[P]Federal Court may have just handed 2020 over to Trump already with Electoral College decision.

[Schadrach]

The saddest thing is the solution is staring everybody right in the face: forget a law to MAKE electors follow the Popular vote, just remove the electors entirely.

That requires a constitutional amendment, which are intentionally difficult to perform.

That's why the folks pushing to move to simple popular vote are instead making an interstate agreement to pledge their state's electors based on the national popular vote rather than trying to actually overthrow the electoral college. If 270 electors worth of states agree to that, then we've functionally moved to national popular vote because national popular vote will grant a majority of electors.

Assuming it doesn't get thrown out as an "interstate compact", as "interstate compacts" have to be approved by Congress.

 

[Schadrach]

We had an election where the results changed because of faithless electors?

This wasn't down to faithless electors, but it's illustrative of what I'm trying to point out...

You missed 1824, in which Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but only a plurality of the electoral vote, invoking the the 12th Amendment. Henry Clay, who came in last of four candidates and was ineligible for the contingency vote, endorsed John Quincy Adams, and with the South split between Jackson and William Crawford, Adams was elected by Congress.

And, as I said earlier, 1876. Controversial and disputed results in Florida, South Carolina, and Louisiana (and a minor controversy over a single elector in Oregon) led to an electoral deadlock of 184 votes for Tilden and 165 for Hayes, invoking the 12th Amendment. Tilden had won the popular vote and was one electoral vote shy of the Presidency, but the 20 disputed electoral votes went to Hayes in the Compromise of 1877.

Point being, muck with the electoral college at your peril, especially when the alternative is a Congressional vote to elect the President.

Except I was replying to lildevil, whose general thesis seems to be that overturning faithless elector laws will "give" 2020 to Trump, and my point wasn't a deep dive into electoral history or even invocations of the 12th but specifically to look at the worst cases of faithless electors, and how those still utterly failed to change electoral results.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

...the folks pushing to move to simple popular vote are instead making an interstate agreement to pledge their state's electors based on the national popular vote...

Yeah, about that. If you think elections are cynically driven by doublespeak and bad-faith promises fronting for the ultra-wealthy and big business now, and political polarization and ideological division (most notably the rural/urban divide) couldn't get worse, just wait. If there's one thing that would guarantee a full-blown Gilded Age political machine renaissance (not that machine politics ever fully went away, nor isn't already experiencing a revival in social media form), it would be fundamentally altering how the country elects the Presidency to reflect absolute primacy of high population density areas.

If I had it my way, I'd do one of two things:

1. Split the electoral vote. The Senate's portion be awarded by state-level vote, the House's portion awarded proportionally with the remainder being unpledged. So, for example, in California in 2016 Hillary won with 62% of the vote; she would have been awarded 34 electoral votes (62% of 53, plus two for winning the state), Trump would have been awarded 17, Johnson would have been awarded 2, Stein 1, and 1 unpledged electoral vote.

2. Institute a quota system for winner-take-all results. A candidate is only awarded all of a state's electoral votes if they win a supermajority of ballots cast; otherwise, electoral votes are awarded proportionally.

That is, assuming we can't just discard this entire ridiculous system we have, and actually adopt a proportional representation-based parliamentary system as we damn well should.

 

[Agema]

Except I was replying to lildevil, whose general thesis seems to be that overturning faithless elector laws will "give" 2020 to Trump, and my point wasn't a deep dive into electoral history or even invocations of the 12th but specifically to look at the worst cases of faithless electors, and how those still utterly failed to change electoral results.

Yes, but perhaps they were faithless electors because the results weren't going to change. If the college is going to split (say) 400-200, a few electors who really want to make a statement can do so, safe in the knowledge it's not going to change anything. At 305-295, it's a very different story.

Part of the theory LilDevs is suggesting is that electors may be put in place specifically because they may be willing to vote in a direction other than the popular will as deliberate attempt to throw a close contest.

