Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, August 21, 2019

Colorado's presidential electors do not have to vote for the candidate who wins the state's popular vote, the powerful 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled Tuesday evening, a decision that could have major ramifications for future elections.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The ruling binds six states with a total of 30 electoral votes of which 14 generally trend blue and 16 red.

#1 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-21 02:24 PM | Reply

We need a Constitutional Amendment to guarantee one man one vote with no overriding Electoral College. The Oligarchs can and will use the EC to overrule democracy as long as they can.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-21 02:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Danni, I could go along with that if they repeal the 17th. The States gave up a lot with that one. The repeal of the electoral college will make small States even more weak with the 17th intact.

The States lost their individual power to the Fed in the 17th. With no EC, the small States are finished

#3 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-21 02:57 PM | Reply

I honestly don't care if you agree or not, our nation desperately needs for the majority of our citizens to honestly believe that they, as a majority, do govern our nation. Allowing a minority to rule undermines democracy and unity as a nation.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-21 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Danni, so if the popular vote was seefor a Republican, you would have a problem with the electors casting their vote for the Democrat?

#5 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-21 03:41 PM | Reply

I can see a lot of congessmen losing their jobs if they don't obey their constiuency, so I don't think this law will have much impact.

#6 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-21 04:27 PM | Reply

"Danni, so if the popular vote was seefor a Republican, you would have a problem with the electors casting their vote for the Democrat?"

Yes I would. I never claimed Nixon or Reagan weren't legitimately elected. Bush 1 was duly elected but his stupid son was not and neither was Trump. All I want is actual fair elections without gerrymandering, huge money interests and out right election theft through hacking of voting machines. Why would Republican not want the same thing?

#7 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-21 04:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"With no EC, the small States are finished"

Every citizen of every state would have the exact equal amount of influence on elections regardless of the size of their state.
Your argument is one from the slave era, the slave states felt the need to prvent abolition by the more populous non-slave states. The problem of slavery is no longer there so the EC is a dinosaur needing to be ended and forgotten. They should have done it immediately after the Civil War.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-21 04:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Every citizen of every state would have the exact equal amount of influence on elections regardless of the size of their state.
Your argument is one from the slave era, the slave states felt the need to prvent abolition by the more populous non-slave states. The problem of slavery is no longer there so the EC is a dinosaur needing to be ended and forgotten. They should have done it immediately after the Civil War.

POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-08-21 04:42 PM | REPLY

No actually they wouldn't. If they did away with the EC there would be no need for politicians to come to the smaller states. Therefor our voices would be drowned out by New York California and Texas.

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-08-21 04:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

" Bush 1 was duly elected but his stupid son was not and neither was Trump."

Actually they were, Danni. As I told you yesterday, popular vote is not how a president is elected. And again, t's as if the manager of a losing baseball teams complained to the umps, "But we got more hits and on bases. We should be the winner." But that's not how baseball works, either.

Both candidates know the rules of the game, or so they should. Neither has an advantage over the other. If one candidate uses the wrong strategy as happened in '16, that person loses.

#10 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-21 04:46 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Your argument is one from the slave era, the slave states felt the need to prvent abolition by the more populous non-slave states. The problem of slavery is no longer there so the EC is a dinosaur needing to be ended and forgotten. They should have done it immediately after the Civil War.

POSTED BY DANNI "

Um, Danni, you need to bone up on your American history. The Constitution was ratified in 1787. The slavery issue was still many decades in the future. The EC did not come about to aid the southern states.

#11 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-21 04:50 PM | Reply

"Actually they were, Danni. As I told you yesterday, popular vote is not how a president is elected. "

It is easily proven that more votes were suppressed than the margin Trump won with in the states that gave him the EC win. If they weren't suppressing votes Hillary Clinton would have won. I know you don't like to hear that but I can't pretend it isn't true because it is true.

So, in your mind, it's ok for the majority of our citizens to be ruled by the minority. What significant issues would a President deal with which would cause him to ignore small state in favor of big states if every vote counted the same? We don't live in 1863. Then there were significant differences but today not so much. A 3 million difference in votes should not be ignored. That's more votes than some of the states that favored Trump even have. It's bad enough that small states also get the same two Senators as us in bigger states but unfairness is simply undemocratic. And, I do't think you could make a case that it has resulted in better or more fair government. Show me a President elected by a minority who led well. I can point to two who have been utter disasters.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-21 05:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Um, Danni, you need to bone up on your American history. The Constitution was ratified in 1787. The slavery issue was still many decades in the future."

I think you need to learn your history, the slavery issue was front and center at the Constitutional Convention. Southern states would not ratify it without the EC. Slavery was probably the most important issue before during and after the Constitution was written. It caused the Civil War and divided this country for another 100 years and is still affecting us today.

"7. The Slave Trade"

teachingamericanhistory.org

#13 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-21 05:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It is easily proven that more votes were suppressed ...

You should provide your evidence to Marc Elias, HRC's campaign legal counsel. Despite his attempt "... to systematically catalogue and investigate every theory that has been presented to us ..." he found "... that effort has not, in our view, resulted in evidence of manipulation of results[.]" https://medium.com/@marceelias/listening-and-responding-to-calls-for-an-audit-and-recount-2a904717ea39

#14 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-21 05:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Madison proposed the electoral college beafuse the smaller populated states feared they would not be represented and refused to ratify the Constitution as written which was a popular vote for the president. Yes, the slave owning states were an issue, but because of their small population, not the fact they owned slaves. So the electoral college and the 3/5 compromise came to be.

Excellent book on the writing of the Constitution by Catherine Drinker Brown called Miracle at Philadelphia gives a lot of detail on the writing of the Constittion. It's one of he best books I've read on the subjecct.

www.amazon.com

#15 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-21 05:49 PM | Reply

Then Coloradans needn't evven bother to vote for president since their representatives will be voting as they wish. Talk about being disenfranchisd!

#16 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-22 03:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Talk about being disenfranchisd!

Is that a feature or a bug. To be disenfranchised one must be enfranchised to begin with. Unfortunately, that's not the case with the electoral college.

This decision is not the be all to end all. The dissension has only begun. Derek Muller on Why the 10th Circuit's Decision on Faithless Electors is Potentially Radical and Important (and Why the 10th Circuit en banc or SCOTUS Could Well Reverse on Procedural Grounds)

BTW, where'd that tweet bul***t come from, I didn't post it? And, yeah, the decision does affect the National Popular Vote movement because it addresses the power of states to control electors.

#17 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-22 04:23 AM | Reply

If they did away with the EC there would be no need for politicians to come to the smaller states.

Nobody has ever shown me data that a politician "coming to a state" during a campaign somehow inures to the benefit of that state after the politician is elected.

I can watch any candidate speak in any place at any time in the palm of my hand. What do i care if they are in some town 200 miles from me in Wisconsin, or in California? I literally could not care less.

#18 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-22 04:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

On topic, why even have nationwide elections anymore? Just let a few "electors" pick the President since apparently that's what they're allowed to do anyway.

The electoral college is a cruel joke that can't end soon enough. And yes, i know it's in the Constitution. I also don't care.

#19 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-22 08:09 AM | Reply

I could go along with that if they repeal the 17th. The States gave up a lot with that one.

So we can end the EC and abolish the Senate? Fine by me, but i have a hard time understanding your argument. The Senate benefits small rural states in an incredible way.

#20 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-22 08:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So we can end the EC and abolish the Senate? Fine by me, but i have a hard time understanding your argument. The Senate benefits small rural states in an incredible way.

#20 | POSTED BY JOE

So, 50%+1 rule with ZERO protections for the minority?

No thanks.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-22 08:47 AM | Reply

And what about protections for the majority under our present system? Be honest Jeff, you just want your side to win and you don't really care how they go about doing it.

#22 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-22 09:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nice work, Danni. Your comments on this thread reflect my views well!

#23 | Posted by cbob at 2019-08-22 10:17 AM | Reply

And what about protections for the majority under our present system? Be honest Jeff, you just want your side to win and you don't really care how they go about doing it.

#22 | POSTED BY DANNI

Says one of the most 'ends justify the means' posters on this site.

Look in the mirror.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-22 10:30 AM | Reply

So, 50%+1 rule with ZERO protections for the minority?
No thanks.

Right now we have 46.1% rule with zero protections for the majority. I'll take what you described, thanks.

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-22 10:31 AM | Reply

The bicameral system of congress doesn't harm the majority. It blunts the majority's ability to harm the minority. That's a good thing IMO and it's one liberals relish when it prevents Republicans from running roughshod over Democrats and their constituents. Take the Senate...everybody hates the filibuster until the love it. Example, when Harry Reid and the Democrats nuked it for judicial nominees you all cheered loudly when Republicans couldn't block certain Obama nominees. Fast forward a couple of years and you were all mortified when Senate Democrats had no ability to block the likes of Devos, Pruitt or Amy Coney Barrett. You reap what you sow and I guarantee you were all silently cursing Harry Reid for his short-sightedness.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-22 10:35 AM | Reply

Every citizen of every state would have the exact equal amount of influence on elections regardless of the size of their state.

POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-08-21 04:42 PM | REPLY

No actually they wouldn't. If they did away with the EC there would be no need for politicians to come to the smaller states. Therefor our voices would be drowned out by New York California and Texas.

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr

Good post Laura! Way to shut up Danni!

#27 | Posted by boaz at 2019-08-22 10:36 AM | Reply

Right now we have 46.1% rule with zero protections for the majority. I'll take what you described, thanks.

#25 | POSTED BY JOE

The divisions of power prevent the majority from running roughshod over the minority.

The minority has no power to impose it's will on the majority. That's a very good thing. See #26.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-22 10:37 AM | Reply

Right now we have 46.1% rule...

#25 | POSTED BY JOE

That is simply false. The minority cannot pass legislation on its own. Any minority priority cannot get passed without the help of the majority.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-22 10:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You reap what you sow and I guarantee you were all silently cursing Harry Reid for his short-sightedness. - #26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-22 10:35 AM
Be honest JeffJ, they were far more likely blaming Mitch for the rules change that happened 3 years prior to his being majority leader. That he fought against.
www.theatlantic.com

#30 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-22 10:40 AM | Reply

It blunts the majority's ability to harm the minority.

Only if you conflate "governance" with "harm." And under your loi , the current system has the minority "harming" the majority. Less people getting what they want is not defensible.

#31 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-22 10:45 AM | Reply

The minority has no power to impose it's will on the majority.

So a president who was elected by a minority of voters, and a Senate "majority" who represents millions fewer voters, can't appoint cabinet heads and confirm federal judges? That's news to me.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-22 10:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

when Harry Reid and the Democrats nuked it for judicial nominees you all cheered loudly

I didn't, so don't use that garbage against me.

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-22 10:48 AM | Reply

The minority cannot pass legislation on its own.

You know damn well the minority controlling the presidency and senate can do a whole lot of things. Through appointing cabinet heads and the rulemaking process they can implement policies that affect every single American. Stop being so intentionally ignorant Jeff.

#34 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-22 10:52 AM | Reply

#33 I was saying "you" in a general sense. If you opposed that move then good on you.

Only if you conflate "governance" with "harm." And under your loi , the current system has the minority "harming" the majority. Less people getting what they want is not defensible.

#31 | POSTED BY JOE

That's not correct - it's about a separation of powers so that the majority can't impose its will on the minority without compromise.

So a president who was elected by a minority of voters, and a Senate "majority" who represents millions fewer voters, can't appoint cabinet heads and confirm federal judges? That's news to me.

#32 | POSTED BY JOE

Of course they can and before the filibuster was nuked the minority had the ability to block candidates they found to be egregious.

#35 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-22 10:54 AM | Reply

You know damn well the minority controlling the presidency and senate can do a whole lot of things. Through appointing cabinet heads and the rulemaking process they can implement policies that affect every single American. Stop being so intentionally ignorant Jeff.

#34 | POSTED BY JOE

That is true. But that crap is temporary. Ask Obama about the longevity of his phone and pen rule. Legislation has a permanence that EO's and Executive memos don't enjoy.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-22 10:56 AM | Reply

Through appointing cabinet heads and the rulemaking process they can implement policies that affect every single American. Stop being so intentionally ignorant Jeff.
#34 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-22 10:52 AM

Cabinet heads and rules changes still only work to provide guidance on the laws put in place by the Congress...and only with a consent of the majority. Had Congress not chosen to cede power to the Executive, even that capability would not exist. The majority chose to cede authority (something they can still undo) and now you're claiming that the decision by the majority allows governance by the minority.

confirm federal judges
judges have no power to govern. They can merely interpret the rules set forth by....wait for it....the majority.
Both of your arguments fail on logical grounds, I'm afraid.

#37 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-22 11:04 AM | Reply

"The minority has no power to impose it's will on the majority. That's a very good thing. See #26."

The minority elected President is attempting to have the entire ACA thrown out. That will harm the majority in many ways.

#38 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-22 11:06 AM | Reply

It will also hurt that same minority that put Trump in office but they are too stupid to know that.

#39 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-22 11:07 AM | Reply

Had Congress not chosen to cede power to the Executive, even that capability would not exist.

But they did. Care to join me in reality?

The majority chose to cede authority (something they can still undo) and now you're claiming that the decision by the majority allows governance by the minority.

I am claiming that. Because it's true. You've refuted nothing.

judges have no power to govern.

Partisan judges frequently implement the will of their appointer, proper role be damned. Again, let me know when you want to enter reality. I'm here.

#40 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-22 11:13 AM | Reply

Well, now that the GOP is spending money like drunken sailors ballooning the deficit from 2.4 under Obama to a whopping 4.7 under "conservative" trump and his congress, what is an internet "Economic Major" left to do on the DR?

That's right, back to pretending to be a "Constitutional Scholar"

HARHAR

#41 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-08-22 11:23 AM | Reply

Yes, Congress did ceded power to the executive. The majority made a decision to do so. The majority has said 'this is how we want it to be'. You're now arguing that the way that the majority chose it to be is 'tyranny of the minority'...when it was the majority who chose it to be that way.

Look Joe, the majority says 'it's going to be this way, we want control by the minority but we can take it back whenever we like'.
You're claiming that this ^^^ is tyranny by the minority.

You're wrong.

#42 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-22 11:23 AM | Reply

Therefor our voices would be drowned out by New York California and Texas.

#9 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2019-08-21 04:46 PM | REPLY |

So you think it is better to give your voices a bullhorn so in Wyoming each voter gets 1/58,319th of an electoral vote but in California each voter only gets 1/159,159th of an electoral vote? How is it fair that a Wyoming voter's vote counts 3 times as much as a California vote?

Why is minority rule better than majority rule? What can the majority do when in power that the minority can'd do when the electoral vote gives them power?

What will fix things is that if we change how elections are funded.

For National elections first all donations go into a pool. Donations can be earmarked for the primary or general election. All funds are split between the states based on eligible voters. The money is then split equally among the candidates from all parties. Then each candidate can focus their energy where they want but the money must be spent in the state it is apportioned to and candidates can only spend twice the amount apportioned to the smallest state until and unless they max out spending in the small state. When they do the next smallest state becomes the marker. This would accomplish 2 things. It would force candidates to campaign in the small states and it would also give 3rd parties the opportunity to get their message out.

Funds not spent are returned to the pool. No building a war chest for the next election by losing this one.

#43 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-08-22 01:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

You may as well try to incorporate a change to the 2nd amendment while you're working to get the 1st changed to allow that plan to take effect, hatter5183.

#44 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-22 02:16 PM | Reply

Why is it believed that hacking got Bush and Trump in office? How did Obama win twice?

#45 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-22 04:23 PM | Reply

I have a problem with States having more Electors due to illegal immigration.

The number of House members are determined by population. That includes illegals.

The number of electors should be based on citizens only.

Your State, Your House Reps.
The President is all States. Therefore, no State should benefit having illegals to prop up their electors count.

#46 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-22 04:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

the majority says 'it's going to be this way, we want control by the minority but we can take it back whenever we like'.
You're claiming that this ^^^ is tyranny by the minority

The majority said "we want tyranny by the minority." I'm calling that tyranny by the minority. Because that's what it is, regardless of how many people chose to implement it. Once implemented, it is what it is.

#47 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-22 04:29 PM | Reply

"I have a problem with States having more Electors due to illegal immigration."

I don't.

But I can maybe kinda see where you are coming from.

For example, there are states that have more electors because they choose to house a lot of prisoners, who were convicted for crimes in other states. How is that fair?

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-22 04:43 PM | Reply

"I have a problem with States having more Electors due to illegal immigration."

I don't.

That's where I think liberals like you are brain dead. We could have a bunch of citizens of other countries come to our nation and reside in certain states, vote there just because they are living there at the moment and you would accept the outcome? Why dont just have a bunch of our enemies come and reside somewhere in large numbers and vote in Sharia law?

Does that make sense to you? Of course it does, you are a liberal.

#49 | Posted by boaz at 2019-08-22 08:49 PM | Reply

So a president who was elected by a minority of voters

That's not how we vote for a President. Please educate yourself on our voting procedures before you comment please.

#50 | Posted by boaz at 2019-08-22 08:50 PM | Reply

We could have a bunch of citizens of other countries come to our nation and reside in certain states, vote there just because they are living there at the moment and you would accept the outcome?

Non citizens cannot legally vote in our elections.

What other hysterical nonsense do you want to share with us?

#51 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-08-22 08:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Please educate yourself on our voting procedures before you comment please.
#50 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Says the guy wringing his wrists over illegal immigrants voting in our elections.

#52 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-08-22 08:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

All this stems from liberal butt-hurt because the ------- they put up against Trump couldn't beat him. If Trump had lost to Hillary, none of this electoral college crying would be hapenning right now.

Dems, next time put up an honest candidate who doesn't have a ton of baggage. Then make sure (s)he has an election committee who understands the Constitution and what it takes to win a presidential election in the United States. It's that simple.

#53 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-22 08:57 PM | Reply

Anybody who says illegal immigrants are voting in significant numbers is a complete moron. But trump proves america has a ton of complete morons.

#54 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-08-22 08:59 PM | Reply

If Trump had lost to Hillary, none of this electoral college crying would be hapenning right now.

Think way back to the year 2000 and BushJr vs AlSnore.

It's not the first time Republicans lost the popular vote and won the EC.

#55 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-08-22 09:02 PM | Reply

If Trump had lost to Hillary, none of this electoral college crying would be hapenning right now.

Sure it would. It would just be the other side crying.

#56 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-08-22 09:04 PM | Reply

If Trump had lost to Hillary, none of this electoral college crying would be hapenning right now.

Yes, an element of an electoral system that sometimes operates to thwart the will of the voters does get more complaints when it actually does that thing. Any other genius observations?

#57 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-22 09:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yes, an element of an electoral system that sometimes operates to thwart the will of the voters does get more complaints when it actually does that thing. Any other genius observations?
#57 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-22 09:04 PM

Which state's electoral voters thwarted the will of their voters?

#58 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-23 06:22 AM | Reply

Stupid question that doesn't follow from my premise. I never said anything about individual states. I'm talking about the system as a whole thwarting the collective will of the voters. And yes, i know this is how the system is designed. I'm saying i dont like the design.

#59 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-23 06:51 AM | Reply

You don't like that the states elect the president.
Ok.
You'll need to push an amendment to resolve it.
Or potentially just updating the number of representatives per person in the states. That would also serve the dual purpose of diluting the effect of monied interests (in the House anyway) on government practices.
I can just image how long the congressional hearings are going to last when each lawmaker gets 2.3 seconds to pose questions or schedules interviews for a month at a time.

#60 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-23 07:51 AM | Reply

Electoral voters represent voters and voters who are not legally allowed to vote.
That's the problem I have.

The House represents the people within the state - legal and illegally here.
However, the electoral college is based off the number of House Reps.

IMO, that is wrong.

The electoral college picks the President. Illegals can't vote, so they can't choose the President.
But, their presence does give them someone to vote for the President - that's were it is wrong.

#61 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-23 12:04 PM | Reply

Why not make a MINOR change to the Electoral College?

Instead of doing away with it, do away with the Winner Take All State System. Right now, in MOST states, the winner of the state gets all the electoral votes.

Give it a percentage basis. You win 75% of Texas, you get 75% of its electoral votes.

Small States are still protected. Rarely will you have a candidate win the Electoral Vote but lose the Popular Vote by large margins although they could still lose by small margins.

This is more how its done in the rest of the world.

#62 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-08-23 01:13 PM | Reply

You'll need to push an amendment to resolve it.

I know.

That's why i said "And yes, i know this is how the system is designed."

Doesn't have anything to do with how dumb your question was.

#63 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-23 01:25 PM | Reply

Give it a percentage basis.
#62 | Posted by Sycophant

A reasonable solution that I would support.

#64 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-23 02:08 PM | Reply

Give it a percentage basis.
#62 | Posted by Sycophant

A reasonable solution that I would support.

#65 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-23 02:08 PM | Reply

Doubly so, d***nit.

#66 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-23 02:10 PM | Reply

Why not just put a name on lottery balls equal to number of electoral votes.

The we just randomly draw a ball.

#67 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-23 05:30 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort