike Pence is in violation of the Constitution.
SCOTUS has already said no other state has a standing in PA (or any other state for that matter). Claims that Texas voters are being disenfranchised by a different state because they voted for a different candidate is both ludicrous and very self-serving. How very authoritarian of Texas (and any state who joined the stupidity). So TX can claim their voters are disenfranchised by PA's vote. So can't CA and NY claim the same 4 years ago and after all, there are more people in those 2 states than 22 of the states that voted for Trump in that election-COMBINED. The fact is, TX wanted to disenfranchise voters in PA and WI and MI...not all voters, just those from Milwaukee, Detroit, and Philadelphia. And let's not forget about Atlanta. Essentially TX said it's not OK to count votes from urban areas with large numbers of black and brown people. Count all the legal votes, unless they represent black and brown people. That's what you're representing right now.
T
Sir, I have simply laid out the constitutional law for you. It matters not to me if you agree with their strategy, weather you believe it has merit or standing, or if you believe it’s rationale. It frankly isn’t up to you or me what avenue they pursue. However, if you listen to the people who are in their inner circle, these are the avenues they are discussing and have available to them. Even CNN confirms this. Stick to the law, not your feelings!
Nice summary. We had something like this four years ago. In four years we will be doing it again. Amendments only happen when there is strong nationwide interest. The interest is stronger this time because of Trumps trying to change the results. But it is not strong enough to clear the massive hurdle of an Ammendment.
It wouldn't require an amendment. The Constitution only calls for the electoral college. It's the individual states' laws that legislate how they are appointed. Individual state legislatures could change how they are appointed at any given time and usually with a simple majority of the vote. (Unless electoral appointments are hard written into an individual state's constitution....Oklahoma's constitution is a bloody mess BTW).
That isn't in the Constitution at all. The Constitution simply lays out the electoral college and when it must vote. Individual state law dictates who the electors are, how they are selected and impaneled/sworn in, and how they are divided according to the statewide vote. The so called "alternate electors" are neither prescribed by any state law and they carry zero weight according to any state law or even the Constitution. Constitutionally, they cannot even be considered or acknowledged since the Constitution leaves the electors to the given states. If you watched any of the proceedings yesterday (they were on every newschannel...except for Fox News because they're still stuck in the Alice in Wonderland Hunter Biden rabbit hole) you saw how the state process worked...red and blue states. It's not a hard concept to follow honestly.
This alternate elector slate is not a real thing except for the authoritarians in the GOP to make them feel better. Again, VP Pence cannot even accept them when the electoral roll call vote is held in the joint session. He would be in violation of the Constitution if he did.
Except your statement is BS. You don't want to hear any compromises to anything other than the popular vote. As Republicans which don't want this country run by NY city and LA, It's a compromise that gives over to counting based on the electoral college and essentially the popular vote determined by representatives. It is, as I said before, worthy of a debate, and gives up part of what you asked for, just not all.
My statement is completely accurate. The votes cast to elect an official should be equal among those voting for the official as long as the official represents the voters equally. If we were talking about letting non-citizen residents vote, or talking about letting citizens of territories vote for a national office then sure, maybe their votes should be disparately weighted, but as long as the representative represents all of the voting districts and their voters equally, then all of their votes should count equally.
I say again, you don’t let Wagoner county voters have disproportionate voting power when choosing the governor in comparison to the voting power of those living in Tulsa county. The exact same (dumb) arguments that are made for the electoral college could be made of rural vs suburban vs urban voters in literally any state in selecting their governors or their senators. (Or in some small states their congressmen)
I don’t care if it does or doesn’t need an amendment. I don’t care if it isn’t conciliatory to electoral college supporters. I will never stop reminding people that any system which weights votes differently among districts will be inherently flawed.
The only cases in which I think votes should be weighed differently are in cases of differing levels of citizenship (financial and lawful interest in the civics of the country) or in cases in which the voters are substantially under informed about the country’s history and civics. (Voters should be required to pass a similar test as the US citizenship test)
Last edited:
In the USA... the weight of your vote is hindered more by how many people live around you than it is the fact that you don’t know what the constitution says or you don’t know what what the branches of the federal government You don’t know anything about what an executive order can do or what the president’s authority to wage war is... it doesn’t matter that you didn’t pay taxes. Nope... all that matters is that someone lives 1 mile away from you instead of 10 miles away from you and that you have a license to drive a car even though you might not have a car.
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
The fact that my vote is weighted the same as some of the people who never paid attention in school and know nothing about how our country has historically been governed disgusts me... but here we are whining that the candidates might campaign more in California and Texas than they do in Iowa. Give me a break.
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
The fact that my vote is weighted the same as some of the people who never paid attention in school and know nothing about how our country has historically been governed disgusts me... but here we are whining that the candidates might campaign more in California and Texas than they do in Iowa. Give me a break.
It’s funny. In a lot of ways I can get on board with that train of thought but that requires extreme Nationalism. So much so that this knowledge of our system is rewarded and incentivized and those on the fence are peer pressured into learning our political system inside and out. We had that and have lost it. The one thing about this election is it has invigorated discussions of our great constitution. We are relearning and learning bc we all now feel like our future depends on it. What a beautiful thing! America First........America Forever!
Doing away of the EC would help the candidated with their campaign travel cost.
Democrats would only need to campaign in LA , Chicago, Detroit, NYC and and a few other large cities.
Democrats would only need to campaign in LA , Chicago, Detroit, NYC and and a few other large cities.
