‘Prepare for war’: A local GOP official goes all-in with election conspiracy theories

[moxy 1,051]

4 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

yes, it means tyranny by majority to me - and the lesser populated states would be relegated to total insignificance. 

you know quite well why our country has the electoral college.
imo one of the worst things to happen to our constitution was the 17th amendment.

So what you wind up with is a person in Texas' vote being worth less than a person in Wyoming's vote. That's tyranny of the minority. And it's the reason that presidential candidates only visit midwest states and Florida.

 

I'm inclined to believe the 18th amendment was worse, wretched teetotalers.

[laylalex 7,266]

Oh gosh, I thought you wrote 19th Amendment there for a moment, and was cursing you, then I saw the clause afterwards. I blame the 21st Amendment for me misreading it.  

[Ban Hammer 12,900]

16 minutes ago, moxy said:

So what you wind up with is a person in Texas' vote being worth less than a person in Wyoming's vote. That's tyranny of the minority. And it's the reason that presidential candidates only visit midwest states and Florida.

 

but yet the vote from the person in texas is still worth something, unlike what you propose.

 

[moxy 1,051]

1 hour ago, Ban Hammer said:

but yet the vote from the person in texas is still worth something, unlike what you propose.

 

What I propose? I propose one person gets one full vote, no more, no less, whether they live in Kansas or New York. Literally how democracy is supposed to work.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

7 hours ago, moxy said:

What I propose? I propose one person gets one full vote, no more, no less, whether they live in Kansas or New York. Literally how democracy is supposed to work.

That's how it is, all mental gymnastics aside. However, the way you try and twist it means to ignore the "Republic" part of the United States. It is not solely a nation comprised of a massive federal government and that's it. The sovereignty of each state is inherent, so trying to water it down because one thinks it provides them political leverage is just ridiculous, and realistically, stands a snowballs chance in hell of happening with their consent, which is a requirement to modify the Constitution.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 23,402]

11 hours ago, moxy said:

Honestly, feel free to dial it back. I'm not trying to pull you toward any conclusions. You're an adult, I expect you can form your own conclusions. I'm sharing my own conclusions.

 

I understand the number of parties wasn't set in stone. In fact, there's nothing in the Constitution about two parties, and the founders were actually very unfriendly towards the idea of any parties. But the electoral system is by nature geared to a two party system. That's why you're "throwing your vote away" when you vote third party. The electoral college is winner take all per state. Third parties do not survive in that kind of squeeze. (I don't say "throwing away your vote" as a judgment, I say it as way of explanation that third parties do not thrive in the electoral college system. We have 200 years of data to show that)

 

You and I agree that people need to take responsibility for our political system. But it sure would be a lot easier to throw down the electoral college shackles. "One person, one vote" should mean something.

 

 

That is not entirely true, and by the Constitution, it is the State legislatures that determine how each state will select a presidential candidate although there are only two states currently that split their electoral allocation.  States could very easily simply say that their House(s) could get together and select the electors to choose a President.  There have been other Parties in the past, and the current Parties have transformed over time (some more than others), but in the end the two Party system we have today is more related to the growing power of the Federal government and the lessening of the powers of the individual States.

 

I am a firm believer that the 17th Amendment is the root of what started the decline in what happens in DC.  Now that Senators are more reliant on campaign donations every six years, they have lost sight on actually representing the States that they are supposed to represent.  The Senate has become a glorified House, and if the Electoral College is trashed, the Senate should be next and maybe we should just transform to a Parliamentary system where the Parliament chooses the titular head of the country.  This would certainly drive more Parties.  

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

56 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

That is not entirely true, and by the Constitution, it is the State legislatures that determine how each state will select a presidential candidate although there are only two states currently that split their electoral allocation.  States could very easily simply say that their House(s) could get together and select the electors to choose a President.  There have been other Parties in the past, and the current Parties have transformed over time (some more than others), but in the end the two Party system we have today is more related to the growing power of the Federal government and the lessening of the powers of the individual States.

 

I am a firm believer that the 17th Amendment is the root of what started the decline in what happens in DC.  Now that Senators are more reliant on campaign donations every six years, they have lost sight on actually representing the States that they are supposed to represent.  The Senate has become a glorified House, and if the Electoral College is trashed, the Senate should be next and maybe we should just transform to a Parliamentary system where the Parliament chooses the titular head of the country.  This would certainly drive more Parties.  

So much yes, although I disagree about the second paragraph there. Indeed the attacks on the electoral college would not stop there, the Senate is basically a similar impediment to authoritarians who believe any institutional barriers to their way must simply be eradicated by any means.

 

As of now, they know they won't get their way by a constitutional amendment to change/remove the electoral college. In people who aren't unhinged, they recognize that the system was designed to prevent this, and respect for the Republic they live in would prompt them to preserve it. Instead, they now think that states passing laws can supersede the Constitution. That the Supreme Court is very likely to shoot this down is not even a consideration. Nah, when that happens, onto the next thing.. packing the court, adding more states, and so on.

 

Which brings me to why I disagree with the second paragraph. People blame institutions and all this other stuff for what they view as corruption, but these people don't get into office if voters don't vote them in. It's no different than a boss endlessly blaming the people he hires and supervises for not doing their job, then opting to give those people more power to decide for him and further complain. Voters choose not to hold themselves responsible for the bad choices they make. The end result? The 17th not being there wouldn't change anything. With the same way the populace handles things now, it would simply shift where the money goes. The lesson for that? Just look at things now, and you have your answer. There are no laws, no constitutional provisions or amendments, no agencies, no bureaus, no organizations, no regulations, nothing, that will save people from themselves.

 

The concern I have is conservatives still very much seem like deer in headlights. People need to get over their fear of change, because it's coming to you, like it or not. The left utilizing this majority authoritarianism believe it gets them their way, and maybe to a tiny degree it does, but the end result of this is they get a government that rules over them with an iron fist and thanks to the intent to erode and wipe out barriers to it, they now have no institutional protections they could even try to leverage to undo that mistake. This is why you stick to these basic principles to begin with. So, seeing the threat for what it is, the logical thing to do is, the second they try and pack the courts, add states, secede. Perhaps it might be time to just secede now anyways. The intent is already there, it's been underlying for decades, and now that it's here, it's not going to reverse. So do things proactively on your own terms rather than theirs.

[moxy 1,051]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

That is not entirely true, and by the Constitution, it is the State legislatures that determine how each state will select a presidential candidate although there are only two states currently that split their electoral allocation.  States could very easily simply say that their House(s) could get together and select the electors to choose a President.  There have been other Parties in the past, and the current Parties have transformed over time (some more than others), but in the end the two Party system we have today is more related to the growing power of the Federal government and the lessening of the powers of the individual States.

 

I am a firm believer that the 17th Amendment is the root of what started the decline in what happens in DC.  Now that Senators are more reliant on campaign donations every six years, they have lost sight on actually representing the States that they are supposed to represent.  The Senate has become a glorified House, and if the Electoral College is trashed, the Senate should be next and maybe we should just transform to a Parliamentary system where the Parliament chooses the titular head of the country.  This would certainly drive more Parties.  

My "winner take all" comment was in general. Yes of course there are two states that divvy their very small number of EVs up, and yes I think every one of us constitutional experts here on VJ understand how state legislatures work. My argument holds true in general: the electoral college dilutes the popular vote into a very course number. There were ~155 million votes cast, which were then not only diluted down to 538 on a mostly per-state basis.

 

If you believe the individual should be emphasized over the collective (a core conservative value), this does the exact opposite. You could even make a pretty good argument that the electoral college is more socialist than democratic. (insert mind_blown.png here)

 

Oh, and no electoral college means no more "safe states." Republicans and conservatives could unlock over five million votes in California alone. Not to mention it would open up the opportunity for third parties to be viable again.

 

I wouldn't mind a parliamentary system in theory, although it's certainly got its problems too. The American version of Prime Minister's Question Time would be worth a cable subscription for CSPAN alone.

[Prizm123 1,084]

1 hour ago, Dashinka said:

 maybe we should just transform to a Parliamentary system where the Parliament chooses the titular head of the country.  This would certainly drive more Parties.  

it would certainly provide more incentive for compromise instead of endless bickering and hate slinging, and rightfully disaffect the fringe elements, because those people are useless

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

51 minutes ago, moxy said:

My "winner take all" comment was in general. Yes of course there are two states that divvy their very small number of EVs up, and yes I think every one of us constitutional experts here on VJ understand how state legislatures work. My argument holds true in general: the electoral college dilutes the popular vote into a very course number. There were ~155 million votes cast, which were then not only diluted down to 538 on a mostly per-state basis.

 

If you believe the individual should be emphasized over the collective (a core conservative value), this does the exact opposite. You could even make a pretty good argument that the electoral college is more socialist than democratic. (insert mind_blown.png here)

 

Oh, and no electoral college means no more "safe states." Republicans and conservatives could unlock over five million votes in California alone. Not to mention it would open up the opportunity for third parties to be viable again.

 

I wouldn't mind a parliamentary system in theory, although it's certainly got its problems too. The American version of Prime Minister's Question Time would be worth a cable subscription for CSPAN alone.

It doesn't hold true whatsoever. EC votes are proportionately divvied up to each state according to population. That not only means the most populated states have more representation in the Presidential election, but more members in the House of Representatives. The arguments presented throughout the post, in short, are merely marketing gimmicks (with a high utilization of caricature and irrelevant criteria that nullifies states entirely) with the aim of killing off what few checks against the majority that exist, and that's not what the United States ever was. With what clearly is a bad faith desire to get one's way absent the rules we all agreed to and the good faith and many years of deliberation behind their making, it would be far less waste to get these sovereign states to secede. It stands far more of a chance over the next century than getting 12+ states to agree to self-trivializing rubbish.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[moxy 1,051]

11 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

It doesn't hold true whatsoever. EC votes are proportionately divvied up to each state according to population. That not only means the most populated states have more representation in the Presidential election, but more members in the House of Representatives. The arguments presented throughout the post, in short, are merely marketing gimmicks (with a high utilization of caricature and irrelevant criteria that nullifies states entirely) with the aim of killing off what few checks against the majority that exist, and that's not what the United States ever was. With what clearly is a bad faith desire to get one's way absent the rules we all agreed to and the good faith and many years of deliberation behind their making, it would be far less waste to get these sovereign states to secede. It stands far more of a chance over the next century than getting 12+ states to agree to self-trivializing rubbish.

I suppose we de facto agree to the rules by participating in citizenship and voting, but agreeing to the rules doesn't mean we believe all these rules to be fair or that they should forever and ever be set in stone. If that was the case, women wouldn't be allowed to vote and there would be no amendments to the constitution past the original amendments. In fact, voting is at the very core of changing rules we all agreed to. The rules governing the way we vote are set in a very difficult to change medium (as it should be), but it wasn't handed down from god, and the founders never intended for the constitution to be forever preserved in amber.

 

And because you disagree doesn't make it bad faith. It's fine if you disagree. I'd be surprised if you did agree, actually. There are plenty of good arguments against the popular vote, but "bad faith" is not one of them. Neither is "it's the rules."

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, moxy said:

I suppose we de facto agree to the rules by participating in citizenship and voting, but agreeing to the rules doesn't mean we believe all these rules to be fair or that they should forever and ever be set in stone. If that was the case, women wouldn't be allowed to vote and there would be no amendments to the constitution past the original amendments. In fact, voting is at the very core of changing rules we all agreed to. The rules governing the way we vote are set in a very difficult to change medium (as it should be), but it wasn't handed down from god, and the founders never intended for the constitution to be forever preserved in amber.

 

And because you disagree doesn't make it bad faith. It's fine if you disagree. I'd be surprised if you did agree, actually. There are plenty of good arguments against the popular vote, but "bad faith" is not one of them. Neither is "it's the rules."

"Bad faith" was not the stated argument against the popular vote nor a suggested inherent quality in those who simply like the idea of a national popular vote. It's key to argue what someone is actually saying. Rather, "bad faith" was/is an approach (demonstrated by actions) from those supporting the popular vote, not merely by disagreeing, but trying to institute end-arounds that they know is just going to get thrown out in courts anyways, but deliberately done to avoid the process they know is precisely how they achieve their goal because they know realistically it won't happen.

 

The popular vote is an argument against the popular vote. In respect to constitutional process and governance, the elections are not set up for a single federal vote because the United States is not a unitary government ruling top-down over smaller geographical jurisdictions. The constitution is quite unambiguous in that the US is a constitutional Republic. It's a federation of sovereign states united under a Republican government. People are represented by their state.. when you vote, that is who you are voting to, people are not sending hundreds of millions of votes to the federal government. That is why there is electors, that is why the second chamber of Congress is the Senate comprised of equal members per state. The state is the qualifying jurisdiction.

 

Then we get to the part in respect to intent. The discussion of this really doesn't care to explain or attempt to remotely get the consent of the people in these states that are overtly barriers to the only logical way to achieve the outcome they want, just to flat out ignore them and impose one's will. This is why people naively think that they can circumvent the entire constitution to pass state laws forcing a national popular vote disregarding the choice individuals made in their state. The problem is, it's so wildly unconstitutional and strikes so heavily at constitutional understanding of representation and rights (where one cannot delegate their rights to anyone else, which includes representation), never mind basic understanding of contracts, it stands no chance of success if/when it ever comes into effect.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[moxy 1,051]

There is nothing inherent about a Republic (or this Republic, other than history) that requires the electoral college.

 

From The National Archives:
 

Quote

The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.”

 

 

(as an aside, The National Archives has really good articles on all things constitutional. Highly recommended reading, I've found myself down that rabbit hole many times.)

 

It was a compromise. It wasn't some necessary artifact of democracy or a republic, it wasn't some deep philosophical precedence handed down from Plato's Republic, it was a bunch of dudes who were trying to figure out a solution to a problem, and they compromised because that's what they needed to do to get ratification. If the dudes that said "we want the popular vote" had had enough support, America would have a popular vote.

 

So yes, every VJ constitutional scholar here understands how the republic works (state vs federal). But it doesn't inherently require an electoral system or college. And I would argue that not only doesn't it require the electoral college, the electoral college goes against the very nature of democracy.

 

It seems to me that in a national election, the votes of the individual should carry more weight than the vote of the state.. As I've said, there are good arguments for and against. I'm happy to get out of the weeds of "but history" and "but the republic" and actually have a discussion on those arguments.

[Dashinka 23,402]

3 hours ago, moxy said:

My "winner take all" comment was in general. Yes of course there are two states that divvy their very small number of EVs up, and yes I think every one of us constitutional experts here on VJ understand how state legislatures work. My argument holds true in general: the electoral college dilutes the popular vote into a very course number. There were ~155 million votes cast, which were then not only diluted down to 538 on a mostly per-state basis.

 

If you believe the individual should be emphasized over the collective (a core conservative value), this does the exact opposite. You could even make a pretty good argument that the electoral college is more socialist than democratic. (insert mind_blown.png here)

 

Oh, and no electoral college means no more "safe states." Republicans and conservatives could unlock over five million votes in California alone. Not to mention it would open up the opportunity for third parties to be viable again.

 

I wouldn't mind a parliamentary system in theory, although it's certainly got its problems too. The American version of Prime Minister's Question Time would be worth a cable subscription for CSPAN alone.

I believe we should go back to the core principles that this country was founded on.  The House represents the people, and the Senate represents the States, the President Represents the country which is a collection of individual States.  What you are suggesting is that the Federal Government should have ultimate power and the States should be meaningless.  The simple thing is are the States relevant or not?  If the EC is eliminated, what would stop the populated states from demanding the end of the Senate, "why should WY or AK get two votes in the Senate the same as CA or NY?

 

The only way third parties would become viable would be in a Parliamentary System

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

49 minutes ago, moxy said:

There is nothing inherent about a Republic (or this Republic, other than history) that requires the electoral college.

 

From The National Archives:
 

 

(as an aside, The National Archives has really good articles on all things constitutional. Highly recommended reading, I've found myself down that rabbit hole many times.)

 

It was a compromise. It wasn't some necessary artifact of democracy or a republic, it wasn't some deep philosophical precedence handed down from Plato's Republic, it was a bunch of dudes who were trying to figure out a solution to a problem, and they compromised because that's what they needed to do to get ratification. If the dudes that said "we want the popular vote" had had enough support, America would have a popular vote.

 

So yes, every VJ constitutional scholar here understands how the republic works (state vs federal). But it doesn't inherently require an electoral system or college. And I would argue that not only doesn't it require the electoral college, the electoral college goes against the very nature of democracy.

 

It seems to me that in a national election, the votes of the individual should carry more weight than the vote of the state.. As I've said, there are good arguments for and against. I'm happy to get out of the weeds of "but history" and "but the republic" and actually have a discussion on those arguments.

We vote to our states, the electors chosen by the state votes. That is the process of elections, called the electoral college. So I don't really get the confusion. I totally get that in theory, if one were starting from scratch, a Republic doesn't require electors, but I've not been discussing this and it's a massive red herring. If you're going through the archives, read Washington's outgoing address, relevant here, where he talks about amending the constitution. Not that I think it has any meaning on this discussion, because right now the attempt is to bypass the constitution and enter into an illegal interstate compact that would precisely do the very thing you complain about -- diluting votes, according to the constitution, which all states are party to. The state part is a uniform requisite for elections which can't be subverted by a compact or law. That is how it's done. Even if one doesn't personally like it, the amount of EC votes are proportional according to the state, giving plenty of respect to the national "popular" will, and it's only in closer elections where it winds up an issue, where the heaviest partisan ideologues want to change the system as something that gives them their way all the time rather than sometimes. This approach tends to get the disdain it deserves.

Edited December 18, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds