US Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ustrello**

whembly wrote:
Doesn't anyone find it ironic that the party that's yammering about the EC... is the same party that has Super Delegates in their primary?

You do realize that the Rs have them as well? And there was (maybe still is) to unbind them.

**CptJake**

kronk wrote:
ender502 wrote:

This isn't difficult. This isn't revolutionary. This is just the rules as written. If Indiana wants their electors to vote for the person who won their popular vote then they would have passed a statute. They haven't.

What are you talking about?

Indiana is a winner take all state. Trump won the popular vote, there. The majority that voted, voted for Trump. Trump gets the EC votes.

What are you arguing for, here? Help me out.

He is arguing that he and folks like him can persuade the electors in Indiana (and other states) to elect someone other than Trump, regardless of the outcome of the elections in those states.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

whembly wrote:
Doesn't anyone find it ironic that the party that's yammering about the EC... is the same party that has Super Delegates in their primary?

Superdelegates are stupid.

I've been yammering about the Electoral College for longer than two weeks, but I'm not a Democrat though so I guess that doesn't count.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CptJake wrote:
kronk wrote:
ender502 wrote:

This isn't difficult. This isn't revolutionary. This is just the rules as written. If Indiana wants their electors to vote for the person who won their popular vote then they would have passed a statute. They haven't.

What are you talking about?

Indiana is a winner take all state. Trump won the popular vote, there. The majority that voted, voted for Trump. Trump gets the EC votes.

What are you arguing for, here? Help me out.

He is arguing that he and folks like him can persuade the electors in Indiana (and other states) to elect someone other than Trump, regardless of the outcome of the elections in those states.

Which, however unlikely, is actually possible.

But yeah, even though it could happen, it won't and anyone thinking that it will is a damn fool.

**CptJake**

Ustrello wrote:
whembly wrote:
Doesn't anyone find it ironic that the party that's yammering about the EC... is the same party that has Super Delegates in their primary?

You do realize that the Rs have them as well? And there was (maybe still is) to unbind them.

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

At least in name, superdelegates are not involved in the Republican Party nomination process. There are delegates to the Republican National Convention who are seated automatically, but they are limited to three per state, consisting of the state chairsperson and two district-level committee members. Republican Party superdelegates are obliged to vote for their state's popular vote winner under the rules of the party branch to which they belong.

more here: https://www.bustle.com/articles/141611-does-the-gop-have-superdelegates-the-republican-partys-nomination-rules-are-different-this-year

**kronk**

CptJake wrote:
kronk wrote:
ender502 wrote:

This isn't difficult. This isn't revolutionary. This is just the rules as written. If Indiana wants their electors to vote for the person who won their popular vote then they would have passed a statute. They haven't.

What are you talking about?

Indiana is a winner take all state. Trump won the popular vote, there. The majority that voted, voted for Trump. Trump gets the EC votes.

What are you arguing for, here? Help me out.

He is arguing that he and folks like him can persuade the electors in Indiana (and other states) to elect someone other than Trump, regardless of the outcome of the elections in those states.

Ah.

I'm not a Trump fan, but that just smells like desperation at this point.

Besides, Hillary conceded, and winners don't concede.

**CptJake**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

CptJake wrote:
kronk wrote:
ender502 wrote:

This isn't difficult. This isn't revolutionary. This is just the rules as written. If Indiana wants their electors to vote for the person who won their popular vote then they would have passed a statute. They haven't.

What are you talking about?

Indiana is a winner take all state. Trump won the popular vote, there. The majority that voted, voted for Trump. Trump gets the EC votes.

What are you arguing for, here? Help me out.

He is arguing that he and folks like him can persuade the electors in Indiana (and other states) to elect someone other than Trump, regardless of the outcome of the elections in those states.
Which, however unlikely, is actually possible.

But yeah, even though it could happen, it won't and anyone thinking that it will is a damn fool.

It is also possible every US member of Dakka wins the lottery at least once this year.

But a bit unlikely.

**Prestor Jon**

ender502 wrote:
Just to be clear I am not arguing for or against the current form of the electoral college.

To answer the question I think you need to ask why were the electors not linked to the popular vote? I default to hamilton simply because his is the closest in time and place to the decision making process. There isnt much evidence to say that another view was prevalent at the time.

If you haven't read federalist 68, I would suggest doing that now. The electors were there to vote for someone who qualification was not just base popularity. The electors are always the final bulwark against democracy/rule of the mob. It isn't pretty but that is what it was there for.

Why have the electors almost universally gone with the popular vote (outside of where they are required to)? Because in general the popular vote has come out with general reasonable results. We may not like them but that are general inside the realm of reason. No real demagogue or nut jobs. So not a lot of reason to go against that vote.

This isn't difficult. This isn't revolutionary. This is just the rules as written. If Indiana wants their electors to vote for the person who won their popular vote then they would have passed a statute. They haven't.

And by the way...thank you to the 14 of you who have volunteered to help. It is much appreciated.

ender502

Why exactly do you think having the Electors from the states wherein Trump won the popular vote, voting for Trump would be unreasonable? 60 million people thought it was reasonable to vote for Trump why is it not reasonable that the Electors from the states that Trump won would also believe Trump to be a candidate worth voting for? You say that it was reasonable for Electors to vote in accordance to the popular in their state previously so why is it so unreasonable now?

**ender502**

kronk wrote:
ender502 wrote:

This isn't difficult. This isn't revolutionary. This is just the rules as written. If Indiana wants their electors to vote for the person who won their popular vote then they would have passed a statute. They haven't.

What are you talking about?

Indiana is a winner take all state. Trump won the popular vote, there. The majority that voted, voted for Trump. Trump gets the EC votes.

What are you arguing for, here? Help me out.

Justa for instance. Doing this from my phone so I'm trying to be as straight forward as possible. PA would be better example.

I am not actual arguing either for or against the electoral college. I'm saying that some people are trying to use the rules to their advantage Ina perfectly legitimate fashion. And I'm somewhat surprised that people at whining about people playing by the rules. This isn't vote tampering or voter suppression. This is just free speech and a continuation of the debate about who should be president.

ender502

**whembly**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
whembly wrote:
Doesn't anyone find it ironic that the party that's yammering about the EC... is the same party that has Super Delegates in their primary?
Superdelegates are stupid.

I've been yammering about the Electoral College for longer than two weeks, but I'm not a Democrat though so I guess that doesn't count.

To be fair, I do remember you criticizing the Super Delegates.

<tips my cap>

**CptJake**

ender502 wrote:
kronk wrote:
ender502 wrote:

This isn't difficult. This isn't revolutionary. This is just the rules as written. If Indiana wants their electors to vote for the person who won their popular vote then they would have passed a statute. They haven't.

What are you talking about?

Indiana is a winner take all state. Trump won the popular vote, there. The majority that voted, voted for Trump. Trump gets the EC votes.

What are you arguing for, here? Help me out.

Justa for instance. Doing this from my phone so I'm trying to be as straight forward as possible. PA would be better example.

I am not actual arguing either for or against the electoral college. I'm saying that some people are trying to use the rules to their advantage Ina perfectly legitimate fashion. And I'm somewhat surprised that people at whining about people playing by the rules. This isn't vote tampering or voter suppression. This is just free speech and a continuation of the debate about who should be president.

ender502

You seem to miss the point that the debate about who should be president ended already.

**Prestor Jon**

ender502 wrote:
kronk wrote:
ender502 wrote:

This isn't difficult. This isn't revolutionary. This is just the rules as written. If Indiana wants their electors to vote for the person who won their popular vote then they would have passed a statute. They haven't.

What are you talking about?

Indiana is a winner take all state. Trump won the popular vote, there. The majority that voted, voted for Trump. Trump gets the EC votes.

What are you arguing for, here? Help me out.

Justa for instance. Doing this from my phone so I'm trying to be as straight forward as possible. PA would be better example.

I am not actual arguing either for or against the electoral college. I'm saying that some people are trying to use the rules to their advantage Ina perfectly legitimate fashion. And I'm somewhat surprised that people at whining about people playing by the rules. This isn't vote tampering or voter suppression. This is just free speech and a continuation of the debate about who should be president.

ender502

It's absolutely tampering. We had an election to elect Electors to the Electoral College to represent the people in each state. That election was held on Nov 8th. Now you want to contact those Electors and try to influence their opinion. That's not how the system works. We hold an election, we elect Electors, the Electors we elected vote on Dec 19th. That's the system. The system isn't that we elect Electors on Election Day and then we try to start letter writing campaigns to convince the Electors to vote the way the people writing the letter want them to vote. You had your say on Election day when you voted for Electors you don't get to keep campaigning and the Electors are under no obligation to listen to you. On the one hand you are arguing for the Electors to be independent of the people yet simultaneously on the other hand you're arguing for the Electors to listen to YOU specifically and be influenced by YOUR argument. Either the Electors are independent in which case you should leave them alone or they Electors should listen to the Election Day results in their state, in which case you should leave them alone. What isn't ok is for you to try to convince lots of people to harass the Electors in the hopes of influencing the outcome of their vote on Dec 19th, that's the very definition of tampering.

