2020 Election Results

[repoman]

Speaking of which

 

[Terrell]

I don't have any faith in the national popular vote compact between the states. I don't trust that a state won't renege on said promise when it suits them, and I don't trust the courts to act fast enough for it to matter. How do you hold states accountable, before electors are certified, if they renege on their promise?

 

[Shadowy Man]

What if simply each state’s EVs were proportional? What would the last few elections have looked like?

 

[crazyfingers]

I don't have any faith in the national popular vote compact between the states. I don't trust that a state won't renege on said promise when it suits them, and I don't trust the courts to act fast enough for it to matter. How do you hold states accountable, before electors are certified, if they renege on their promise?

If a state renegs such that the participation adds up to less than 270 then the law is no longer in effect.

It's one option for the problem of the EV.

 

[repoman]

What if simply each state’s EVs were proportional? What would the last few elections have looked like?

I don't think it is granular enough.

The real end goal is to change the Senate

https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2019/4/9/18300749/senate-problem-electoral-college

 

[TomC]

I don't have any faith in the national popular vote compact between the states. I don't trust that a state won't renege on said promise when it suits them, and I don't trust the courts to act fast enough for it to matter. How do you hold states accountable, before electors are certified, if they renege on their promise?

Do you have any faith in the state legislatures at all?
Tom

 

[Terrell]

I don't have any faith in the national popular vote compact between the states. I don't trust that a state won't renege on said promise when it suits them, and I don't trust the courts to act fast enough for it to matter. How do you hold states accountable, before electors are certified, if they renege on their promise?

Do you have any faith in the state legislatures at all?
Tom

Very little. I can easily see states refusing to follow the popular vote, if their state wide vote conflicts with it, for fear of political backlash. The only backlash that would matter, unless it's timely & by the courts, is the people in their state that elect them. If the other states are outraged they can simply ignore it absent a timely enforcement mechanism.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What if simply each state’s EVs were proportional? What would the last few elections have looked like?

I don't think it is granular enough.

The real end goal is to change the Senate

https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2019/4/9/18300749/senate-problem-electoral-college

With rounding one could do it. At least get rid of the winner take all approach would let off some of the pressure.

 

[Treedbear]

Another interesting note. This makes four consecutive presidential elections in which the Republican candidate has lost the popular vote. The RNC is facing a serious demographic problem. Where by "demographic", I mean its actual statistical meaning, not a dogwhistle for race issues. I mean that, mathematically, national elections are becoming harder and harder for them to realitically win. Trump may not like the Electoral College, but if the DNC actually desired to eliinate their rivals for good, eliminating it would be a good strategy for doing so, never mind the whole "packing the courts" bullshit.

I wouldn't bank on ever getting rid of the Electoral college. But now that there's a precedent for universal mail-in ballots there will be much larger Democrat turn-outs.

Not get rid of the EC but make it moot. Many largely or perhaps entirely blue states have passed laws that would all throw their EV's to the winner of the popular vote. They would all take effect when enough states sign up to account for 270 EV's or whenever the winning threshold will be some day in the future. Not surprisingly no red state has signed onto this plan.

There are serious constitutional arguments against states acting together to circumvent the constitution. With the SCOTUS what it is that would likely be a problem if it ever gets to be tested.

 

[Axulus]

Not get rid of the EC but make it moot. Many largely or perhaps entirely blue states have passed laws that would all throw their EV's to the winner of the popular vote. They would all take effect when enough states sign up to account for 270 EV's or whenever the winning threshold will be some day in the future. Not surprisingly no red state has signed onto this plan.

There are serious constitutional arguments against states acting together to circumvent the constitution. With the SCOTUS what it is that would likely be a problem if it ever gets to be tested.

The constitution does not mandate any particular process that states must follow in how they choose their electors.

 

[TomC]

I don't have any faith in the national popular vote compact between the states. I don't trust that a state won't renege on said promise when it suits them, and I don't trust the courts to act fast enough for it to matter. How do you hold states accountable, before electors are certified, if they renege on their promise?

Do you have any faith in the state legislatures at all?
Tom

Very little. I can easily see states refusing to follow the popular vote, if their state wide vote conflicts with it, for fear of political backlash. The only backlash that would matter, unless it's timely & by the courts, is the people in their state that elect them. If the other states are outraged they can simply ignore it absent a timely enforcement mechanism.

OK
You don't believe our government will even follow the laws they write themselves.

Dang.
Trump really has done serious damage to the institutions of the USA. People like you don't even trust their state governments.

Personally, I think that state governments can be held to account by voters. Federal, not so much.
But you don't think any government official can be held accountable? Sad day for America, but in the aftermath of Trump it's unfortunately predictable.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Not get rid of the EC but make it moot. Many largely or perhaps entirely blue states have passed laws that would all throw their EV's to the winner of the popular vote. They would all take effect when enough states sign up to account for 270 EV's or whenever the winning threshold will be some day in the future. Not surprisingly no red state has signed onto this plan.

There are serious constitutional arguments against states acting together to circumvent the constitution. With the SCOTUS what it is that would likely be a problem if it ever gets to be tested.

This makes no sense. There's nothing in the Constitution requiring states to appoint EC delegates as they currently do.

It's extra power for partisan politicians, that's it. Nothing Constitutional whatsoever.
But that's the sort of lie Republicans like to tell their low information base. It's no more true than Trump's birtherism.
Tom

 

[blastula]

Trump's 'Big' Press Conference At Four Seasons Total Landscaping Sows Confusion - HuffPo
When Donald Trump said his lawyers would be speaking at the Four Seasons, he didn't mean THAT Four Seasons.