 

[Schadrach]

Yeah, about that. If you think elections are cynically driven by doublespeak and bad-faith promises fronting for the ultra-wealthy and big business now, and political polarization and ideological division (most notably the rural/urban divide) couldn't get worse, just wait. If there's one thing that would guarantee a full-blown Gilded Age political machine renaissance (not that machine politics ever fully went away, nor isn't already experiencing a revival in social media form), it would be fundamentally altering how the country elects the Presidency to reflect absolute primacy of high population density areas.

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with you here. But a lot of people support it, specifically because Clinton won the popular vote, with a total lead smaller than her margin in California. Which means no solution other than national popular vote can work, because virtually any other approach would not have caused Clinton to win. Which is the point.

If I had it my way, I'd do one of two things:

1. Split the electoral vote. The Senate's portion be awarded by state-level vote, the House's portion awarded proportionally with the remainder being unpledged. So, for example, in California in 2016 Hillary won with 62% of the vote; she would have been awarded 34 electoral votes (62% of 53, plus two for winning the state), Trump would have been awarded 17, Johnson would have been awarded 2, Stein 1, and 1 unpledged electoral vote.

2. Institute a quota system for winner-take-all results. A candidate is only awarded all of a state's electoral votes if they win a supermajority of ballots cast; otherwise, electoral votes are awarded proportionally.

That is, assuming we can't just discard this entire ridiculous system we have, and actually adopt a proportional representation-based parliamentary system as we damn well should.

Something akin to #1 is something I've been a proponent of in the past, though I'd suggested giving the House's portion based on Congressional district vote, but only if it was coupled with a change in redistricting that made it virtually impossible to gerrymander (say an algorithmic approach like least split line).

The important and interesting thing though is that any of these could be implemented at a state level (it's up to the state how it chooses it's electors), rather than requiring Constitutional amendment.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

But a lot of people support it...

A lot of people are goddamn stupid, and breathlessly parrot whatever they heard last from talking heads on the idiot box without an iota of consideration whether it's a good idea, or in their best interests as citizens. Which, ironically, is the same reason we have the electoral college in the first place -- to keep braying populist jackasses from being elected chief executive and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. And, this was a hundred and fifty years before the genesis of the contemporary unitary executive, and two hundred before the rapid, unprecedented, and contrary-to-principle expansion of presidential war powers following WWII.

For all the good it's done in the age of social media and highly-consolidated corporate news media. As I've said before and will keep saying, Trump is a symptom, and not a symptom of any problem you're going to hear about on cable news.

Something akin to #1 is something I've been a proponent of in the past, though I'd suggested giving the House's portion based on Congressional district vote, but only if it was coupled with a change in redistricting that made it virtually impossible to gerrymander (say an algorithmic approach like least split line).

I'm going to support proportional systems over first-past-the-post in any circumstance in which it can happen. Awarding electoral votes on a district basis is still FPTP, just on a more discrete scale.

At the end of the day, the key problem is erecting barriers to, and reducing the payout for, gaming the electoral college. Our system is, right now, relatively stable since swing states are generally bellwethers in terms of demography, ideology, and salient campaign issues. Linking electoral vote to national popular vote won't really change anything, except for the calculus by which campaigns determine which regions get the most campaigning and campaign funding.

 

[Schadrach]

Yes, but perhaps they were faithless electors because the results weren't going to change. If the college is going to split (say) 400-200, a few electors who really want to make a statement can do so, safe in the knowledge it's not going to change anything. At 305-295, it's a very different story.

Part of the theory LilDevs is suggesting is that electors may be put in place specifically because they may be willing to vote in a direction other than the popular will as deliberate attempt to throw a close contest.

1. 305-295 isn't possible, it's more electoral votes than there are (538).

2. If I understand this, the idea is that in a close contest the electors would vote against pledge, causing no candidate to have 270 and trigger a twelfth amendment election, which would then let the Senate give the presidency to Trump? For that to happen, you'd need enough Democrat electors to refuse to vote as pledged to drop the Democrat candidate below 270. Let me repeat that - you'd need the Democrats to win if electors voted as pledged, but then for the Democrat pledged electors to vote against pledge in large enough number to either swing it to Trump or trigger a twelfth amendment scenario. That...seems highly unlikely.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

So I mean, whats the popular vote even for?

Nothing. Never has been for anything in the US. Did they not teach you about the mechanics of the government in grade school? In the presidential elections citizens do not cast votes for the president, the states do. What the citizens do is cast votes to tell their state how they would like it to use its votes. The vast majority of states award all of their votes to whoever wins the popular vote in their state, no matter by what margin or how people in other states vote. The US is not a direct democracy, nor has it it ever claimed to be.

I and most Americans were taught growing up that the US was a Democracy.

That has never been the case. The Founding Fathers were against that entirely

Because they knew chaos would ensue. Ironic huh, if they could see things now.

 

[Schadrach]

Nothing. Never has been for anything in the US. Did they not teach you about the mechanics of the government in grade school?

I'm guessing she either had extra shitty schools (totally possible as schools are often handled at a county level, and paid for my local property taxes meaning there's a *lot* of variance between schools - note: this is a big problem that needs to be fixed, and more even distribution of school funding would go miles) or she just wasn't paying attention when it was taught.

I mean, I grew up in a small town with small town schools and we covered it. First vaguely in elementary school, then in more depth in the 9th grade (my schools went Geography/State History/Civics/World History 1800 for 7th/8th/9th/10th/11th grade). Our 9th grade civics class covered state and federal government, how they function, how the court system works, and so on.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I'm guessing she either had extra shitty schools (totally possible as schools are often handled at a county level, and paid for my local property taxes meaning there's a *lot* of variance between schools - note: this is a big problem that needs to be fixed, and more even distribution of school funding would go miles) or she just wasn't paying attention when it was taught.

Don't forget the American public education system -- as befits a country with an education system based on the Prussian model -- isn't designed to educate in a meaningful way. It's designed to suppress critical thinking and push narrative as fact, especially post-NCLB. Anymore, it seems the case that to make it through primary and secondary school with the ability to think for oneself left intact, one has to go to a school for high-income kids. It is, for all intents and purposes, a crash course in useful idiocy.

Frankly, "the US is a democracy!" isn't an area which is predominantly influenced by district or demographic. That's one of the narratives. To be fair, representative democracy is still a form of democratic rule as representatives are elected by popular vote, but teaching that in a manner that eschews nuance -- that the US is a federal republic and only legislatures are universally thus elected, trustee versus delegate models of representation, dual versus cooperative models of federalism -- while idealizing American republicanism is where the narrative sets in.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Assuming it doesn't get thrown out as an "interstate compact", as "interstate compacts" have to be approved by Congress.

A very important thing to remember. I've taken a look at Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893) and while it articulates a usable rule, it doesn't give a clear answer as to how a court would rule.

 

[Trunkage]

So I mean, whats the popular vote even for?

Nothing. Never has been for anything in the US. Did they not teach you about the mechanics of the government in grade school? In the presidential elections citizens do not cast votes for the president, the states do. What the citizens do is cast votes to tell their state how they would like it to use its votes. The vast majority of states award all of their votes to whoever wins the popular vote in their state, no matter by what margin or how people in other states vote. The US is not a direct democracy, nor has it it ever claimed to be.

I and most Americans were taught growing up that the US was a Democracy.

That has never been the case. The Founding Fathers were against that entirely

Because they knew chaos would ensue. Ironic huh, if they could see things now.

Yes, becuase only having elites in charge has served us so well. They definitely know what's best for us. They told us so.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Yes, becuase only having elites in charge has served us so well. They definitely know what's best for us. They told us so.

Robert Michels didn't call it the iron law of oligarchy because it sounded cool. Rule by elite is practically a given, especially in republican forms of governance; the American system was designed to be inherently unstable and based upon checks and balances, in order to preclude a discrete, insular group of elites (to what Madison referred as faction) from seizing power and maintaining it in perpetuity. Needless to say, the great experiment has largely failed, and I personally struggle to even label the state of American politics and governance plutocratic, when kleptocratic is actually far more appropriate.

The struggle is in deciding which group of elites govern, and maximizing accountability for those elites through whatever means are necessary, appropriate, and effective. Technocracy in and of itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the first and most important takeaway of Obama-era governance is that even technocracy, in a landscape lacking basic transparency and accountability, can be corrupted to act as little more than a thin veneer for plutocracy.

 

[Anti-American Eagle]

Congratulations. Things are getting a hell of a lot more fucked up. Can corporations openly form political parties yet?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Congratulations. Things are getting a hell of a lot more fucked up. Can corporations openly form political parties yet?

Why? The American system is practically purpose-built for perpetual two-party rule. It requires seismic socioeconomic shift to trigger an entrenched party that already exists to even marginally shift its platform, and the last time that happened was the civil rights movement and Goldwater's opposition to LBJ in 1964. It's cheaper to just buy the parties that already exist.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

So is Trump gonna win 2020?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

So is Trump gonna win 2020?

Some people are predicting that. I will point out that all the good money in 2016 was placed on the person who lost, and so I have a great deal of skepticism for anyone who thinks they know how 2020 will turn out.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

So is Trump gonna win 2020?

Some people are predicting that. I will point out that all the good money in 2016 was placed on the person who lost, and so I have a great deal of skepticism for anyone who thinks they know how 2020 will turn out.

Yeah, and it's not like we're over a year away with all kinds of things in between now and then, the least of which is the Democratic Primary process completing and seeing who he's running up against.

Personally, assuming the electoral college doesn't really change despite the ruling in the OP, I think it'll still be an uphill battle for Trump. While he's not starting from nothing (incumbency remains a heavy predictor of reelection) he's lost the one real advantage he had in 2016, that is his lack of a real political track record. Most voters only used his statements and semi-fictional biographies to try and see what he would look like as president (though all the evidence of this chaos and blatant corruption that exists now was at least partially visible prior to his election if you were more engaged and critical of him). Now he has to run on his record, which isn't that great if you care about more than the judiciary. His biggest risk is a sizable number of people in key states who turned out for him in 2016 not turning out in 2020, either because they can't support him any longer (women in particular have swung potentially enough to tip the election, assuming trends continue [https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/447308-trumps-giant-gender-gap-62-percent-of-women-say-they-are]) or they just aren't engaged enough to come out like they were in 2016. Trump already underperformed [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/09/despite-his-surprise-victory-trump-still-underperformed-most-republican-senate-candidates/] in 2016 compared to the senate results and barely kept the senate in 2018 while losing the house. All while being underwater in his approval ratings for virtually his entire presidency [https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html].

Nothings a sure thing, and I'll vote for Mike Pence if he was the democratic nominee, but he appears to need to gain ground somewhere if he is to win in 2020, absent a real change in the election system.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

So. Hey, Fire. This is my friend Gasoline. I'm sure you'll get along swimmingly.

Republicans move to nix primaries in show of support for Trump [https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/politics/republican-primaries-donald-trump/index.html]

Republicans officials in multiple states are on the verge of canceling their 2020 presidential primary elections in a show of support for President Donald Trump, even as some GOP candidates plan to challenge him.

Party leaders in South Carolina, Nevada and Arizona have all expressed support for nixing their presidential primaries, and are expected to make it official over the coming weeks. Leaders of the South Carolina and Nevada Republican parties will each meet Saturday to reach a decision, while the Arizona GOP Executive Committee will discuss its decision at a Sept. 14 meeting. Kansas Republicans are also considering nixing their primary, according Politico, which was the first to report on the moves by state Republican parties to cancel their primaries.

"This is nothing new, despite the media's inauthentic attempt to portray it as such," Arizona GOP Chairman Kelli Ward said. "Arizona Republicans are fired up to re-elect President Trump to a second term and will continue to work together to keep America -- and Arizona -- great."

The move to forgo presidential primaries reflects Trump's steel grip on the GOP establishment and the party's voters as he heads into his reelection campaign.

It is not unprecedented for state Republicans or Democrats to decide not to hold a presidential primary when an incumbent is running essentially uncontested. In South Carolina, a key early primary state, Republicans decided to nix their presidential primaries in 1984 and 2004, when Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were up for their second terms; while state Democrats skipped their contests in 1996 and 2012, with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama running for reelection, respectively.

"Whether or not to hold a presidential primary is a decision made by our state executive committee every four years," South Carolina GOP Chairman Drew McKissick said. "There is strong precedent on the part of both parties to not hold a primary when they control the White House."

What is different in this election, however, is that a number of Republicans have expressed interest in challenging Trump. Former Republican Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina has said he is nearing a decision on a possible bid, while two Republicans, former Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois and former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, are already in the race.

For these challengers, the inability to compete in multiple primaries could all but block an already unlikely path to victory. Meanwhile, it's unlikely that Trump would agree to primary debates, denying his GOP rivals an important platform.

"The RNC and the Republican Party are firmly behind the president," said RNC spokeswoman Blair Ellis, "and any effort to challenge him in a primary is bound to go absolutely nowhere."

Yes, that is the whole article. But there's important bits all throughout it.

Republicans... You have to understand how this looks. Please tell me that you do.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

So. Hey, Fire. This is my friend Gasoline. I'm sure you'll get along swimmingly.

Republicans move to nix primaries in show of support for Trump [https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/06/politics/republican-primaries-donald-trump/index.html]

Republicans officials in multiple states are on the verge of canceling their 2020 presidential primary elections in a show of support for President Donald Trump, even as some GOP candidates plan to challenge him.

Party leaders in South Carolina, Nevada and Arizona have all expressed support for nixing their presidential primaries, and are expected to make it official over the coming weeks. Leaders of the South Carolina and Nevada Republican parties will each meet Saturday to reach a decision, while the Arizona GOP Executive Committee will discuss its decision at a Sept. 14 meeting. Kansas Republicans are also considering nixing their primary, according Politico, which was the first to report on the moves by state Republican parties to cancel their primaries.

"This is nothing new, despite the media's inauthentic attempt to portray it as such," Arizona GOP Chairman Kelli Ward said. "Arizona Republicans are fired up to re-elect President Trump to a second term and will continue to work together to keep America -- and Arizona -- great."

The move to forgo presidential primaries reflects Trump's steel grip on the GOP establishment and the party's voters as he heads into his reelection campaign.

It is not unprecedented for state Republicans or Democrats to decide not to hold a presidential primary when an incumbent is running essentially uncontested. In South Carolina, a key early primary state, Republicans decided to nix their presidential primaries in 1984 and 2004, when Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were up for their second terms; while state Democrats skipped their contests in 1996 and 2012, with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama running for reelection, respectively.

"Whether or not to hold a presidential primary is a decision made by our state executive committee every four years," South Carolina GOP Chairman Drew McKissick said. "There is strong precedent on the part of both parties to not hold a primary when they control the White House."

What is different in this election, however, is that a number of Republicans have expressed interest in challenging Trump. Former Republican Rep. Mark Sanford of South Carolina has said he is nearing a decision on a possible bid, while two Republicans, former Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois and former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, are already in the race.

For these challengers, the inability to compete in multiple primaries could all but block an already unlikely path to victory. Meanwhile, it's unlikely that Trump would agree to primary debates, denying his GOP rivals an important platform.

"The RNC and the Republican Party are firmly behind the president," said RNC spokeswoman Blair Ellis, "and any effort to challenge him in a primary is bound to go absolutely nowhere."

Yes, that is the whole article. But there's important bits all throughout it.

Republicans... You have to understand how this looks. Please tell me that you do.

Yes, it does look bad. And I say this as someone who plans on coming out for the primary in my state.