Jump to content
lawnchairboy

Electoral College

Recommended Posts

eddd
1 hour ago, Whip said:

 

Good read

 

 

Utter nonsense.  Nothing more than a far right talking head sounding like Chicken Little blathering about the sky falling.  

 

"...lf New York has legalized the killing of babies already born, how will that go down in states already banning abortions of babies with fetal heartbeats?...

 

"...Or consider the Green plan to remove 250 million gasoline-driven automobiles within ten years and replace them with electric cars."

 

The end of the present electoral congress will not result in a baby killing spree as your internal combustion engine vehicles are gathered and crushed.

 





 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RightSpin

I'm curious if anyone who believes there is very little voter fraud also believes there is very little tax fraud?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul De
14 minutes ago, RightSpin said:

m curious if anyone who believes there is very little voter fraud also believes there is very little tax fraud?

 

Umm,  this seems to be a spurious correlation.  How are they correlated?  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby

I don't see the correlation, at least I don't want to acknowledge it! 

 

I have a fix for most of the tax fraud. It is in another thread here.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RightSpin

How are they correlated?  Seriously?

But, seriously, this is just an observation on my part.  I find it intensely interesting how people are able to take opposite sides of a principle, at the same time, and argue forcefully for one and against the other.  In my mind it seems to be a by-product of ones ideology.  We agree with things which support our ideology and disagree with those which don't regardless of the symmetry.  I'm guessing that's just human nature.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul De

Still not getting how you are connecting tax and voter fraud, nor I am seeing that there is any selective ignoring of evidence of voter fraud VS tax fraud.   Orange VS carrot, connected only by their color but that is not a correlation.    The evidence and data are quite different for both types of fraud.  Tax fraud is well documented and the IRS  most recent report on the tax gap, which is now dated, estimates tax fraud at 458 billion and through prosecuting cases found through the audit process collected about 10% of the gap. They claim a 83+ percent participation which means something like 17% fraud. It might be interesting to see which states are the the leaders in tax fraud...but that is tangential to this discussion.  Anyway, I think all can agree tax fraud exists and is significant based on verified cases of fraud and the data. 

 

Here is a conservative think tank article on the tax gap

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2019/04/09/how-big-is-the-problem-of-tax-evasion/

And from the horses mouth

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/the-tax-gap

 

Now for Voter Fraud. The data isn't there to show a significant problem.  Credible studies never claim voter fraud doesn't exist rather they show the rate of vote fraud falls in the much less than 1% range Somewhere along one of these discussion I jumped into looking at some data posted of illegal votes in Virginia the fraud rate was in .008% to 0.02% depending on the election year.

 

Even the conservative Heritage foundation think tank data if looked at correctly for a given election cycle shows insignificant voter fraud, and any many instances are simply folks screwing up registering in the correct district. Actual voter fraud is then a fraction of the fractional instances of illegal votes. Interestingly the HF goes to the same trickery I saw on another voter fraud is rampant website, their home page shows aggregated data over numerous election cycles to gin up their position.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

 

And just for the hell of it, here is the liberal Brennan center take on voter fraud

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth

 

So my conclusion is that one can rationally claim tax fraud is significant and voter fraud is insignificant and the data backs that position up.  They are only correlated by the word fraud and are two independent issues

 

I suggest that if someone wants to go on with the voter fraud being a real issue, then another thread should be started because the original topic here was if the EC is the right way to elect our president.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RightSpin

I can see where you come to your conclusion, Paul.  It's a very persuasive presentation.  But, it doesn't make any sense.

 

Tax fraud and election fraud have more in common than just the word 'fraud.'  Both are federal, non-violent crimes against fellow citizens.  Both can land violators in federal prison.  Both are highly corrosive to society.  I think we can all agree on this.

 

The question I originally asked is "why would there be a little of one and a lot of the other?"  Another way of putting this is if a certain percentage of society was willing to violate one of these laws, why wouldn't a similar percentage be willing to violate the other?  I doubt there is some sort of moral or religious process at work here, so why would we expect to see a significant difference?  Do dishonest people suddenly become honest just because it's an election?  Really?

 

And, as a member of society, I bristle at the notion that a little voter fraud is harmless, and shouldn't be pursued or deterred.  How often do we hear of congressional elections which come down to a thousand votes or less?  Considering the  number of votes being cast, a thousand is actually a very small number from a percentage point of view.  How many stolen elections would we have if we allowed a fraction of a fraction to violate the electoral process?  How many more would be encouraged to cross the line if such actions were routinely tolerated?