**CptJake**

And publishing their personal contact info, which has happened, definitely does lead to harassment of the electors.

**d-usa**

Looks like Ben Carson bow thinks that he doesn't have the experience to work for the administration, although that didn't keep him from thinking he could run the administration.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ben-carson-donald-trump-administration-2016-11

So no creationist SoE or SG then.

**Prestor Jon**

d-usa wrote:
Looks like Ben Carson bow thinks that he doesn't have the experience to work for the administration, although that didn't keep him from thinking he could run the administration.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ben-carson-donald-trump-administration-2016-11

So no creationist SoE or SG then.

I don't have anything against Carson but this is probably a smart move on his part.

**jasper76**

(sorry, joke in bad taste)

**d-usa**

Ben is just one of those "just because you are smart doesn't mean you can't be stupid" people. Great surgeon, just no idea why he thought he could run the country.

Looking over the group of folks that ran on both sides makes me wonder how things would have turned out if Biden's son wouldn't have died.

**sirlynchmob**

Prestor Jon wrote:
ender502 wrote:
kronk wrote:
ender502 wrote:

This isn't difficult. This isn't revolutionary. This is just the rules as written. If Indiana wants their electors to vote for the person who won their popular vote then they would have passed a statute. They haven't.

What are you talking about?

Indiana is a winner take all state. Trump won the popular vote, there. The majority that voted, voted for Trump. Trump gets the EC votes.

What are you arguing for, here? Help me out.

Justa for instance. Doing this from my phone so I'm trying to be as straight forward as possible. PA would be better example.

I am not actual arguing either for or against the electoral college. I'm saying that some people are trying to use the rules to their advantage Ina perfectly legitimate fashion. And I'm somewhat surprised that people at whining about people playing by the rules. This isn't vote tampering or voter suppression. This is just free speech and a continuation of the debate about who should be president.

ender502

It's absolutely tampering. We had an election to elect Electors to the Electoral College to represent the people in each state. That election was held on Nov 8th. Now you want to contact those Electors and try to influence their opinion. That's not how the system works. We hold an election, we elect Electors, the Electors we elected vote on Dec 19th. That's the system. The system isn't that we elect Electors on Election Day and then we try to start letter writing campaigns to convince the Electors to vote the way the people writing the letter want them to vote. You had your say on Election day when you voted for Electors you don't get to keep campaigning and the Electors are under no obligation to listen to you. On the one hand you are arguing for the Electors to be independent of the people yet simultaneously on the other hand you're arguing for the Electors to listen to YOU specifically and be influenced by YOUR argument. Either the Electors are independent in which case you should leave them alone or they Electors should listen to the Election Day results in their state, in which case you should leave them alone. What isn't ok is for you to try to convince lots of people to harass the Electors in the hopes of influencing the outcome of their vote on Dec 19th, that's the very definition of tampering.

It's not about tampering, its the reason for the EC. This is the time they need to step up and save us from tyranny. We are about to suffer the tyranny of the majority from the red states

**jasper76**

d-usa wrote:
Ben is just one of those "just because you are smart doesn't mean you can't be stupid" people. Great surgeon, just no idea why he thought he could run the country.

Also a clear example that surgeons are not necessarily scientists.

**Prestor Jon**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
ender502 wrote:
kronk wrote:
ender502 wrote:

This isn't difficult. This isn't revolutionary. This is just the rules as written. If Indiana wants their electors to vote for the person who won their popular vote then they would have passed a statute. They haven't.

What are you talking about?

Indiana is a winner take all state. Trump won the popular vote, there. The majority that voted, voted for Trump. Trump gets the EC votes.

What are you arguing for, here? Help me out.

Justa for instance. Doing this from my phone so I'm trying to be as straight forward as possible. PA would be better example.

