Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AP News)   Supreme Court rules the Electoral College is only mostly broken, but not entirely   (apnews.com) divider line
    More: News, shot  
•       •       •

4251 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jul 2020 at 11:13 AM (16 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



291 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-07-06 10:12:24 AM  
Original Tweet:

 
2020-07-06 10:17:57 AM  

Original: Original Tweet:

mjs_DC: 🚨SCOTUS unanimously rules that states may avoid "faithless electors" by compelling electors to cast their vote for a specific candidate in the Electoral College. https://t.co/iwiB06PoKe


Dump this corrupt Kabuki garbage, ffs.
 
2020-07-06 10:30:31 AM  
But, we need the Electoral College to protect us from snake oil salesmen and criminals.

Oh... wait a second.
 
2020-07-06 10:32:50 AM  
Well 

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: Original: Original Tweet:
mjs_DC: 🚨SCOTUS unanimously rules that states may avoid "faithless electors" by compelling electors to cast their vote for a specific candidate in the Electoral College. https://t.co/iwiB06PoKe

Dump this corrupt Kabuki garbage, ffs.


Well how else are the republicans going to win the presidency?
 
2020-07-06 10:35:14 AM  

NewportBarGuy: But, we need the Electoral College to protect us from snake oil salesmen and criminals.

Oh... wait a second.


If you're going to have such a stupid system, it's probably better that 538 people can't just decide who they want to vote for and subvert the entire process of the election.
 
2020-07-06 10:35:21 AM  
Cool, now let's force the states to assign their electors in a manner more equitable than "winner take all" -- either have the Maine/Nebraska system, where the winner of each district gets the electoral vote from that district, and the overall winner gets the 2 electoral votes from that state's Senators;

or a system where if no candidate wins more than 2/3rds of the state's popular vote, then all candidates who achieve at least 1/x of the popular vote get a share of the state's x electoral votes (e.g. someone winning in Wyoming 58-39-2 would get 2 EVs and the runner-up would get 1; while someone winning 58-39-2 in California would get 33 EVs, the runner-up would get 21, and the third place finisher would get 1)


Or let's just get rid of the electoral college entirely and finally join the ranks of civilized nations whose elections are based on people instead of land.
 
2020-07-06 10:35:23 AM  
Sooooooo, what does this mean for our elections, exactly?
 
2020-07-06 10:35:26 AM  
Doesn't this sorta make the entire reason for having an electoral college, pointless? I mean I'm not complaining. Just curious.
 
2020-07-06 10:41:59 AM  
last electoral decision cost the lives of over 150 thousand Americans.
 
2020-07-06 10:44:05 AM  

raerae1980: Sooooooo, what does this mean for our elections, exactly?


SCOTUS - Electors must vote however state law requires.

Loophole - the GOP can just f*ck around with state laws.
 
2020-07-06 10:58:38 AM  

King Something: Cool, now let's force the states to assign their electors in a manner more equitable than "winner take all" -- either have the Maine/Nebraska system, where the winner of each district gets the electoral vote from that district, and the overall winner gets the 2 electoral votes from that state's Senators;

or a system where if no candidate wins more than 2/3rds of the state's popular vote, then all candidates who achieve at least 1/x of the popular vote get a share of the state's x electoral votes (e.g. someone winning in Wyoming 58-39-2 would get 2 EVs and the runner-up would get 1; while someone winning 58-39-2 in California would get 33 EVs, the runner-up would get 21, and the third place finisher would get 1)


Or let's just get rid of the electoral college entirely and finally join the ranks of civilized nations whose elections are based on people instead of land.


Allow voters to vote for as many different candidates as that they want.  You just hate one person, vote for everyone but him.  You want to be more strategic, just vote for your preferred candidate.  All votes get counted.  Functions a bit like a ranked voting system and much better than Weeners the post approach.
 
2020-07-06 10:59:16 AM  

Destructor: Doesn't this sorta make the entire reason for having an electoral college, pointless? I mean I'm not complaining. Just curious.


It depends on how states structure their rules for electors. If they all state that electors are apportioned pursuant to the result of the state's popular vote, then yes it no longer has a function.

