Trump Clinton
Popular vote 62,984,825 65,853,516
Percentage 46.1% 48.2%
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 ...
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
. . . 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
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."
- 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.
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
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.
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.
Liberals are sore losers.
Only if they can take our firesticks.
Good luck with 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.
-PJ
2016 would not have changed, but Romney would have won in 2012.
https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/
Well, apparently that would have made Pelosi happy!
They’ll still find at least a few liberal judges to endorse their views and try to legislate from the bench.
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!!!!!!!
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.
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.