US President 2016 - the Great Horse Race

[skepticalbip]

If it's all "no shit" to you, then it should have been obvious to you that it was pointless to bring it up. Yet you did. All of it is irrelevant to the question of whether it's been settled. You are very confused.

The fact that there are people who don't like the current laws does not mean that the laws are not settled law.

Because, as of the current time, it is settled that the States do have the authority to set the conditions for their electors. This is obvious because that is how the laws are. If someone that is ignorant of the federalist system or chooses to try to change it then they can challenge it in the Supreme Court.

These same people could also challenge the States' laws against murder or rape in the Supreme Court if they choose. This does not mean that such current State laws are not currently settled.

In both of these cases it is currently settled law but could be changed by Supreme Court decisions.

ETA:
I suspect that after this election and the furor over the electoral collage that several of the States that currently allow their electors freedom to "vote their conscience" will revisit their requirements on their electors.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Because, as of the current time, it is settled that the States do have the authority to set the conditions for their electors. This is obvious because that is how the laws are.

The fact that some state laws attempt to nullify the voters of faithless electors does not make it at all obvious that such laws are constitutionally valid. Do you have any good arguments, evidence, etc., in support of the claim that they are? What is the difference between that scenario and my Senate parallel, from a constitutional perspective?

 

[Elixir]

Because, as of the current time, it is settled that the States do have the authority to set the conditions for their electors. This is obvious because that is how the laws are.

The fact that some state laws attempt to nullify the voters of faithless electors does not make it at all obvious that such laws are constitutionally valid. Do you have any good arguments, evidence, etc., in support of the claim that they are? What is the difference between that scenario and my Senate parallel, from a constitutional perspective?

One doesn't have to be a deep constitutional scholar to intuit that the electoral college's purpose is to provide for the possibility of an alternative selection... and that binding electors would nullify that purpose.

 

[skepticalbip]

Because, as of the current time, it is settled that the States do have the authority to set the conditions for their electors. This is obvious because that is how the laws are.

The fact that some state laws attempt to nullify the voters of faithless electors does not make it at all obvious that such laws are constitutionally valid. Do you have any good arguments, evidence, etc., in support of the claim that they are?

The Constitution establishes the electoral collage as the method by which the States elect the President. It makes absolutely no mention of how they are to vote. Since the members of the electoral collage are granted no specific Constitutional authority, the decision on how they are to be empowered is left to the States that they represent. This is clear in the 10th amendment:

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But then maybe you know of some section of the Constitution that grants the members of the electoral collage the power to vote however they want that I missed. Would you share it with us?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The fact that some state laws attempt to nullify the voters of faithless electors does not make it at all obvious that such laws are constitutionally valid. Do you have any good arguments, evidence, etc., in support of the claim that they are?

The Constitution establishes the electoral collage as the method by which the States elect the President. It makes absolutely no mention of how they are to vote. Since the members of the electoral collage are granted no specific Constitutional authority, the decision on how they are to be empowered is left to the States that they represent. This is clear in the 10th amendment:

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But then maybe you know of some section of the Constitution that grants the members of the electoral collage the power to vote however they want that I missed. Would you share it with us?

Actually, the Constitution says the electors choose the President - not the state governor, or the state legislature, or anyone else.
With your criterion, the states are the ones in practice making the choice, since they might establish - for example - that the governor or the legislature will tell the electors whom to vote for, and then invalidate any votes to the contrary.

Moreover, if you do not find the language of the Constitution clear enough, you can take a look at the dispositions involving electors.
For example, Article 2, Section 1.2, establishes (bold mine: "Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."
That disposition would not seem to make sense if your interpretation of the Constitution were correct. It would not matter if a person is holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, because in any event, state legislatures might say that the vote is whatever they say, or else the elector's vote is null, and that's that.

Or consider Article 2, Section 1.3.: "3. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States."
The demand that the day on which the electors give their votes shall be the same throughout the US makes also no sense if the states can just decide how the votes will be, because - of course - the states might decide that on different days.

There are other constitutional dispositions that would make no sense under your interpretation, since they would be establishing pointless complications, though the ones I mentioned above seem to be the most decisive as far as I can tell - and they are decisive enough, leaving aside other dispositions, when it comes to ascertaining what the people who wrote those dispositions and voted for them (assuming they understood what they were voting for) intended to establish as an election procedure.
Granted, someone might hold that the writers of the constitution messed up, thought they were establishing a procedure for electing the POTUS but failed (and established a very different one instead of the intended one), and as a result wrote down dispositions that make no sense. But I do not see any good evidence of that in this case.