So let's all do that.
 
2020-07-06 11:00:32 AM  

GardenWeasel: raerae1980: Sooooooo, what does this mean for our elections, exactly?

SCOTUS - Electors must vote however state law requires.

Loophole - the GOP can just f*ck around with state laws.


All red swing states to change laws in 3...2....1...
 
2020-07-06 11:00:45 AM  

raerae1980: Sooooooo, what does this mean for our elections, exactly?


Cancelled
 
2020-07-06 11:02:19 AM  

gilgigamesh: Destructor: Doesn't this sorta make the entire reason for having an electoral college, pointless? I mean I'm not complaining. Just curious.

It depends on how states structure their rules for electors. If they all state that electors are apportioned pursuant to the result of the state's popular vote, then yes it no longer has a function.

So let's all do that.


There's also the proposed Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Would basically nullify the Electoral College.

Honestly, this decision falls into line with the SCOTUS decision on the PVIC. If the states want to force their electors to vote a certain way, the Constitution doesn't have any provision to stop them.
 
2020-07-06 11:03:08 AM  
THEN WHAT'S THE farkING POINT?

Get rid of it already
 
2020-07-06 11:06:29 AM  

raerae1980: Sooooooo, what does this mean for our elections, exactly?


Functionally, nothing.  This has been the status quo for decades.  So, this just affirms the current situation.


Though I can think of one farky side effect.  States generally require each party to submit the name of their candidate fairly early, just after the conventions end.  If Trump was nominated a the convention and then decided to say "fark it" and drop out, the GOP couldn't have any electors they won on Trump's name vote for some other Republican as a replacement, meaning Biden would essentially be running unopposed.  While I'll say it is a non-zero chance scenario, I wouldn't be making any complicated bets with bookies any time soon.
 
2020-07-06 11:11:15 AM  

phalamir: raerae1980: Sooooooo, what does this mean for our elections, exactly?

Functionally, nothing.  This has been the status quo for decades.  So, this just affirms the current situation.


Though I can think of one farky side effect.  States generally require each party to submit the name of their candidate fairly early, just after the conventions end.  If Trump was nominated a the convention and then decided to say "fark it" and drop out, the GOP couldn't have any electors they won on Trump's name vote for some other Republican as a replacement, meaning Biden would essentially be running unopposed.  While I'll say it is a non-zero chance scenario, I wouldn't be making any complicated bets with bookies any time soon.


I'm guessing the GOP would do a write-in campaign for Pence. There have been a couple of times where a candidate for Senate or local office has died after the ballots were printed.

Seeing the GOP's antics if Trump were to drop out would be interesting, but probably not in a good way.
 
2020-07-06 11:14:52 AM  

AsparagusFTW: GardenWeasel: raerae1980: Sooooooo, what does this mean for our elections, exactly?

SCOTUS - Electors must vote however state law requires.

Loophole - the GOP can just f*ck around with state laws.

All red swing states to change laws in 3...2....1...


Because they couldn't already do that...?
 
2020-07-06 11:15:11 AM  
Some of us need this broken down Barney style.
 
2020-07-06 11:15:22 AM  

AsparagusFTW: GardenWeasel: raerae1980: Sooooooo, what does this mean for our elections, exactly?

SCOTUS - Electors must vote however state law requires.

Loophole - the GOP can just f*ck around with state laws.

All red swing states to change laws in 3...2....1...


Wouldn't be the 1st time.
 
2020-07-06 11:15:23 AM  
It never worked and it never will.  If it didn't keep a reality TV show nobody with zero governing experience and zero philosophy from becoming president....it's a dead system.   While I agree states should control their slates, they should not be all or nothing in a country that amounts to 50 shades of purple.
 
2020-07-06 11:15:51 AM  

raerae1980: Sooooooo, what does this mean for our elections, exactly?


Nothing really.
 
2020-07-06 11:17:14 AM  

Gubbo: NewportBarGuy: But, we need the Electoral College to protect us from snake oil salesmen and criminals.

Oh... wait a second.