 

You all are welcome to believe whatever you like.  My core beliefs are built upon my personal experiences witnessed during the 56 orbits I've ridden around the Sun, and the legislative and judicial records available for all to see.  The noises and hieroglyphics emanating from talking heads in the media and from special interest groups don't interest me in the least.  They're all biased and bent on selling their ideology.  I'm just not in the market for that these days.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul De

Ah, now I see that you are connecting ones moral core to both types of fraud and maybe in that broad definition they are connected.  Not sure what you propose gets me all the way to if one commits voter fraud then they are also a tax cheater.  The data suggests that there are many tax cheats that vote legally.  Haha, I would suspect a tax cheat is a one issue voter...lower taxes!    Criminal behavior is a funny thing where a person may have aspects of their life that are totally on the level, but in one specific area they have corrupt intent. I don't really think there is any strict correlation to financial and /or voter fraud and total moral corruptness, but accept that if a person is capable of corruption in one area of their life, who knows what else they are capable of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Selden
On 4/7/2019 at 8:54 AM, John Ranalletta said:

A rationale for the EC vs popular vote includes ballot box stuffing (FL), dead people voting (IL), fake voter registrations (IN), illegals voting (Everywhere), et al.

Let's not forget gerrymandering. Thomas Hofeller, who was involved with redistricting in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, once referred to the drawing of legislative districts as "the only legalized form of vote-stealing left in the United States."

 

Hofeller also said: "Redistricting is like an election in reverse! It's a great event," he said with a smile at a National Conference of State Legislatures event in 2000. "Usually the voters get to pick the politicians. In redistricting, the politicians get to pick the voters!"

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stir
On 6/5/2019 at 4:10 PM, Paul De said:

Hmm?  I can't see anywhere in my statement connecting disenfranchising voter participation with being a racist statement.  Moreover, if my comment is read in context it was in reference to illegal votes by non-citizens.  Quoting me out of context aside, I'm not sure I would hang my hat on such a definitive statement about racism based on a Youtube video by a conservative activist who seems to be promoting a conclusion and then selecting anecdotal statements to support that conclusion. 

 

 

So why are the Republicans pushing so hard for Voter ID?  It surely can't be the canard to protect against illegal votes that we discussed in some depth above. I have yet to see any evidence that illegal voting has had any significant impact on the vote anywhere in the country. The more interesting question is why were so many of these Republican backed voter ID laws so poorly written in the first place that they violate state/Fed Constitutions and  the Voting Rights Act?  I can't believe that the Republican party and pols across so many states are so thoroughly incompetent that numerous laws failed to pass legal muster and had to be rewritten.  Is there an agenda to limit the vote, or are they simply paranoid of a bogyman?  I can't say what their true motive is but their actions over the last decade invite suspicion.

 

 

 

My statement wasn’t an attack on your statement.  At no point did I say YOU are racist.  I said the notion of disenfranchisement is racist.  We have to show IDs to participate in many lessor activities.  Why wouldn’t we require it for voting.  Liberals can’t have it both ways.  On one hand, “Oh the Russians hacked our election, spending 100k on Facebook,”. Hillary chided Trump when he said Hilary would hack the election.  She said Trump should accept the results.  Well we know know Hillary reacted when she lost.  She’s still searching for the culprit.  So if Liberals are serious about Russian hacking and righteous elections, wouldn’t they want to verify the votes.  The US deserves the Russian hacking if liberals don’t want to implement the basic election safeguards.  Or maybe there isn’t a problem as you suggest and the last two years has been a joke as Democrats struggle to impeach Trump because he hurt their feelings.

 

California is clearly corrupt when it comes to election.  The electoral college protects against this fraud by putting a brake on the votes.  The winner gets the electoral votes regardless of how many popular votes the states churns up.  California disqualified my last vote because my signature wasn’t a match.  Completely silly.  My signature drifts so is was disenfranchised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
realshelby
34 minutes ago, Stir said:

 We have to show IDs to participate in many lessor activities.  Why wouldn’t we require it for voting.  Liberals can’t have it both ways.  

 

Half of the problems with politics today start with the branding. It comes from talking heads and they influence too many, imo. I am very much against a voter ID card. Does that make me a Liberal? Your statement clearly says so. Not taking it personal, but it makes my point about those that brand others as Liberal, Leftist, Right Wing, Conservative, Ultra conservative. Because "they" are not on my team, my agenda, I CANNOT work with them in lawmaking. 

 

That is one of the biggest problems we have today. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
92Merc

Back to the original issue, my problem with the EC is that each state decides on its own how it will distribute those votes.  With California, the largest vote getting, its all or none.  Other states divvy it up based on percentages.

 

I don't know what the right answer is whether one way or another is better.  But I think a good start would be to make it consistent.  Personally, I prefer a "percentages" version.  So the big states don't get such a huge say in the process.  It would be prorated.  But the problem is what to do with the small states.  How do you divvy up 3 votes?  Maybe it's too small and doesn't matter.  I dunno.

 

I think scrapping the EC is the wrong choice RIGHT NOW.  I say we see if we can tweak it first.  Some states have joined a pact to deliver all the votes to the country's popular vote getter.  I think that may bite them in the butt later if a small state is conservative and the main vote getter for the country isn't, they may not like that.  But I at least give them credit for trying to make a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stir
9 hours ago, realshelby said:

Half of the problems with politics today start with the branding. It comes from talking heads and they influence too many, imo. I am very much against a voter ID card. Does that make me a Liberal? Your statement clearly says so. Not taking it personal, but it makes my point about those that brand others as Liberal, Leftist, Right Wing, Conservative, Ultra conservative. Because "they" are not on my team, my agenda, I CANNOT work with them in lawmaking. 

 

That is one of the biggest problems we have today. 

 

Voter ID laws are, in general pushed by conservatives.  Liberals are in general against them.  I am conservative but I fall on the liberal side on a few issues.  As liberals move more and more to socialism, there can and should not be any compromise.  So in that regards, yeah, never going to be on  their agenda.

 

I did not say, Real Shelby is liberal.  If you can point out where I said that, I’ll walk that comment right back. My statement does not indicate you are a liberal.  You chose to take that statement, a generalization, and internalize it.  That’s on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker
15 hours ago, RightSpin said:

The question I originally asked is "why would there be a little of one and a lot of the other?"

 

Maybe because one results in personal gain and the other doesn't?  There's no significant voter fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul De

 

22 hours ago, Stir said:

My statement wasn’t an attack on your statement.  At no point did I say YOU are racist.  I said the notion of disenfranchisement is racist.

 

I  did not take your statement as a personal attack in any way, so no worries there. 

 

I do, however, take exception with the red herring proposition put out by media provocateurs in support of voter ID that those who oppose these laws are misguided and driven by some racist notion about those who are disenfranchised.  I see the racism claim as a weak defense of voter ID and is actually an attempt to shift the debate away from addressing why such a significant number of these ID laws have failed to meet legal and constitution muster and were struck down in part, or in total, by the courts.  It is not racist to insistent that these ID laws comply with the Voting Rights Act and the 14th as well 24th amendments to the US Constitution.  When a voter ID law does pass legal and constitutional muster that's great, but I still see voter ID laws as an ineffective way to secure the integrity of the vote.  IMO, if one is really concerned with the integrity of the vote then the focus should be on legislation and resources for better vote traceability (paper ballots).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul De
22 hours ago, 92Merc said:

Back to the original issue, my problem with the EC is that each state decides on its own how it will distribute those votes.  With California, the largest vote getting, its all or none.  Other states divvy it up based on percentages.

 

I don't know what the right answer is whether one way or another is better.  But I think a good start would be to make it consistent.  Personally, I prefer a "percentages" version.  So the big states don't get such a huge say in the process.  It would be prorated.  But the problem is what to do with the small states.  How do you divvy up 3 votes?  Maybe it's too small and doesn't matter.  I dunno.

 

I think scrapping the EC is the wrong choice RIGHT NOW.  I say we see if we can tweak it first.  Some states have joined a pact to deliver all the votes to the country's popular vote getter.  I think that may bite them in the butt later if a small state is conservative and the main vote getter for the country isn't, they may not like that.  But I at least give them credit for trying to make a change.

The original intents of the EC was to provide a  mechanism to guard against a tyrant becoming president and the winner takes all process was a concession to low population states having an out sized impact on the election to get these states to support the EC.    Today it would be unthinkable for the EC to wholly disregard the voters and nullify an election and place someone not on the ballot into the presidency.  But the winner takes all concept also disregards votes for the loosing candidate in that state and can result in the EC and popular vote being split.    It may be that at some point the US would need to deal with a tyrant so it seems wise to not just eliminate the EC.  A hybrid process where some portion of the states EC votes must be assigned based on the popular vote and the remainder is still winner takes all.  This would have the effect to bring the EC and popular vote more likely to be in line, but at the expense of reducing a small population state impact and that would seem to be a tough sell to the states now benefiting most from winner takes all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Selden
7 hours ago, Paul De said:

The original intents of the EC was to provide a  mechanism to guard against a tyrant becoming president and the winner takes all process was a concession to low population states having an out sized impact on the election to get these states to support the EC. 

 

The original intent of the EC was a compromise. See Federalist Paper 68: https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Federalist.html

 

("Publius" was the pseudonym of Alexander Hamilton), who writes:

 

Quote

 

[T]he election of the President is pretty well guarded. I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.

 

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. 

 

Hamilton wrote from the perspective of an 18th century gentleman. In today's world, he might have second thoughts about his next statement (emphasis, mine]:
 

Quote

 

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. 

 

 

In 1920, H.L. Mencken wrote: 

 

Quote

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

 

All in all, I tend to be very conservative about the EC, so I am against its abolition, although I am not against updating it to reflect the needs of these United States in the 21st century. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stir
5 hours ago, Paul De said:

 

 

I  did not take your statement as a personal attack in any way, so no worries there. 

 

I do, however, take exception with the red herring proposition put out by media provocateurs in support of voter ID that those who oppose these laws are misguided and driven by some racist notion about those who are disenfranchised.  I see the racism claim as a weak defense of voter ID and is actually an attempt to shift the debate away from addressing why such a significant number of these ID laws have failed to meet legal and constitution muster and were struck down in part, or in total, by the courts.  It is not racist to insistent that these ID laws comply with the Voting Rights Act and the 14th as well 24th amendments to the US Constitution.  When a voter ID law does pass legal and constitutional muster that's great, but I still see voter ID laws as an ineffective way to secure the integrity of the vote.  IMO, if one is really concerned with the integrity of the vote then the focus should be on legislation and resources for better vote traceability (paper ballots).

 

100% agree.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawnchairboy

multiple post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawnchairboy

don't know what happened there, multiple posted...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill_Walker
2 hours ago, Red said:

The 15th state to pledge EC votes as part of the National Popular Vote compact.  Here's one way to circumvent the EC and it appears to be catching on.  Me wonders if this is unconstitutional?

I'm pretty sure states are free to assign their EC votes any way they see fit.  We already have a couple of states that assign them proportionally to the popular vote within the state, while most use winner-take-all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul De
20 hours ago, Bill_Walker said:

I'm pretty sure states are free to assign their EC votes any way they see fit.  We already have a couple of states that assign them proportionally to the popular vote within the state, while most use winner-take-all.

This is true and in fact the US Constitution has no language as to how the EC Electors must vote, so the Electors are entirely free to vote as they wish.  That said, it seems that there have been some cases tried in the SCOTUS where the ruling is that the Constitution also does not prohibit states from creating state laws that mandate a how the Elector votes, or preclude the state political parties from demanding pledges and having fines/removal rules if the Electors don't vote according to the states rules. From what I read it seems the lack of clarity in the US Constitution and cases testing the control over how Electors vote the state processes tend to appoint individuals with a long record of being  highly loyal to the political parties.   It would be a mess, but sure would be interesting, if somehow a clandestine group of Electors went rouge as to how that would shake out. Does the US Constitution have a temporary caretaker provision while the SCOTUS sorted that mess out?

 

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/electors.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
poodad
On 6/15/2019 at 2:23 PM, Red said:

The 15th state to pledge EC votes as part of the National Popular Vote compact.  Here's one way to circumvent the EC and it appears to be catching on.  Me wonders if this is unconstitutional?

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/448290-oregon-governor-signs-bill-giving-states-electoral-votes-to-national

 

While the Constitution clearly gives the states the right to pick electors as they see fit, there is no doubt the Republicans will try to block states from doing this. The Republican party and the Conservative block of SCOTUS are no doubt working on the mental gymnastics by which they can argue this is unconstitutional. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matts_12GS
On 4/3/2019 at 9:40 AM, lawnchairboy said:

"Democracies have been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death."

 

Only population centers would control presidential elections in this country if popular vote adopted, not my idea of good.  YMMV of course. 

 

 

Agreed.  Mob rule is pretty much not good for the whole of any civilization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matts_12GS
On 4/3/2019 at 9:52 AM, eddd said:

 

Bull.  If every vote is counted the presidential election votes in the more rural areas will still help determine who is elected. 

Not so much... They would not even receive token attention from candidates because they would only need to campaign in the population centers.   Rural and other small communities would be effectively without representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Matts_12GS
On 4/3/2019 at 1:01 PM, realshelby said:

If my kid's team scored more points or runs yet was determined to be the loser, yes I would see about changing the rules.

Yeah, but you knew what the rules were when the game started.  Why the hue and cry only because you can't accept this particular outcome?  You sound like a Saints fan... 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eddd
7 hours ago, Matts_12GS said:

Not so much... They would not even receive token attention from candidates because they would only need to campaign in the population centers.   Rural and other small communities would be effectively without representation.

 

Getting attention from candidates does not equate to representation.  Solid red or blue states receive token attention, if any, as it is now.  It is all about swing states, or more accurately, swing districts within swing states.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawnchairboy

https://youtu.be/HjQO-FIdggg

 

at the 37 min mark roughly specific to the electoral college, but full of election law/process intrigue

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawnchairboy

https://youtu.be/HjQO-FIdggg

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...