I am not actual arguing either for or against the electoral college. I'm saying that some people are trying to use the rules to their advantage Ina perfectly legitimate fashion. And I'm somewhat surprised that people at whining about people playing by the rules. This isn't vote tampering or voter suppression. This is just free speech and a continuation of the debate about who should be president.

ender502

It's absolutely tampering. We had an election to elect Electors to the Electoral College to represent the people in each state. That election was held on Nov 8th. Now you want to contact those Electors and try to influence their opinion. That's not how the system works. We hold an election, we elect Electors, the Electors we elected vote on Dec 19th. That's the system. The system isn't that we elect Electors on Election Day and then we try to start letter writing campaigns to convince the Electors to vote the way the people writing the letter want them to vote. You had your say on Election day when you voted for Electors you don't get to keep campaigning and the Electors are under no obligation to listen to you. On the one hand you are arguing for the Electors to be independent of the people yet simultaneously on the other hand you're arguing for the Electors to listen to YOU specifically and be influenced by YOUR argument. Either the Electors are independent in which case you should leave them alone or they Electors should listen to the Election Day results in their state, in which case you should leave them alone. What isn't ok is for you to try to convince lots of people to harass the Electors in the hopes of influencing the outcome of their vote on Dec 19th, that's the very definition of tampering.

It's not about tampering, its the reason for the EC. This is the time they need to step up and save us from tyranny. We are about to suffer the tyranny of the majority from the red states

The Electors can make their own decisions. We had Election Day, we chose the Electors with our votes, we had our say, there's no justification for harassing letter writing campaigns to Electors.

Also, a lawful democratic election isn't tyranny of any kind in any way.

**jasper76**

sirlynchmob wrote:

It's not about tampering, its the reason for the EC. This is the time they need to step up and save us from tyranny. We are about to suffer the tyranny of the majority from the red states

Trump supporters would be saying the same thing in reverse if Clinton got elected.

**d-usa**

If we want to get back to the spirit of old, I'm sure the electors got lobbied and influenced to make a different choice long after they were selected in the past.

**ender502**

Prestor Jon wrote:
ender502 wrote:
kronk wrote:
ender502 wrote:

This isn't difficult. This isn't revolutionary. This is just the rules as written. If Indiana wants their electors to vote for the person who won their popular vote then they would have passed a statute. They haven't.

What are you talking about?

Indiana is a winner take all state. Trump won the popular vote, there. The majority that voted, voted for Trump. Trump gets the EC votes.

What are you arguing for, here? Help me out.

It's absolutely tampering. We had an election to elect Electors to the Electoral College to represent the people in each state. That election was held on Nov 8th. Now you want to contact those Electors and try to influence their opinion. That's not how the system works. We hold an election, we elect Electors, the Electors we elected vote on Dec 19th. That's the system. The system isn't that we elect Electors on Election Day and then we try to start letter writing campaigns to convince the Electors to vote the way the people writing the letter want them to vote. You had your say on Election day when you voted for Electors you don't get to keep campaigning and the Electors are under no obligation to listen to you. On the one hand you are arguing for the Electors to be independent of the people yet simultaneously on the other hand you're arguing for the Electors to listen to YOU specifically and be influenced by YOUR argument. Either the Electors are independent in which case you should leave them alone or they Electors should listen to the Election Day results in their state, in which case you should leave them alone. What isn't ok is for you to try to convince lots of people to harass the Electors in the hopes of influencing the outcome of their vote on Dec 19th, that's the very definition of tampering.

That's actually not the definition of tampering. Tampering only effects votes already cast. We are talking about votes that haven't been cast.

Ofcourse, if you at thinking about stars where the electoral and popular vote are linked, then encouraging someone to go against the statutory mandate might be conspiracy. But we aren't talking about them. We are discussing those states where there is no link between popular and electoral votes. It's a very different situation.

ender502

**ScootyPuffJunior**

CptJake wrote:
It is also possible every US member of Dakka wins the lottery at least once this year.

But a bit unlikely.

Thank you for saying the same thing I just said. Any particular reason for it?

d-usa wrote:
Looks like Ben Carson now thinks that he doesn't have the experience to work for the administration, although that didn't keep him from thinking he could run the administration.

I saw that and just shook my head.

**sirlynchmob**

Prestor Jon wrote:

The Electors can make their own decisions. We had Election Day, we chose the Electors with our votes, we had our say, there's no justification for harassing letter writing campaigns to Electors.

Also, a lawful democratic election isn't tyranny of any kind in any way.

Then why have the EC? If there's no tyranny of any kind during an election, why is it needed?

maybe someone here could help me out, who all could they vote for? I know the petition wants sanders, but could they just vote Joe Exotic or me into office?

**Prestor Jon**

ender502 wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
ender502 wrote:
kronk wrote:
ender502 wrote:

This isn't difficult. This isn't revolutionary. This is just the rules as written. If Indiana wants their electors to vote for the person who won their popular vote then they would have passed a statute. They haven't.

What are you talking about?

Indiana is a winner take all state. Trump won the popular vote, there. The majority that voted, voted for Trump. Trump gets the EC votes.

What are you arguing for, here? Help me out.

It's absolutely tampering. We had an election to elect Electors to the Electoral College to represent the people in each state. That election was held on Nov 8th. Now you want to contact those Electors and try to influence their opinion. That's not how the system works. We hold an election, we elect Electors, the Electors we elected vote on Dec 19th. That's the system. The system isn't that we elect Electors on Election Day and then we try to start letter writing campaigns to convince the Electors to vote the way the people writing the letter want them to vote. You had your say on Election day when you voted for Electors you don't get to keep campaigning and the Electors are under no obligation to listen to you. On the one hand you are arguing for the Electors to be independent of the people yet simultaneously on the other hand you're arguing for the Electors to listen to YOU specifically and be influenced by YOUR argument. Either the Electors are independent in which case you should leave them alone or they Electors should listen to the Election Day results in their state, in which case you should leave them alone. What isn't ok is for you to try to convince lots of people to harass the Electors in the hopes of influencing the outcome of their vote on Dec 19th, that's the very definition of tampering.

That's actually not the definition of tampering. Tampering only effects votes already cast. We are talking about votes that haven't been cast.

Ofcourse, if you at thinking about stars where the electoral and popular vote are linked, then encouraging someone to go against the statutory mandate might be conspiracy. But we aren't talking about them. We are discussing those states where there is no link between popular and electoral votes. It's a very different situation.

ender502

If you think Electors can be swayed by letter writing campaigns then they aren't independent Electors casting their votes for whichever candidate they feel is best, which then defeats your argument that Electors are independent. If Electors can be swayed by the people why would your letters hold more weight of influence than the millions of votes cast in the state the Electors were elected to represent? You are seeking to overturn the lawful votes cast by millions of US citizens by virtue of doxing Electors and sending them letters. That is undue influence and is tampering. If you want the Electors to be independent you should leave them alone and let them make whatever choice they feel is best.

**ender502**

CptJake wrote:
And publishing their personal contact info, which has happened, definitely does lead to harassment of the electors.

That is a real concern. I lobbied to make sure email and phone numbers were not included to help avoid such a situation.

Ofcourse, the information is all public... Name, addresses and such are available from the secretary of state.

I honestly believe that a barrier so low as "you meani have to mail a letter?" Will keep most of the jerk holes out of the equation. Not the crazies though. Nothing dissuades them.

ender502

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Ben is just one of those "just because you are smart doesn't mean you can't be stupid" people. Great surgeon, just no idea why he thought he could run the country.

Looking over the group of folks that ran on both sides makes me wonder how things would have turned out if Biden's son wouldn't have died.

I would have voted for Biden.

**Prestor Jon**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:

The Electors can make their own decisions. We had Election Day, we chose the Electors with our votes, we had our say, there's no justification for harassing letter writing campaigns to Electors.

Also, a lawful democratic election isn't tyranny of any kind in any way.

Then why have the EC? If there's no tyranny of any kind during an election, why is it needed?

maybe someone here could help me out, who all could they vote for? I know the petition wants sanders, but could they just vote Joe Exotic or me into office?

The Electors exist to cast votes for the presidential candidate of their choice. We cast ballots on Election Day to select Electors that we believe will choose the candidate we would prefer them to choose. The Electors chosen by their state then cast their electoral votes for a presidential candidate on Dec 19th. Since the Electors are elected by the people of their state the Electors vote for the candidate the won the voting in their state.

**CptJake**

jasper76 wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:

It's not about tampering, its the reason for the EC. This is the time they need to step up and save us from tyranny. We are about to suffer the tyranny of the majority from the red states

Trump supporters would be saying the same thing in reverse if Clinton got elected.

Just like in 2008 and 2012?

Or did they whine a bit but leave the electors alone?

**jasper76**

CptJake wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:

It's not about tampering, its the reason for the EC. This is the time they need to step up and save us from tyranny. We are about to suffer the tyranny of the majority from the red states

Trump supporters would be saying the same thing in reverse if Clinton got elected.

Just like in 2008 and 2012?

Or did they whine a bit but leave the electors alone?

I don't remember Obama ever losing the popular vote, so I don't see the correlation here. I.e. in Obama's case, the electoral college results were not in conflict with the popular vote, as is the case with Trump and was the case when GW Bush first got elected IIRC.

(Actually looked it up, John Quincy Adams was the only Democrat President to lose the popular vote but win the electoral college; Rutherford Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W Bush, and Donald Trump on the Republican side. All other Presidents thus far won the popular vote.)