Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Still bruised from Clinton loss, left takes aim at Electoral College in court
Foxnews.com ^ | 10/19/17 | By Fred Lucas, Fox News

Posted on 10/19/2017 9:57:17 AM PDT by blueyon

A liberal-led push to overhaul the Electoral College could be moving from the op-ed pages to the courtroom, as a Harvard professor who flirted with a dark-horse Democratic presidential bid last year vows litigation to change the system.

Criticism of the Electoral College was resurgent in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss. Clinton recently said she wants the system "eliminated." The latest effort isn’t aimed at dismantling the structure entirely – but rather, the winner-take-all system used by 48 states in awarding electors, which ends up focusing presidential races on a handful of battlegrounds.

“With a winner-take-all, most of America is ignored,” professor Lawrence Lessig said in previewing his legal case – which, like any challenge to the Electoral College, faces a steep uphill climb.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: clinton; election; trump; voting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 last
To: blueyon
                    Trump         Clinton
Popular vote 	62,984,825 	65,853,516
Percentage 	    46.1% 	    48.2%

Electoral College Map


61 posted on 10/19/2017 12:55:48 PM PDT by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Since we are a Republic, and the election is actually an election of 50 individual let’s get rid of the electoral college.
In its place we’ll determine the outcome by majority rule. The candidate who wins the most states wins the election. Can’t get anymore democratic than that


62 posted on 10/19/2017 1:12:05 PM PDT by Joshua (Jimmy is the reason for this)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy
Each State shall appoint [its Electors] in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.
. . . which obviously does not require a popular vote to be conducted. And if it does not even require a popular vote at all, it can hardly be construed to allow any Federal court challenge at all to the decisions which come from the states. And that makes Bush v. Gore bad law [SCOTUS should have punted, IMHO on the basis that Florida's Electors had, under FL law, already cast their ballots (for Bush)].

But if Federal courts have no jurisdiction over the selection of Electors, it follows that Federal courts would have no jurisdiction over how the election within a state is conducted. Hence, the legislature has plenary authority to determine who is, and who is not, on the ballot. State legislatures should pass laws enforcing things like

Article 1 Section 9:
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
by keeping people like SoS Clinton (who was scoffing up money from foreign “princes” like it was going out of style) off their ballots for Electors. It wouldn’t be necessary to get all states to do so; it would only take a few purple states doing that to make electing a scofflaw like Hillary “too hard."

63 posted on 10/19/2017 1:16:10 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (Presses can be 'associated,' or presses can be independent. Demand independent presses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
All that Bush v Gore did was use the "equal protection" of the 14th amendment to stop the cherry-picking of counties for a recount, saying that if there were to be a recount it had to be statewide (i.e., equal protection of all voters in Florida to have their votes recounted, not just Broward, Dade, and West Palm Beach voters).

I'd like to know why that was "bad law," as it was no law at all. If the Florida legislature had a statewide vote for electors, then recounts should be statewide, too. The Florida Supreme Court went rogue when it allowed only the heavily Democrat counties to be recounted, and SCOTUS stopped that.

-PJ

64 posted on 10/19/2017 1:36:16 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: blueyon
“Two of the last three presidents were inaugurated without winning the popular vote,” he noted, referring to Trump’s victory in 2016 and George W. Bush’s in 2000.

Strictly speaking, HRC did NOT win the popular vote either. In BOTH of WJC's presidential wins, he too received only a plurality of the popular votes.

Clearly this lawyer isn't concerned about the majority of voters, he is only concerned about electing democrats.

What do you suppose would be his reply if Republicans offered to accept his proposal, contingent upon a National Voter ID card? No card, absolutely No vote. Also, ALL votes must be IN-person.

65 posted on 10/19/2017 1:54:35 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (When your business model depends on slave labor, you're always going to need more slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
Also Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

66 posted on 10/19/2017 2:02:57 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (When your business model depends on slave labor, you're always going to need more slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Liberals are sore losers.


67 posted on 10/19/2017 2:12:37 PM PDT by EdnaMode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backwoods-engineer

Only if they can take our firesticks.
Good luck with that.


68 posted on 10/19/2017 2:20:53 PM PDT by Leep (Less talk more ACTiON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
I'd like to know why that was "bad law," as it was no law at all. If the Florida legislature had a statewide vote for electors, then recounts should be statewide, too. The Florida Supreme Court went rogue when it allowed only the heavily Democrat counties to be recounted, and SCOTUS stopped that.
SCOTUS itself warned, “Don’t go citing this Bush v. Gore decision in any future filing before this court.” (quote very approximate)

Holding that the EV already cast for Bush were legit would have been the same thing, but less intrusive. After all, the ballots had already been mailed to Washington - so it would have been just another way to, as Clinton in artfully put it, “stop the voting.” But the other out would have been to say that “If those ballots aren’t true, we don’t know what is true. But they do make crystal clear that Florida never intended not to cast its Electoral votes. Those votes may be uncountable in time for the mandated deadline - but they are not thereby extinguished.

That would have been significant because it woulda meant that number of EVs required for the absolute majority of EVs required by the Constitution would not be reduced. Meaning, that if the House didn’t accept Florida’s EV ballots for Bush, Gore would not win the EC but rather that the issue would default to the (Republican-controlled) House of Representatives.


69 posted on 10/19/2017 5:13:04 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (Presses can be 'associated,' or presses can be independent. Demand independent presses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
I thought Florida was planning to send two elector slates to Congress, further increasing the confusion, and that was a factor in SCOTUS putting a stop to it.

-PJ

70 posted on 10/19/2017 5:51:51 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: hanamizu

2016 would not have changed, but Romney would have won in 2012.

https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/


71 posted on 10/19/2017 6:01:32 PM PDT by jjotto ("Ya could look it up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jjotto

Well, apparently that would have made Pelosi happy!


72 posted on 10/19/2017 6:21:39 PM PDT by hanamizu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

They’ll still find at least a few liberal judges to endorse their views and try to legislate from the bench.


73 posted on 10/19/2017 6:29:52 PM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; All
"I thought they were going to impeach Trump. Pence would take over & appoint Crooked Hillary VP, then Pence would resign & Crooked Hillary would be queen. Isn’t that the plan?"

I heard it differently Pence being an honorable guy would resign for... I can't remember the illogical reasoning.

Then as Speaker Paul Ryan would be president and HE would appoint HIllary as VP and then....I can't remember how they would get rid of him and... she would be queen somehow...

All I know is that when I heard Rush lay this out, I had a long belly laugh!!!!!!!

74 posted on 10/19/2017 8:14:07 PM PDT by The Bat Lady (The 1st Amendment isn't to keep religion out of Government but Government out of religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bubba_Leroy
The only avenue open to a radical court here would be to declare that IF a State Legislature chooses to appoint electors by the IVM they all use now (that's the Idiots Voting Method), that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the appointment of electors be proportional to the popular vote in each state so as not to deny the minority their right to representation in the electoral college.

This would mean, for example, that California 2016 Hillary would have gotten 34 EV instead of 55 and Donald Trump would have gotten 17 EV instead of 0.

Someone should do the math (maybe someone already has) to see the outcome of a Fourteenth Amendment reform of the Electoral College.

Even the most radical court could not change the distribution of electors among the States, since that is fundamental in a way that "winner take all" is not.

75 posted on 10/20/2017 3:36:37 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Single payer is coming. Which kind do you like)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao
They need to read the Constitution.

That by itself ain't gonna cut it. Have you noticed how Baraq Insane stacked our courts with "His Judges"? Have you also noticed the GOPe led Congress will do nothing to attack Insane's corruption and unconstitutional acts?

National Popular Vote bill, It has been enacted into law in 11 states with 165 electoral votes (CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA). This interstate compact will take effect when enacted by states with 105 more electoral votes.






76 posted on 10/20/2017 8:10:31 AM PDT by Cheerio (#44, The unknown President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EdnaMode





77 posted on 10/20/2017 8:18:14 AM PDT by Cheerio (#44, The unknown President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson