tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post7357066030211116393..comments2024-03-28T11:28:14.625-05:00Comments on Althouse: "The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states may require presidential electors to support the winner of the popular vote and punish or replace those who don’t..."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-87429375728457304192020-07-07T01:07:50.327-05:002020-07-07T01:07:50.327-05:00This decision surprised me, because I foolishly th...This decision surprised me, because I foolishly thought that the constitution protected people from being unduly coerced into voting one way or another. But by golly, it does not!<br /><br />However, what does this imply? The Court has essentially ruled that because vote protection is absent from the Constitution, people can be fined for how they vote. This is all very well when one is trying to stop electors from reneging on their pledges, but surely it is open season on other kinds of votes too? For example, the State of Maryland may be able to fine the Chief Justice, who currently resides in that state, should he not vote on the Court as they desire! Why not? There's nothing in the Constitution that says they can't!Blairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02865567065778234500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-45050728933663685352020-07-06T22:39:41.023-05:002020-07-06T22:39:41.023-05:00"Probably if we thought about it some more we..."Probably if we thought about it some more we could come up with other flaws"<br /><br />Well, it has no way to force a national recount.<br /><br />When anyone talks about popular vote for President, ask what country's system they would adopt.Roryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06544975859782391441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52678815902165217292020-07-06T21:17:21.844-05:002020-07-06T21:17:21.844-05:00@DBQ: ME and NE do something different. They award...@DBQ: ME and NE do something different. They award two electoral votes by the statewide popular vote winner and then allocate the remainder of their votes by the winner in each congressional district.That would seem to me to be an easy and fair way to do it rather than by percentages.<br /><br />Prior to the Civil War I think several other states did this. Another variation was to have the two extra votes allocated by the legislature.<br /><br />I think it its first election after becoming a state TN created unique elector districts separate from the congressional districts but I think it was only done that one time.MountainManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16392947114551111527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-88642131297359473112020-07-06T19:19:09.292-05:002020-07-06T19:19:09.292-05:00When I lived in PA, the Elector's name was lis...When I lived in PA, the Elector's name was listed under the candidate's on the ballot in the general election. In the (closed) primary, the Electors were voted on separately. Now that I've moved, I can't say I've paid attention to that detail.GingerBeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18133501750392935390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-26495895293324067882020-07-06T18:30:01.666-05:002020-07-06T18:30:01.666-05:00The NPV is stupid beyond words. Setting aside the ...The NPV is stupid beyond words. Setting aside the fact that it is impermissible as per the constitution if it were to happen this would almost guarantee the beginning of the dissolution of the USA. And if that train were to leave the station then why would anyone assume the states themselves wouldn't be indivisible? Taking things to their extreme logical conclusion three thousand counties would become the reformed USA. Of course this speculation is silly but it isn't anymore silly than the NPV. cubanbobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03746305669005611456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-16320601395347787452020-07-06T18:16:03.572-05:002020-07-06T18:16:03.572-05:00gadfly said...
I am confused. If majority vote win...gadfly said...<br />I am confused. If majority vote wins, what purpose does the Electoral College, as provided for in the Constitution serve? Where did SCOTUS get the power to change our form of government to a mobocracy?"<br /><br />Are you really that ignorant? Without the EC and the Senate having equal representation for all states there wouldn't be a United States. Did they teach civics in your middle school?cubanbobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03746305669005611456noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-13400895455842103742020-07-06T18:10:20.022-05:002020-07-06T18:10:20.022-05:00Mountain Man said I agree with DBQ but would take...Mountain Man said <i>I agree with DBQ but would take my criticism of the National Popular Vote Compact beyond hers.<br />Yes, the Compact is an agreement among states that would circumvent the Electoral College and push the country toward an election process that the framers of our republic repudiated, the popular vote. </i><br /><br />The fairest way to handle the Electoral College votes would be on a State by State basis where the States votes are apportioned according to how that State's population voted.<br /><br />For instance California has 55 electoral votes. They could be apportioned by the total votes throughout the state....or by dividing the State into electoral voting districts for the Presidential race. <br /><br />A look at 2016 shows that Hillary got 61% of the vote in the State and Trump got the majority of the remaining 39%.... A fair distribution would be to allot the 55 electoral votes along those percentages. This way the 30-ish percent of the population isn't just aced out. Sort of a state level electoral college.<br /><br />It would be fair. But then...the Democrats are not about being fair.<br /><br />The Red Counties in California are just screwed because we don't have the population. It is basically an exercise in futility for Conservative/Republican type of voters to vote in a national or even statewide election. We do it anyway.<br /><br />This dynamic in California is exactly what the US would look like if the electoral college were to be abolished. Like Ca. where SF and LA are the deciding areas....it would be the most populated states like NY, California that would be deciding the race.<br /><br />Montana and Idaho and Kentucky....might as well just go suck eggs.<br /> Dust Bunny Queenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15115422951538885247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-86877142189464952802020-07-06T18:09:52.781-05:002020-07-06T18:09:52.781-05:00Blogger Narr said...
