Originally posted by CivilDiscourse
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Legislatures allowed to choose whichever way to set their electors
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by CivilDiscourse View PostHere's a question. Colorado is currently a blue state. It wasn't all that long ago that it was a swing state.
Here's a hypothetical.
Let's say that Colorado decides goes Red. Then, in an act of helping the presidency stay GOP, decides to tie the states electoral vote to the result of the popular vote in Wyoming (which went 70% for Trump in 2020). At the most basic constitutional reading, this is legal because, as stated legislatures can choose to assign their votes however they want.
We know that this action would be met with a lawsuit.
What do you think the outcome would be, and why?
This would allow Republicans to win the presidency with an even smaller minority than they are able to now. And I can't think of a reason that the courts would disallow it, or the voters would be able to defeat it. (Though I suppose the threat of civil unrest would make them think twice about doing it.)
- 2 likes
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
A scarier (because more likely) scenario would be where a purple (or slightly blue) state, which has a Republican-controlled legislature and Republican governor (because of gerrymandering), passes a law saying that the electors are to be chosen by a vote of the legislature.
This would allow Republicans to win the presidency with an even smaller minority than they are able to now. And I can't think of a reason that the courts would disallow it, or the voters would be able to defeat it. (Though I suppose the threat of civil unrest would make them think twice about doing it.)Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostWhy would that be scary? There's nothing in the Constitution that says electors must be chosen by vote of the people, and I would greatly prefer this to the pseudo-popular vote we have now which has been a complete mess for a long time. It would also give more power to state legislatures and increase the importance of state elections. This would be a good thing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Stoic View Post
I would expect Republicans to like the idea, because it would give them an advantage over Democrats, which is all they seem to care about.
If it was solely up to state legislatures to choose their presidential electors, then it would be up to the people to vote for a legislature that would support the person they would want to be president and would take us back to the roots of our Constitution where the state legislatures would wield some degree of power over the federal government.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
And you prefer ideas that give Democrats an advantage over Republicans, because that's all you care about, right?
If it was solely up to state legislatures to choose their presidential electors, then it would be up to the people to vote for a legislature that would support the person they would want to be president and would take us back to the roots of our Constitution where the state legislatures would wield some degree of power over the federal government.
Comment
-
The inherent problem I have with having state legislatures choose the electors is that I hardly think we need to give them more of a reason to gerrymander.
Not that it particularly matters, given that it's such an unpopular suggestion it isn't going to happen.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
Why would that be scary? There's nothing in the Constitution that says electors must be chosen by vote of the people, and I would greatly prefer this to the pseudo-popular vote we have now which has been a complete mess for a long time. It would also give more power to state legislatures and increase the importance of state elections. This would be a good thing."It ain't necessarily so
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so."
Sportin' Life
Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
Why would that be scary? There's nothing in the Constitution that says electors must be chosen by vote of the people, and I would greatly prefer this to the pseudo-popular vote we have now which has been a complete mess for a long time. It would also give more power to state legislatures and increase the importance of state elections. This would be a good thing.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostThe inherent problem I have with having state legislatures choose the electors is that I hardly think we need to give them more of a reason to gerrymander.
Not that it particularly matters, given that it's such an unpopular suggestion it isn't going to happen.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Well, it appears the Pennsylvania legislature isn't interested in going any further. Or, at least, it's more important to spend December on vacation.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...gain-this-year
Pennsylvania House GOP leaders: Lawmakers won't meet again this year
The Republican leaders of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives announced late Saturday that they will not be returning to session this year, a move that would appear to preclude any possibility of lawmakers interceding in the 2020 election.
House Speaker Bryan Cutler, R-Quarryville, and Majority Leader Kerry Benninghoff, R-Bellefonte, released a joint statement saying that they would not be calling their chamber to Harrisburg on Monday, the final possible day for the 2019-20 session of the Legislature to meet.
“We are physically unable to consider any new legislation before the end of session,” they wrote in the statement. “A simple resolution takes three legislative days for consideration and a concurrent resolution takes five legislative days to move through both chambers, which means we do not have the time needed to address any new resolutions in our current session.”
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ronson View PostWell, it appears the Pennsylvania legislature isn't interested in going any further. Or, at least, it's more important to spend December on vacation.
America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:12 PM
|
4 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 02:38 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-17-2024, 09:33 AM
|
45 responses
410 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Yesterday, 05:05 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
60 responses
391 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 03:09 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
100 responses
454 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:52 AM |
Comment