I am confused. Isn't the the same thing as eliminating the electoral college? It sounds as if they could ignore the electoral vote and go by the popular. In that case with the cemetery vote and the illegals voting, and the harvesting, and the people voting in several states -- doesn't this mean if the Democrats cheat enough they could take the electoral votes away from Trump if the popular vote is in high numbers for Biden?
While I love the electoral college, I really dislike this electorates crap. Gives wiggle room to media, and the hype of rogue ones. I assume they once served an actual purpose, but that seems to be moot now.
No, that isn't what this ruling is about. This ruling imo bolsters the Electoral College. These cases were attempted end runs around the Electoral College and SCOTUS has blocked them. But of course all you'll hear from the MSM is "ELECTORAL COLLEGE MUST VOTE FOR POPULAR VOTE" to push that narrative but they're playing fast and loose with the facts of the case - surprising, I know.
This is a narrow ruling where each STATE is empowered (as they should be) to determine the rules of their electors. Electors that don't follow those rules (faithless electors) can be replaced by the state.
In 2016, some CO electors attempted to vote for Trump despite CO going for Clinton. They were blocked, and this made its way to the SCOTUS.
Separately, the never-trumpers were trying all things to get state electors in states that Trump won to vote against him. That was a separate case too.
States may still want to change their laws so that electors in their state vote for the winner of the USA popular vote - there is a compact of DEM states that have moved toward this, but it has never been triggered. (GOP wins State, but DEM wins USA popular vote, or vice versa). If/when that happens, there will be additional litigation I'm sure.
Common misunderstanding.
Because some states with a lower population still get represented, despite not having the same density or ratio of people per elector.
Electors are more about representing an area than a population, which means areas of more people get less representation per-person.
I am confused. Isn't the the same thing as eliminating the electoral college? It sounds as if they could ignore the electoral vote and go by the popular. In that case with the cemetery vote and the illegals voting, and the harvesting, and the people voting in several states -- doesn't this mean if the Democrats cheat enough they could take the electoral votes away from Trump if the popular vote is in high numbers for Biden?
Or am I just misunderstanding this?
While I love the electoral college, I really dislike this electorates crap. Gives wiggle room to media, and the hype of rogue ones. I assume they once served an actual purpose, but that seems to be moot now.
Their purpose existed in a time where it was harder to travel and we didn't have instant communication/2-Hour flights
They are heavily ceremonial
We just don't need the electors themselves. The solution is to just have the electoral point total awarded based on the state outcome.
Well, they still serve a purpose if one candidate doesn't receive majority of the votes in the electoral college. It could happen again one day.
What you don't like Ed Buck being in charge of selecting the POTUS?
No, that isn't what this ruling is about. This ruling imo bolsters the Electoral College. These cases were attempted end runs around the Electoral College and SCOTUS has blocked them. But of course all you'll hear from the MSM is "ELECTORAL COLLEGE MUST VOTE FOR POPULAR VOTE" to push that narrative but they're playing fast and loose with the facts of the case - surprising, I know.
This is a narrow ruling where each STATE is empowered (as they should be) to determine the rules of their electors. Electors that don't follow those rules (faithless electors) can be replaced by the state.
In 2016, some CO electors attempted to vote for Trump despite CO going for Clinton. They were blocked, and this made its way to the SCOTUS.
Separately, the never-trumpers were trying all things to get state electors in states that Trump won to vote against him. That was a separate case too.
States may still want to change their laws so that electors in their state vote for the winner of the USA popular vote - there is a compact of DEM states that have moved toward this, but it has never been triggered. (GOP wins State, but DEM wins USA popular vote, or vice versa). If/when that happens, there will be additional litigation I'm sure.
No. Nothing to do with that.
This is regarding Colorado who voted for hilary and had the actual electorates voting for someone else
Thank you. I knew I had to be misunderstanding something.
Common misunderstanding. Because some states with a lower population still get represented, despite not having the same density or ratio of people per elector.
Electors are more about representing an area than a population, which means areas of more people get less representation per-person.
Electroal College exists so the people in the cities cant dictate what happens to the land and land owners of the nation.
Thank you.
Electors are assigned based on State population, not territory.