Yeah, I heard on National Peo...<br />Blogger Narr said...<br />Yeah, I heard on National Peoples' Radio. The other big story was that "Protesters have been<br />destroying Confederate statues around the country in recent weeks." Got that? It's Protesters vs Confederates. Nothing to see here, folks. 7/6/20, 11:20 AM<br /><br />Yep, "protesters" destroying Confederate Statues - like big Confederate "Columbus", Madison's own General Heg, Grant's multiple statues, etc. Hell they'll come for the 'Statue of Liberty' next. <br /><br />We all know that BLM is a Marxist organization and cares less about the "Confederacy" or "Slavery" and wants "Capitalism" destroyed as it's primary goal.hstadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16651012668289648446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-44150284282669863902020-07-06T17:59:32.949-05:002020-07-06T17:59:32.949-05:00No, Drago-
gadfly seemingly asks a legit question...No, Drago-<br /><br />gadfly seemingly asks a legit question, then lbgtqrstxhe/r/they/them/(insert Romulan pronouns) assures itself the answer is the mob.Browndoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09531556749827894771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-38912929989674645682020-07-06T17:47:00.771-05:002020-07-06T17:47:00.771-05:00Perhaps, but did they want some unelected guy thro...<i>Perhaps, but did they want some unelected guy throwing out millions of votes? I don't think so</i><br /><br />It wasn't millions of votes, most of the time not even thousands. Remember the franchise was much more restrictive, not even all White men could vote. <br /><br />The Founding Fathers rightly feared the mob and democracy, which is why they worked so hard to build a republic instead.Gahriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16795449308207016641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1983528444478375982020-07-06T17:33:05.640-05:002020-07-06T17:33:05.640-05:00gadfly: "I am confused. If majority vote wins...gadfly: "I am confused. If majority vote wins, what purpose does the Electoral College, as provided for in the Constitution serve? Where did SCOTUS get the power to change our form of government to a mobocracy?"<br /><br />You know, I don't think gadfly is kidding here. I think he/she/xe is serious.Dragohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079148433908004715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-53344103096838139832020-07-06T16:30:53.595-05:002020-07-06T16:30:53.595-05:00Once the electors are thoroughly hemmed in by stat...Once the electors are thoroughly hemmed in by state laws, the Electoral College will be a vestigial organization. It will have only an arithmetic function to fulfill with no leeway for any odd events that might UNforeseeably occur. And once it is nothing but an arithmetic formula to be applied, why not change the formula? Or heck, get rid of the formula, that antiquated function from back in the dark, unenlightened past of those dead white founders.<br /><br />Way too easy and therefore tempting to unprincipled humans such as we might find among the ranks of highly partisan participants. <br /><br />What could possibly require good judgment outside of the arithmetic formula? A little test for your imagination. What if Joe Biden were elected in the national balloting, but died on Nov. 20? Should AOC really become President? Especially after she blurts out how she can now really jettison the Constitution and devote both her and this woebegone nation's loyalties to the progressive governments in Beijing, Havana and Teheran?<br /><br />Or what if Biden is elected and still walks and talks -- but the FBI discovers on Nov. 20 evidence that the Democratic Party had violated many electoral laws in its ballot harvesting, financial contributions, and in-kind service donations from Xi? Organizing a full investigation alone would carry the agency past the Electoral College voting date, and the full investigation itself might take six to nine months. So, so unlikely, to be sure; but, what if? <br /><br />What if Biden wins by one state, let's say Pennsylvania, where three of the Democratic electors know that there was extensive fraud in Allegheny County, Erie County and oh, Pike County, that swung the final total away from Trump? And, when they discuss it, and see some of the earliest evidence of tainted totals, eight more of the 20 electors reluctantly come to agree with them? OK, that last part is farfetched, I know.<br /><br />But there are all sorts of juicy contingencies that could be imagined with only a little effort. Human intervention into the formula might come in handy, just as the founders foresaw. But now the Supreme Court thinks we're beyond all that stuff. Just waaayback history, completely out of the realm of possibility in this modern, enlightened world.Kai Akkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763866746930049115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-86047680438683453482020-07-06T16:19:40.374-05:002020-07-06T16:19:40.374-05:00"The founders never ever wanted a completely ...<i>"The founders never ever wanted a completely Popular Vote or Democratic system."</i><br /><br />Perhaps, but did they want some unelected guy throwing out millions of votes? I don't think so. Not sure how it happened, but the founders dropped the ball on this one. bagoh20https://www.blogger.com/profile/10915174575358413637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-57807550574447830022020-07-06T16:18:18.819-05:002020-07-06T16:18:18.819-05:00I agree with DBQ but would take my criticism of th...I agree with DBQ but would take my criticism of the National Popular Vote Compact beyond hers.<br />Yes, the Compact is an agreement among states that would circumvent the Electoral College and push the country toward an election process that the framers of our republic repudiated, the popular vote. But there may be complications in attempting to implement it, even if the Compact were approved by Congress.<br /><br />For example, the Compact only binds states that are a party to it and only after the total number of electoral votes equals or exceeds the majority (currently 270). But it indirectly also expects that every state uses a popular vote to select the electors. There is no requirement in the Constitution that a popular vote be used. Prior to the Civil War, some states allowed the legislature to select the electors, either entirely or some part of them. Thus, it would only take one rouge state, even one outside the Compact, to revert to such a method and suddenly there is no longer a national popular vote total on which to base the decision.<br /><br />Probably if we thought about it some more we could come up with other flaws but that is the first one that popped into my mind when I first heard about this several years ago. It would seem that unless the states in the Compact could somehow enforce every state having a popular vote - and they can't - it cannot be guaranteed to work. MountainManhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16392947114551111527noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74754996484022702342020-07-06T16:09:35.242-05:002020-07-06T16:09:35.242-05:00robother said...
The phrase "winner of the po...robother said...<br />The phrase "winner of the popular vote" is ambiguous, at least to a Colorado voter, whose State has recently adopted the idiotic direction that electors vote for the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how a majority of the State's voters voted (contingent on some number of other States adopting the same idiocy). I take it that this case does not speak to the Constitutionality of that law.<br />------------==========<br />as there is not nor can be an entity to provide "binding official certification" of "National Popular Vote" that law is idiotic in the extreme though par for USA style legislation and jurisprudence.Narayananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03007500560335813723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28391114777982665122020-07-06T15:42:20.499-05:002020-07-06T15:42:20.499-05:00Another blog article that I have published:
The R...Another blog article that I have published:<br /><br /><a href="http://people-who-did-not-see.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-role-of-fbis-chief-defense-counsel.html" rel="nofollow">The Role of the FBI's Chief Division Counsel in Hiding Dossier Reports</a><br /><br />This article includes the following passage:<br /><br />.... An unidentified person at the [FBI's Rome-based official Michael] Gaeta interview asked why the NYFO CDC [FBI's New York Field Office's Chief Division Counsel] did not send the Dossier reports directly to FBI Headquarters. In other words, why was Gaeta tasked repeatedly to e-mail Dossier reports from Rome when the NYFO CDC already had all the reports from Gaeta? Nobody at the interview could explain this mystery.<br /><br />My explanation of that mystery is that the Dossier reports were given to the NYFO CDC to conceal the fact that Gaeta had sent the reports from his Rome office to anyone else in the FBI. I speculate that the NYFO CDC did not have to register its receipt and possession of the Dossier reports.<br /><br />The NYFO CDC thus provided a potential plausible denial that any FBI official except Gaeta ever had even seen any of the Dossier reports. Eventually such a plausible denial became unnecessary, because the FBI officially embraced the Dossier reports. Even then, however, the NYFO CDC maintained a fiction that the NYFO CDC never had possessed the Dossier reports. That is why the NYFO CDC itself did not send the Dossier reports to FBI Headquarters.<br /><br />The Horowitz report maintains that fiction, that plausible denial. The Horowitz report pretends that the Crossfire Hurricane team did not receive any Dossier reports until September 19, even though [FBI Counterintelligence Chief, Joe] Priestap must have received Dossier reports long before that date.<br /><br />The routing of the Dossier reports from Gaeta's Rome office to the Crossfire Hurricane team was deliberately delayed. Part of that delay was the receipt and keeping of the Dossier reports at the NYFO CDC, without normal documentation of that receipt and keeping.<br /><br />The FBI did not want the public to ever learn the role that the Dossier really played in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation from the very beginning of that investigation.Mike Sylwesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09987402330015664312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-18218235790083312882020-07-06T15:36:14.773-05:002020-07-06T15:36:14.773-05:00Here is a blog article that I have published.
Th...Here is a blog article that I have published. <br /><br /><a href="http://people-who-did-not-see.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-change-of-cabals-attitude-toward.html" rel="nofollow">The Change of the Cabal's Attitude Toward Steele</a><br /><br />My article includes the following passage:<br /><br />.... the cabal changed its attitude toward Steele in mid-September [2016].<br /><br />Before mid-September, the cabal was focused on dealing with a future October Surprise that might cause the defeat of Hillary Clinton on Election Day, November 8. If embarrassing e-mails of Clinton were released a few days before Election Day, then during those intervening days top officials of the US Intelligence Community would assure the public that the e-mails had been stolen AND ALTERED by Russian Intelligence. This assurance would have to convince the public only for those few days. After the election, the e-mails could turn out to be unaltered.<br /><br />The cabal's initial preparation for an October Surprise might be helped by the Dossier reports -- or the preparation might be troubled. If top Intelligence officials would be trying to assure the public that Russian Intelligence was to blame for the October Surprise, then allegations that, for example, Trump had been filmed watching prostitutes urinate on a hotel bed might detract from the attempted gravity of the assertions.<br /><br />The cabal did not need Steele. The cabal had the CrowdStrike findings and Downer's report about Papadopoulos. That evidence would suffice to convince the public that Russian Intelligence had stolen the e-mails in order to affect the US election.<br /><br />In the cabal's perspective before mid-September, Steele was mostly an unreliable, uncontrolled trouble-maker. That is why the cabal told [Christopher Steele's FBI handler Michael] Gaeta to get its permission before forwarding Steele's reports to the FBI in the USA and why Gaeta was told to block some reports and eventually to avoid Steele.<br /><br />In mid-August, however, the cabal's attitude toward Steele began to shift. On August 15, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page indicated in their text messages that discussions had begun about perhaps preparing "an insurance policy" for the possibility that Trump won the election. If Trump won by just a small margin in the Electoral College .....<br /><br />In relation to the cabal's new "insurance policy", Steele's Dossier might turn out to be useful. The discussions within the cabal began on about August 15 and culminated shortly before September 19, when the NYFO was instructed to delivery its six Dossier reports belatedly to the Crossfire Hurricane team in FBI Headquarters. .....Mike Sylwesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09987402330015664312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-80519826750051876322020-07-06T15:26:44.130-05:002020-07-06T15:26:44.130-05:00I am confused. If majority vote wins, what purpos...I am confused. If majority vote wins, what purpose does the Electoral College, as provided for in the Constitution serve? Where did SCOTUS get the power to change our form of government to a mobocracy?gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219461694806089345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-72501687752484847902020-07-06T15:25:59.718-05:002020-07-06T15:25:59.718-05:00I am confused. If majority vote wins, what purpos...I am confused. If majority vote wins, what purpose does the Electoral College, as provided for in the Constitution serve? Where did SCOTUS get the power to change our form of government to a mobocracy?gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06219461694806089345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-8076229683894797272020-07-06T15:25:29.824-05:002020-07-06T15:25:29.824-05:00A major reason for obtaining a FISA warrant agains...A major reason for obtaining a FISA warrant against Carter Page -- a Russia-specialist foreign-policy advisor on Donald Trump's campaign staff -- was to obtain communications that could be used for "the insurance policy". <br /><br />If Trump won by a narrow margin in the Electoral College, then accusations that he had won only because of Kremlin collusion might cause the necessary small number of Electoral College voters to switch their votes from Trump to Clinton so that she would win the election after all.<br /><br />James Comey, John Brennan and James Clapper would inform the public that -- according to a consensus of all 17 Intelligence agencies -- Trump had won only because of such collusion.<br /><br />This consensus lie already had been tested in October, when Clinton had succeeded in denouncing Trump on the basis of an alleged such consensus. Nobody in the US Intelligence Community contradicted Clinton's accusation, and the mass media parroted the accusation without asking any Intelligence officials for clarification.<br /><br />The seizure of all communications related to Carter Page -- with a two-hop scope -- would provide some substance for many leaks from Intelligence officials to Trump-hating journalists. These leaks would tendentiously insinuate that Trump's associates indeed had participated in such collusion with the Kremlin.<br /><br />The Electoral College voted on December 19, 2016 -- about six weeks after Election Day, November 8. Those six weeks provided enough time for the "insurance policy" to convince some Electoral College voters to change their minds, but not enough time for the collusion accusation to be disproved.<br /><br />The "insurance policy" was not enacted, but only because Trump won the Electoral College by a large margin. Mike Sylwesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09987402330015664312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1481420601947108112020-07-06T15:21:18.544-05:002020-07-06T15:21:18.544-05:00I say we just count big city votes as 3/5 of a per...I say we just count big city votes as 3/5 of a person. Living that close to so many people makes you more of a cluster of cells in a community organism rather than a sovereign individual. Yep, 3/5 is actually generous. bagoh20https://www.blogger.com/profile/10915174575358413637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-79577778062283387892020-07-06T15:15:06.057-05:002020-07-06T15:15:06.057-05:00I don't know how you can have a democracy wher...I don't know how you can have a democracy where millions of votes can just be overridden by some obscure person that nobody voted for. The Founders screwed up on this by not making it clear. The only job of these electors should be to make sure the majority vote is valid and passed on to the national election.bagoh20https://www.blogger.com/profile/10915174575358413637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-15176085806202000522020-07-06T15:09:11.647-05:002020-07-06T15:09:11.647-05:00I don't think it would be constitutional for a...I don't think it would be constitutional for a state, individually or as part of a compact, to award its electoral votes on any basis other than the expressed will of the people of that state for a particular candidate. This means either popular statewide vote, popular vote by congressional or other districts, or a vote by the (popularly-elected) legislature. A state can't just award EVs according to some formula or rule that isn't based on the expressed will of the people, because that's a fundamental prerequisite of our republican (small-"r") system. For example, a state couldn't devise a scheme that says the tallest or shortest candidate gets the electoral votes, or the candidate whose birthplace is closest to the state's own state capital, or who wins a certain game of chance. By the same token, a state can't base it's award of EVs on how ANOTHER state voted any more than they could base it solely on the votes of Dixville Notch, NH. The "national popular vote" may sound to some like something official and something that could legitimately serve as a basis for electing a president, but within the overall scheme of Article II, it's just another example of an impermissible, extrinsic formula or device. A state can't just defer to another state or group of states' votes because doing so would deprive the state's own people of having a say in the awarding of electoral votes. ConradBibbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07499779211752084653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39615862134451529632020-07-06T13:13:55.354-05:002020-07-06T13:13:55.354-05:00President Bartlet's status as a Constitutional... <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z0iuWh3sek" rel="nofollow">President Bartlet's status as a Constitutional scholar hardest hit</a>rehajmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14554135440560051175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-44083360933444681442020-07-06T13:00:20.105-05:002020-07-06T13:00:20.105-05:00Get rid of the electoral college and replace it wi...Get rid of the electoral college and replace it with the winner being whoever wins twenty six states. Then the flyover bumfuck states become very, very important. After the first such election the Left will push to reinstate the EC. While we are at it, require all voters for any office at any level of government be a US citizen in possession of their full civil rights and can only cast their vote in the last place they were residing six months and a day. cubanbobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03746305669005611456noreply@blogger.com