 

[skepticalbip]

The Constitution establishes the electoral collage as the method by which the States elect the President. It makes absolutely no mention of how they are to vote. Since the members of the electoral collage are granted no specific Constitutional authority, the decision on how they are to be empowered is left to the States that they represent. This is clear in the 10th amendment:

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But then maybe you know of some section of the Constitution that grants the members of the electoral collage the power to vote however they want that I missed. Would you share it with us?

Actually, the Constitution says the electors choose the President - not the state governor, or the state legislature, or anyone else.
With your criterion, the states are the ones in practice making the choice, since they might establish - for example - that the governor or the legislature will tell the electors whom to vote for, and then invalidate any votes to the contrary.

Absolutely it is the States that make the choice. But the Constitution requires that the States shall have a republican form of government which means that it is the State's popular vote that informs the State and so the electors, not the Governor's whims.

Moreover, if you do not find the language of the Constitution clear enough, you can take a look at the dispositions involving electors.
For example, Article 2, Section 1.2, establishes (bold mine: "Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."
That disposition would not seem to make sense if your interpretation of the Constitution were correct. It would not matter if a person is holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, because in any event, state legislatures might say that the vote is whatever they say, or else the elector's vote is null, and that's that.

Or consider Article 2, Section 1.3.: "3. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States."
The demand that the day on which the electors give their votes shall be the same throughout the US makes also no sense if the states can just decide how the votes will be, because - of course - the states might decide that on different days.

There are other constitutional dispositions that would make no sense under your interpretation. Granted, someone might hold that the writers of the constitution messed up, thought they were establishing a procedure for electing the POTUS but failed, and as a result wrote down dispositions that make no sense. But I do not see any good evidence of that in this case.

None of this establishes how the electors are empowered. Your interpretation would mean that the vote of the State's population is superfluous or meaningless and the electors can vote for anyone they choose for any reason they choose. Someone like George Soros who loves to cause turmoil could simply pay off 271 electors to vote for David Duke which would make him the President and there would be nothing that anyone could do but accept it. This would cost Soros less than he spent during the last campaign.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Absolutely it is the States that make the choice. But the Constitution requires that the States shall have a republican form of government which means that it is popular vote that informs the State and so the electors, not the Governor's whims.

First, no, the states do not make the choice. As I've been saying, electors do.
Second, a republican form of government does not require direct democracy, or direct elections of elected officials, so why not decision by governor (or by lawmakers)?
Third, assuming for the sake of the argument that your interpretation is correct and that the US Constitution requirement that the states have a republican form of government entails that the state may not establish that the governor shall decide how the electors would vote, then a similar interpretation would imply also that the votes of faithless electors are void. Else, why would a choice by the whims of the governor be against the republican form of government, but a choice by the whims of the electors not be against the republican form of government? Or is there a problem because that's the governor? What about a choice by lawmakers?

None of this establishes how the electors are empowered. Your interpretation would mean that the vote of the State's population is superfluous or meaningless. Someone like George Soros who loves to cause turmoil could simply pay off 271 electors to vote for David Duke which would make him the President and there would be nothing that anyone could do but accept it. This would cost Soros less than he spent during the last campaign.

That's an appeal to consequences. If it's a bad result, so be it, but your interpretation would entail that some Constitutional dispositions make no sense.
But why would you believe that?
It's not as though the Constitution says so. The constitution says the electors choose. And it's not as if the people who wrote the constitution were thinking of a popular vote like the ones that are held nowadays.

Take a look at one of the clauses I quoted: "but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."
Why would anyone include such a clause?
To prevent the federal government from unduly influencing the choices made by the electors. If the electors aren't the ones who choose, the clause makes no sense.

Take a look at the second one: "3. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States."
Why would the day be the same?
One reason would be to prevent results in one state from influencing results in other states, and try to prevent concentrations of power.
But if states can choose - rather than electors -, then there is no reason whatsoever to demand that the electors shall cast their votes on the same day: after the election of the electors, the electoral college would be a mere formality.

Now, you might say the US system is a bad one under my interpretation, vulnerable to corruption, etc. I would reply that my interpretation is correct for the reasons I've been giving, regardless of how bad the system might be.

 

[angelo]

They should not be fined for something they are constitutionally allowed to do.

The EC concept is stupid too.

If you didn't have EC voting system, the two most populous states of California and New York state which are Democrat infested would always decide the Presidency and run hotshot over less population states such as Utah and most other smaller states. The founding fathers of the US Constitution created the present system to guard against mob rule!

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ya, but Clinton is a career politician, which makes that a corrupt example of of pay-to-play. For a Trump, this is just good business sense. You can't compare the two.

But why would it be bad to have a career politician in charge? A career politician would be competent at it. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[bilby]

Ya, but Clinton is a career politician, which makes that a corrupt example of of pay-to-play. For a Trump, this is just good business sense. You can't compare the two.

But why would it be bad to have a career politician in charge? A career politician would be competent at it. Isn't that a good thing?

Who in their right mind would want their appendix to be removed by a career surgeon? A part of the hospital establishment who probably knows almost nothing about the real world, and has just spent their entire life studying surgery.

What we need is a maverick to shake things up a bit; somebody who hasn't been brainwashed into having an orthodox view of what appendectomies should entail.

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[James Brown]

I'm not sure about the notion that the Presidency of the United States should be an entry-level position.

Should it also pay minimum wage? I'm told that minimum wage shouldn't be raised--ever--because it's only for entry-level workers with no skills. If we pay entry-level workers higher wages, then the employers won't hire anyone.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

They should not be fined for something they are constitutionally allowed to do.

The EC concept is stupid too.

If you didn't have EC voting system, the two most populous states of California and New York state which are Democrat infested would always decide the Presidency and run hotshot over less population states such as Utah and most other smaller states. The founding fathers of the US Constitution created the present system to guard against mob rule!

First, Texas (estimates and 2010 census) and probably Florida (estimates) are more populous than New York, but in any case, no state would decide the presidency. In fact, all votes would be counted equally across the US.

Second, the creators of the Constitution also wanted to guard against election by a majority of votes.

Third, nearly all states elect their governors by means of direct election, and that's not problematic. Also, other countries elect their government without an electoral college. For example, there is a direct election in Brazil. There is corruption and all sort of problems in Brazil, but none that can be linked to the fact that they have a direct election instead of an electoral college.

 

[dismal]

You guys seem mystified by this whole democracy thing.

Tip: people get to vote on who they think is the best candidate

To be "qualified" you need to be 35 and a natural born citizen. Oh, and win the election. Like Trump.

 

[skepticalbip]

If you didn't have EC voting system, the two most populous states of California and New York state which are Democrat infested would always decide the Presidency and run hotshot over less population states such as Utah and most other smaller states. The founding fathers of the US Constitution created the present system to guard against mob rule!

First, Texas (estimates and 2010 census) and probably Florida (estimates) are more populous than New York, but in any case, no state would decide the presidency. In fact, all votes would be counted equally across the US.

Second, the creators of the Constitution also wanted to guard against election by a majority of votes.

Third, nearly all states elect their governors by means of direct election, and that's not problematic. Also, other countries elect their government without an electoral college. For example, there is a direct election in Brazil. There is corruption and all sort of problems in Brazil, but none that can be linked to the fact that they have a direct election instead of an electoral college.

The governmental systems of the USA and Brazil are very different. Brazil's system is more like the system of one of our States (or one of the member States of the EU) but the US federal system is a bit like the EU system. The States in the USA select the President and Vice President and it is the member States of the EU (not EU popular vote) that select their President of the European Council, President of the European Commission, President of the European Parliament, and Presidency of the Council of the European Union

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You guys seem mystified by this whole democracy thing.

Tip: people get to vote on who they think is the best candidate

To be "qualified" you need to be 35 and a natural born citizen. Oh, and win the election. Like Trump.

When you say "you guys", are you referring to all of the people posting here, or some of them? If not to all, I'd ask whom you're talking about.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

First, Texas (estimates and 2010 census) and probably Florida (estimates) are more populous than New York, but in any case, no state would decide the presidency. In fact, all votes would be counted equally across the US.

Second, the creators of the Constitution also wanted to guard against election by a majority of votes.

Third, nearly all states elect their governors by means of direct election, and that's not problematic. Also, other countries elect their government without an electoral college. For example, there is a direct election in Brazil. There is corruption and all sort of problems in Brazil, but none that can be linked to the fact that they have a direct election instead of an electoral college.

The governmental systems of the USA and Brazil are very different. Brazil's system is more like the system of one of our States (or one of the member States of the EU) but the US federal system is a bit like the EU system. The States in the USA select the President and Vice President and it is the member States of the EU (not EU popular vote) that select their President of the European Council, President of the European Commission, President of the European Parliament, and Presidency of the Council of the European Union

The Brazilian system is much closer to the American system than the latter is to the European system. The EU is not a country, and the President of the European Council, President of the European Commission, President of the European Parliament, and Presidency of the Council of the European Union do not have nearly as much power as a chief of government would have - and not even nearly as much power as the German chancellor, or the French president.

Another federal country without an electoral college and with a presidential system is Argentina. Originally there was an electoral college - the system was mostly copied from the US system -, but it was abolished in 1994, though the new two-rounds system is worse than the Brazilian two-rounds system (but I think still better than the system it replaced).

 

[George S]

Electoral College Again

There is a history of the constitution in which the EC is described as a means to have a non-partisan election. Instead of the president being elected based on popular vote, each voting district (state divided into n districts. n = number of congressman and senators) shall choose an elector whose judgment they trust to choose a president. Very soon though the parties thought up the idea of pledged electors.
If the system is to be changed I suggest acceptability voting. The voter ranks the candidates in acceptability 00-99. Candidate with most acceptability is president, the second place vice president. This will never pass because it allows for third-party voters. Our swamp critters made it a two-party system.
We could make the current real system transparent. The put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is system. Votes are registered in dollars (paid to the US Treasury instead of advertising). The candidate who got the most money wins.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The governmental systems of the USA and Brazil are very different. Brazil's system is more like the system of one of our States (or one of the member States of the EU) but the US federal system is a bit like the EU system. The States in the USA select the President and Vice President and it is the member States of the EU (not EU popular vote) that select their President of the European Council, President of the European Commission, President of the European Parliament, and Presidency of the Council of the European Union

The Brazilian system is much closer to the American system than the latter is to the European system. The EU is not a country, and the President of the European Council, President of the European Commission, President of the European Parliament, and Presidency of the Council of the European Union do not have nearly as much power as a chief of government would have - and not even nearly as much power as the German chancellor, or the French president.

Another federal country without an electoral college and with a presidential system is Argentina. Originally there was an electoral college - the system was mostly copied from the US system -, but it was abolished in 1994, though the new two-rounds system is worse than the Brazilian two-rounds system (but I think still better than the system it replaced).

More details: In the US system, the federal government has less power relative to the states than the federal governments of Brazil or Argentina have relative to the Brazilian states or the Argentine provinces. However, the US federal government has far more power relative to the states than the EU institutions have relative to the member states/countries. The US system is much closer in terms of internal relative power to the Brazilian or Argentine system than it is close to the EU system.

All that said, my point in my reply to angelo was not about relative power, but about the fact that having a direct election rather than an electoral college does not have any bad consequences in those countries, and he's not provided any good reason to suspect that things would be different in the US.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But why would it be bad to have a career politician in charge? A career politician would be competent at it. Isn't that a good thing?

Who in their right mind would want their appendix to be removed by a career surgeon? A part of the hospital establishment who probably knows almost nothing about the real world, and has just spent their entire life studying surgery.

What we need is a maverick to shake things up a bit; somebody who hasn't been brainwashed into having an orthodox view of what appendectomies should entail.

What could possibly go wrong?

Pondering whether women (Trump supporters) will line up to get pap smears from Trump. After all, he is a maverick.

 

[RavenSky]

The founding fathers of the US Constitution created the present system to guard against mob rule!

Wrong.

The electoral college system was created to guard against exactly what happened, an utter incompetent getting into office. The uneven distribution was a compromise to get slave states to agree since they have fewer voters.

Remember what the country looked like in 1787: The important division was between states that relied on slavery and those that didn’t, not between large and small states. A direct election for president did not sit well with most delegates from the slave states, which had large populations but far fewer eligible voters. They gravitated toward the electoral college as a compromise because it was based on population. The convention had agreed to count each slave as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of calculating each state’s allotment of seats in Congress. For Virginia, which had the largest population among the original 13 states, that meant more clout in choosing the president.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8c2f5789c5d_story.html?utm_term=.a96788cb00df