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1325087011464749056?s=20[/TWEET]

Perfect

 

[Treedbear]

Not get rid of the EC but make it moot. Many largely or perhaps entirely blue states have passed laws that would all throw their EV's to the winner of the popular vote. They would all take effect when enough states sign up to account for 270 EV's or whenever the winning threshold will be some day in the future. Not surprisingly no red state has signed onto this plan.

There are serious constitutional arguments against states acting together to circumvent the constitution. With the SCOTUS what it is that would likely be a problem if it ever gets to be tested.

The constitution does not mandate any particular process that states must follow in how they choose their electors.

...

This makes no sense. There's nothing in the Constitution requiring states to appoint EC delegates as they currently do.

It's extra power for partisan politicians, that's it. Nothing Constitutional whatsoever.
But that's the sort of lie Republicans like to tell their low information base. It's no more true than Trump's birtherism.
Tom

This is what I was referring to -

Ultimately, the biggest challenge to the National Popular Vote agreement may be a legal one. Election-law expert Rick Hasen at the University of California, Irvine School of Law told FiveThirtyEight he expected there would be serious legal challenges to the compact if it crosses the 270-elector threshold. Opponents may brandish the part of the Constitution that says that interstate compacts require the consent of Congress, or they may argue that it runs afoul of the Voting Rights Act because it may diminish the clout of minority voters. And, of course, there is the fact that it circumvents what the founders intended — the Electoral College was designed to be an indirect method of electing the president. So even if organizers somehow get states worth 270 electoral votes to join the compact, expect it to face a long fight in the courts challenging whether it can actually take effect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fox has called the election for Biden

Wild. Fox didn't just call Penn, but has even called Nevada for Biden.

His lead in Nevada has widened to 26,000 votes; no recount is going to reverse that. Biden could probably have won without Pennsylvania. But I'm glad he took Pennsylvania.

A firm electoral college win, backed by the largest number of votes in American history; even with the nail-biter election night, it's going to be hard for anyone to make an honest argument against the will of people. Trump can suck a dick.

It's been a while now that the only state His Flatulence could lose was New Hampshire. Any other state gave Biden the win.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

After Biden Kamala Harris is likely to be our next president.

Late 2021 probably.

It depends on how long it takes the trumpets to heed the call to assassinate him.

 

[blastula]

 

[Angry Floof]

View attachment 30182

One of my favorite parts of Hamilton.

 

[TomC]

This is what I was referring to -
Ultimately, the biggest challenge to the National Popular Vote agreement may be a legal one. Election-law expert Rick Hasen at the University of California, Irvine School of Law told FiveThirtyEight he expected there would be serious legal challenges to the compact if it crosses the 270-elector threshold. Opponents may brandish the part of the Constitution that says that interstate compacts require the consent of Congress, or they may argue that it runs afoul of the Voting Rights Act because it may diminish the clout of minority voters. And, of course, there is the fact that it circumvents what the founders intended — the Electoral College was designed to be an indirect method of electing the president. So even if organizers somehow get states worth 270 electoral votes to join the compact, expect it to face a long fight in the courts challenging whether it can actually take effect.

If there were an interstate compact you might have a point. But there isn't. It's individual state legislatures deciding how to choose and direct EC delegates however they choose.

Of course, people who don't want the American people to vote for the President might try to prevent this with baseless lawsuits. Trump is trying as we speak. That's old news, Trump was like that before he squirmed into the White House.

But the fact remains, state legislatures are legally free to decide how to appoint EC delegates. If any given state decides to send EC delegates charged with voting as the American people vote, no amount of Trumpish tantrums will invalidate the state's legislature from deciding(except a Constitutional amendment).

That's where a Constitutional amendment is required, preventing state legislatures from deciding. I don't think that's gonna happen.
Tom

 

[Treedbear]

This is what I was referring to -
Ultimately, the biggest challenge to the National Popular Vote agreement may be a legal one. Election-law expert Rick Hasen at the University of California, Irvine School of Law told FiveThirtyEight he expected there would be serious legal challenges to the compact if it crosses the 270-elector threshold. Opponents may brandish the part of the Constitution that says that interstate compacts require the consent of Congress, or they may argue that it runs afoul of the Voting Rights Act because it may diminish the clout of minority voters. And, of course, there is the fact that it circumvents what the founders intended — the Electoral College was designed to be an indirect method of electing the president. So even if organizers somehow get states worth 270 electoral votes to join the compact, expect it to face a long fight in the courts challenging whether it can actually take effect.

If there were an interstate compact you might have a point. But there isn't. It's individual state legislatures deciding how to choose and direct EC delegates however they choose.

Of course, people who don't want the American people to vote for the President might try to prevent this with baseless lawsuits. Trump is trying as we speak. That's old news, Trump was like that before he squirmed into the White House.

But the fact remains, state legislatures are legally free to decide how to appoint EC delegates. If any given state decides to send EC delegates charged with voting as the American people vote, no amount of Trumpish tantrums will invalidate the state's legislature from deciding(except a Constitutional amendment).

That's where a Constitutional amendment is required, preventing state legislatures from deciding. I don't think that's gonna happen.
Tom

That might all be true but we won't know for sure until it gets tested in the courts and constitutional law experts start having their debates. Election-law expert Rick Hasen at the University of California, Irvine School of Law and FiveThirtyEight seem to think there's reason enough for doubt.