If you're going to have such a stupid system, it's probably better that 538 people can't just decide who they want to vote for and subvert the entire process of the election.


This. The Electoral College is idiotic in any instance. But having a democratic system that can be subverted because the sales manager of the third-most-prominent Kia dealership in Fresno went to the convention, got selected as an elector because he had vacation days, and then got a bit too big for his britches and countermanded the will of his state? That is even more idiotic.
 
2020-07-06 11:17:33 AM  

sirgrim: Some of us need this broken down Barney style.


Please and Thank You, they are the magic words.
 
2020-07-06 11:18:27 AM  
The Electoral College isn't broken. It's working exactly as intended; giving white, rural, racist dickheads an unfair advantage in our government.
 
2020-07-06 11:18:52 AM  

raerae1980: Sooooooo, what does this mean for our elections, exactly?


It means the popular vote pact now has a lot more legal oomph behind it.
 
2020-07-06 11:19:12 AM  
So we are down to 5 remaining cases (from Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog):

Little Sisters of the Poor Sts. Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (consolidated with Trump v. Pennsylvania) (argued May 6, 2020): Whether the expansion of the conscience exemption from the Affordable Care Act's birth-control mandate violated the ACA and the laws governing federal administrative agencies.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (consolidated with St. James School v. Biel) (argued May 11, 2020): Whether courts can hear employment discrimination claims brought by teachers at Catholic elementary schools.

McGirt v. Oklahoma (argued May 11, 2020): Whether land set up in the 19th century in eastern Oklahoma for the Creek Nation remains a reservation for purposes of a federal law that requires some major crimes committed on a reservation by or against Indians to be prosecuted as federal crimes.

Trump v. Mazars USA (consolidated with Trump v. Deutsche Bank) (argued May 12, 2020): Whether congressional committees have the authority to issue subpoenas to the president's accountant and creditors for financial records belonging to the president and his business entities.

Trump v. Vance (argued May 12, 2020): Whether the Manhattan district attorney can obtain the president's tax returns as part of a state grand-jury investigation
 
2020-07-06 11:19:12 AM  
Yes, the Electoral College is stupid.

But it's written into the Constitution and the case wasn't going to change that fact.

This case was on a very narrow issue of whether states could impose punishments on Electors who violate their oath to vote for a certain candidate.
 
2020-07-06 11:19:40 AM  
So... if a state were to pass a law saying that electors must vote for a candidate who has released their tax returns, it would be legal? Sweet!
 
2020-07-06 11:21:44 AM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: Original: Original Tweet:

mjs_DC: 🚨SCOTUS unanimously rules that states may avoid "faithless electors" by compelling electors to cast their vote for a specific candidate in the Electoral College. https://t.co/iwiB06PoKe


Dump this corrupt Kabuki garbage, ffs.


Well, there goes Bernie's last best hope.
 
2020-07-06 11:22:53 AM  

King Something: Cool, now let's force the states to assign their electors in a manner more equitable than "winner take all" -- either have the Maine/Nebraska system, where the winner of each district gets the electoral vote from that district, and the overall winner gets the 2 electoral votes from that state's Senators;

or a system where if no candidate wins more than 2/3rds of the state's popular vote, then all candidates who achieve at least 1/x of the popular vote get a share of the state's x electoral votes (e.g. someone winning in Wyoming 58-39-2 would get 2 EVs and the runner-up would get 1; while someone winning 58-39-2 in California would get 33 EVs, the runner-up would get 21, and the third place finisher would get 1)


Or let's just get rid of the electoral college entirely and finally join the ranks of civilized nations whose elections are based on people instead of land.


The problem with what you are proposing is that it would allow gerrymandering to mess with an election.  Let's say a state has 12 electoral votes with ten of them coming from districts, has a guy who wins a state's popular vote by 51 percent, and a loser, we shall call him Trump Jr, who loses with 40 percent of the vote.  Now because of Gerrymandering, Trump Jr gets 7 of ten districts, so ends up with 7 electoral votes, while the guy who actually won the state only gets 5.
 
2020-07-06 11:23:24 AM  

mrshowrules: King Something: Cool, now let's force the states to assign their electors in a manner more equitable than "winner take all" -- either have the Maine/Nebraska system, where the winner of each district gets the electoral vote from that district, and the overall winner gets the 2 electoral votes from that state's Senators;

or a system where if no candidate wins more than 2/3rds of the state's popular vote, then all candidates who achieve at least 1/x of the popular vote get a share of the state's x electoral votes (e.g. someone winning in Wyoming 58-39-2 would get 2 EVs and the runner-up would get 1; while someone winning 58-39-2 in California would get 33 EVs, the runner-up would get 21, and the third place finisher would get 1)


Or let's just get rid of the electoral college entirely and finally join the ranks of civilized nations whose elections are based on people instead of land.

Allow voters to vote for as many different candidates as that they want.  You just hate one person, vote for everyone but him.  You want to be more strategic, just vote for your preferred candidate.  All votes get counted.  Functions a bit like a ranked voting system and much better than Weeners the post approach.


Also results in fewer penis jokes.
 
2020-07-06 11:24:10 AM  

IndyJohn: raerae1980: Sooooooo, what does this mean for our elections, exactly?

Nothing really.


It does pave the way for the national popular vote initiative, where a number of states have already passed laws saying if 270 EV are governed by the same principle, all electors in the state must vote for the winner of national popular vote, no matter who won the state.
This is basically eliminating the EC without an amendment.  If SCOTUS had said, you can punish electors for not voting a certain way, but not require them to vote a certain way, it would have killed that option.
 
2020-07-06 11:24:57 AM  

winedrinkingman: King Something: Cool, now let's force the states to assign their electors in a manner more equitable than "winner take all" -- either have the Maine/Nebraska system, where the winner of each district gets the electoral vote from that district, and the overall winner gets the 2 electoral votes from that state's Senators;

or a system where if no candidate wins more than 2/3rds of the state's popular vote, then all candidates who achieve at least 1/x of the popular vote get a share of the state's x electoral votes (e.g. someone winning in Wyoming 58-39-2 would get 2 EVs and the runner-up would get 1; while someone winning 58-39-2 in California would get 33 EVs, the runner-up would get 21, and the third place finisher would get 1)


Or let's just get rid of the electoral college entirely and finally join the ranks of civilized nations whose elections are based on people instead of land.

The problem with what you are proposing is that it would allow gerrymandering to mess with an election.  Let's say a state has 12 electoral votes with ten of them coming from districts, has a guy who wins a state's popular vote by 51 percent, and a loser, we shall call him Trump Jr, who loses with 40 percent of the vote.  Now because of Gerrymandering, Trump Jr gets 7 of ten districts, so ends up with 7 electoral votes, while the guy who actually won the state only gets 5.


Which is why the Maine/Nebraska system was not the only suggestion I made. Read the other 2 paragraphs.
 
2020-07-06 11:25:23 AM  

VanillaEnvelope: I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: Original: Original Tweet:

mjs_DC: 🚨SCOTUS unanimously rules that states may avoid "faithless electors" by compelling electors to cast their vote for a specific candidate in the Electoral College. https://t.co/iwiB06PoKe


Dump this corrupt Kabuki garbage, ffs.

Well, there goes Bernie's last best hope.


Jesus Christ dude, your guy won 4 months ago.  Let it go already.
 
2020-07-06 11:25:33 AM  

Murkanen: raerae1980: Sooooooo, what does this mean for our elections, exactly?

It means the popular vote pact now has a lot more legal oomph behind it.


The concept of pacts bundling state votes together is just as dangerous and prone to f*ckery.
 
2020-07-06 11:26:19 AM  

GardenWeasel: Murkanen: raerae1980: Sooooooo, what does this mean for our elections, exactly?

It means the popular vote pact now has a lot more legal oomph behind it.

The concept of pacts bundling state votes together is just as dangerous and prone to f*ckery.


How so?
 
2020-07-06 11:26:30 AM  
As I understood it, the Electoral College was born because the Founding Fathers, especially Jefferson, thought the average man was too stupid to pick the correct candidate to hold office.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
2020-07-06 11:26:37 AM  

Destructor: Doesn't this sorta make the entire reason for having an electoral college, pointless? I mean I'm not complaining. Just curious.


