Current Events > Hillary Clinton calls for EC to be abolished as she casts NY EC vote for Biden

(+) Yeah! (+)

s0nicfan posted...

I was thinking more in a situation where the state actually flipped red and she had to decide whether to follow the popular vote or not.

If the state flipped red she wouldn't be an elector, champ. Or do you mean to suggest there's a likelihood of the GOP selecting hillary as their elector?

---

Frolex posted...

If the state flipped red she wouldn't be an elector, champ. Or do you mean to suggest there's a likelihood of the GOP selecting hillary as their elector?

As I said, I don't think elected officials from either party should qualify as electors because their affiliation with a political party at that level brings into question their objectivity, but people are trying really fucking hard to make this some kind of weird gotcha when I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to state. Obsessing over Hillary is either intentionally or otherwise completely missing the point I'm making because it's not about her.

---

s0nicfan posted...

As I said, I don't think elected officials from either party should qualify as electors because their affiliation with a political party at that level brings into question their objectivity, but people are trying really fucking hard to make this some kind of weird gotcha when I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to state. Obsessing over Hillary is either intentionally or otherwise completely missing the point I'm making because it's not about her.

Electors are supposed to represent their party's candidate. Why do you think parties are the ones that select them (in most states at leas) in the first place, bud? Problem is you just don't understand how the system works in the first place. Which is somewhat understandable to be fair, EC is a stupid system

---

Sonic is really gonna argue this one no matter what isnt he lol.

---

Frolex posted...

Electors are supposed to represent their party's candidate. Why do you think parties are the ones that select them (in most states at leas) in the first place, bud? Problem is you just don't understand how the system works in the first place. Which is somewhat understandable to be fair, EC is a stupid system

What? No they're not. They're supposed to be highly educated neutral parties that take the popular vote into consideration but ultimately vote for who is best for the country with consideration for, but not absolute alliance to, the popular vote. The fact that it's just a checkbox at this point where the electors just vote for whoever wins is exactly why so many people (myself included) think the EC needs to go.

And BTW, federal office holders are explciitly not allowed to be electors, so it's not like the idea that someone holding office for a political party might be biased is out of left field. It's already coded into the rules. The only difference is the moment someone isn't holding office we're supposed to pretend that they're neutral.

---

s0nicfan posted...

What? No they're not. They're supposed to be highly educated neutral parties that take the popular vote into consideration but ultimately vote for who is best for the country with consideration for, but not absolute alliance to, the popular vote.

No, they are not supposed to be "neutral parties". Again, if this was the case, why are they not nominated by neutral parties in the first place?

---

there is legit no reason for the college to exist anymore

---

Electors aren't necessarily supposed to be "Neutral"...They're supposed to be knowledgeable and represent the majority of the state (or the party that won the state), but also be able to deviate if the state wasn't able to get the info to make a fully knowledgeable decision.. The system is outdated as the reason for that is not an issue at all in 2020.

---

The EC works. It's the perfect system for the united states. Popular vote is good for small countries but for a country as big and diverse as ours, the EC is the best method

November 2020
25 karma
623 AMP

E: Ew it's a MAGA account too
---

What a queen, fuck the haters.

s0nicfan posted...

As I said, I don't think elected officials from either party should qualify as electors because their affiliation with a political party at that level brings into question their objectivity, but people are trying really fucking hard to make this some kind of weird gotcha when I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to state. Obsessing over Hillary is either intentionally or otherwise completely missing the point I'm making because it's not about her.

That's the opposite of the truth. Do you not understand how electors are chosen? The GOP in the state picks a set of electors, and the Democrats pick a separate set of electors. Whichever party wins the popular vote has their electors vote. Electors should have a stake in their party. They are by design not neutral.

---

It's pretty hilarious watching this sonic dude fail over and over with his incorrect assertions about electors.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

Youre just flailing and talking nonsense

"Talking nonsense"? Which part?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution requires each state legislature to determine how electors for the state are to be chosen, but it disqualifies any person holding a federal office, either elected or appointed, from being an elector.

Hamilton also argued that since no federal officeholder could be an elector, none of the electors would be beholden to any presidential candidate.

"The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party."

"No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices."

---

EC is archaic af. Like a bunch of shit in this country. Get rid of it.

---

Abolish the Senate too.

Republicans need the EC, Democrats don't.

---

Bio1590 posted...

Ms Clinton

Did I miss something?

---

shockthemonkey posted...

The part where youre simultaneously arguing that electors shouldnt be tied to party because it gives them more freedom to be faithless while arguing that a former candidate shouldnt be an elector because theyre more likely to be faithless.

does an elector being tied to a political party, especially an elector that formally held office at the federal level for that party, compromise that electors objectivity? Yes or no.

---

divot1338 posted...

Did I miss something?

Ms doesn't indicate a woman's marital status, so no, you didn't miss anything. (God, I'm a nerd)

---

I don't like the idea of the Electoral College, as it is an outdated principle in our modern society, but getting rid of it is more nuanced than most people realize.

Why do we have an EC? There are two major reason, one practical to the times it was created and another a matter of inter-state compromises based on the difficulty of joined these independent states.

The practical reason is, performing a centralized national popular vote count until very recently would have been an impossible task, the technology and infrastructure just did not exist in a way you could manage this.

The second, and still somewhat relevant idea, revolves around State's rights and the general uneasiness of how much they trusted each other. By declaring a number of electors, every one knew and agreed to how much each other state could affect the vote. If each state is reporting there popular vote there becomes more opportunity for a state to desire to maybe add 10,000 votes or so to the candidate of their favor to try and tip the scales. Even if it didn't happen, the lack of an ability to validate the reported votes would have lead us to where we are today, but much sooner and at a time when States were much more powerful individual entities likely crumbling the Union.

This remains the central problem to getting rid of the EC, the States can't run the Presidential election if it is a popular vote. The US Government would have to take over how registration works and the process for voting. And at the same time the states still have to run their own elections for local and national representatives. Which likely means there are two sets of registration guidelines and potential different voting locations.

At the end of the day it will be a mess to undo the EC. It is possible and a thing that can be done, but it will take and overwhelming desire from the country to ever get it done.

DeadBankerDream posted...

The husband of a candidate being an elector DOES seem like a conflict of interest no matter how they wouldn't have any choice in how to cast their vote.

No more then literally anyone else.
---

I've said before but I vote in 3 different locations depending on whether it's a municipal, provincial, or federal election.

Of course the difference being they're all close to where I live (the farthest is a 10-minute walk) and I get auto-registered to vote regardless of what "party" is in charge (we don't have parties at the municipal level).
---

realnifty1 posted...

The second, and still somewhat relevant idea, revolves around State's rights and the general uneasiness of how much they trusted each other. By declaring a number of electors, every one knew and agreed to how much each other state could affect the vote. If each state is reporting there popular vote there becomes more opportunity for a state to desire to maybe add 10,000 votes or so to the candidate of their favor to try and tip the scales. Even if it didn't happen, the lack of an ability to validate the reported votes would have lead us to where we are today, but much sooner and at a time when States were much more powerful individual entities likely crumbling the Union.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but.... What? States wouldn't be able to just add votes to their tally because that would very easily get caught. Also states would have 0 reason to do so anyway because there would be nothing in it for them to do so. It's just them reporting a got x votes and b got y votes and then everything is added together from the other 49 states.
---

Heineken14 posted...

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but.... What? States wouldn't be able to just add votes to their tally because that would very easily get caught. Also states would have 0 reason to do so anyway because there would be nothing in it for them to do so. It's just them reporting a got x votes and b got y votes and then everything is added together from the other 49 states.

Have you been paying attention the last month? Nothing in it for them? It is clearly obvious from the last week that Texas believes they have a vested interest in Trump over Biden. Perception is reality, and most of that was in reference to the initial framers where adding some number of votes without it being noticeable would have been very easy. Even today it would not be very hard if the legislature wanted to, and that is what we are really talking about, not if any does, just if they could. Because when we are talking about the kind of power the presidency now wields, those who lose are going to demand more and more validation.

realnifty1 posted...

Have you been paying attention the last month? Nothing in it for them? It is clearly obvious from the last week that Texas believes they have a vested interest in Trump over Biden. Perception is reality, and most of that was in reference to the initial framers where adding some number of votes without it being noticeable would have been very easy. Even today it would not be very hard if the legislature wanted to, and that is what we are really talking about, not if any does, just if they could. Because when we are talking about the kind of power the presidency now wields, those who lose are going to demand more and more validation.

And Texas was told by the courts in no uncertain terms that it doesn't have such an interest, because it doesn't! The framers are centuries-dead, leave their aristocratic 18th-century governing concerns in the ground with them.
Allowing the interests of the states(any states) to supersede those of the people is, full stop, undemocratic and that's why the EC and the Senate need to be abolished.

s0nicfan posted...

does an elector being tied to a political party, especially an elector that formally held office at the federal level for that party, compromise that electors objectivity? Yes or no.

The Electors are more for show. Since they are chosen by the party that wins the state. That is why once a candidate has 270 electors it's considered over.

---

Was she supposed to not cast the vote as a form of protest? Is it optional?

---

s0nicfan posted...

I don't think elected officials from either party should qualify as electors because their affiliation with a political party at that level brings into question their objectivity,

That's why they do that. Because they are not objective.

Otherwise it would invite chaos.
---