In a digital age with instant communication over large distances, an electoral college IS pointless.  We should rely on the popular vote now.
 
2020-07-06 11:27:02 AM  

NewportBarGuy: But, we need the Electoral College to protect us from snake oil salesmen and criminals.

Oh... wait a second.


It stopped protecting us from salesmen and criminals when Kennedy was elected.
 
2020-07-06 11:27:28 AM  

ImpendingCynic: So... if a state were to pass a law saying that electors must vote for a candidate who has released their tax returns, it would be legal? Sweet!


Nope: banning electors from voting for a candidate based on criteria not outlined in the Constitution is illegal per the ruling:

pbs.twimg.comView Full Size


Basically it says that the states decide as long as the method is consistent with the Constitution, and the only escape valve given is if the president-elect dies before the electoral college meets (which itself is an academic question I sort of wish they hadn't even brought up.)
 
2020-07-06 11:27:44 AM  
The electoral college only really worked for a few years after its inception. The authors  really did think it would be a group of elder statesmen who would pick the president according to their own good judgement. Madison was aghast at what it turned into later, with state blocs voting according to the legislature or the popular vote.
 
2020-07-06 11:29:34 AM  

Unikitty: As I understood it, the Electoral College was born because the Founding Fathers, especially Jefferson, thought the average man was too stupid to pick the correct candidate to hold office.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


Theoretically there can still be faithless electors... but only if states have no laws against it. That will likely end very soon.
 
2020-07-06 11:30:22 AM  

GardenWeasel: Murkanen: raerae1980: Sooooooo, what does this mean for our elections, exactly?

It means the popular vote pact now has a lot more legal oomph behind it.

The concept of pacts bundling state votes together is just as dangerous and prone to f*ckery.


I'm not sure how you fark with "If the popular vote goes to Candidate X, so will our electoral votes", but alright.

Keep in mind that if this had been in place 20 years ago Gore would have been president, and Clinton would have won in 2016.
 
2020-07-06 11:31:13 AM  
Oh, and +1 for ranked voting.
 
2020-07-06 11:31:38 AM  
President Donald Trump has argued both sides of the issue.

From two different mouths, I might add.
 
2020-07-06 11:31:56 AM  

Grungehamster: ImpendingCynic: So... if a state were to pass a law saying that electors must vote for a candidate who has released their tax returns, it would be legal? Sweet!

Nope: banning electors from voting for a candidate based on criteria not outlined in the Constitution is illegal per the ruling:

[pbs.twimg.com image 850x241]

Basically it says that the states decide as long as the method is consistent with the Constitution, and the only escape valve given is if the president-elect dies before the electoral college meets (which itself is an academic question I sort of wish they hadn't even brought up.)


The section you quoted talks about the method of appointing electors, not dictating how they may or may not vote.
 
2020-07-06 11:32:40 AM  

King Something: Cool, now let's force the states to assign their electors in a manner more equitable than "winner take all" -- either have the Maine/Nebraska system, where the winner of each district gets the electoral vote from that district, and the overall winner gets the 2 electoral votes from that state's Senators;


The problem with the Maine/Nebraska system is that it makes the Presidential election open to gerrymandering, since you're tying EC votes to House districts, which can be gerrymandered.
 
2020-07-06 11:33:23 AM  

ImpendingCynic: Grungehamster: ImpendingCynic: So... if a state were to pass a law saying that electors must vote for a candidate who has released their tax returns, it would be legal? Sweet!

Nope: banning electors from voting for a candidate based on criteria not outlined in the Constitution is illegal per the ruling:

[pbs.twimg.com image 850x241]

Basically it says that the states decide as long as the method is consistent with the Constitution, and the only escape valve given is if the president-elect dies before the electoral college meets (which itself is an academic question I sort of wish they hadn't even brought up.)

The section you quoted talks about the method of appointing electors, not dictating how they may or may not vote.


Only if you are deliberately misreading the last sentence
 
Displayed 50 of 291 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.