logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> The Electoral College hasn't voted yet..., Is it possible to actively lobby to dump Trump?
Curmudgeon
post Nov 21 2016, 06:25 AM
Post #1


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,191
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



The general presidential election of 2016 is over. The United States Constitution however dictates that the actual election for President and Vice President is to be conducted by Electoral College which is scheduled to vote on December 19, 2016,

I was speaking with a very unhappy person after church this afternoon. I followed up our conversation with an e-mail because I needed to sit down at my computer to research our options. I began by saying: "Let's get out our Revere Ware pans, our wooden spoons, and mount our high horses to warn the world that 'The Donald is coming!'”

While I was trying tp research our options, Paladin Elspeth was reading aloud that Trump's wife does not wish to move into The White House, that Donald Trump feels that he can run the country very well from his Penthouse in New York City, that Donald Trump tweets because he doesn't know how to personally send an e-mail from a personal computer...

The unanswered question that I heard asked was: "Mr. Donald Trump, Have you ever read The Constitution of The United States of America?"

I do know that January 20, 2016 is not the date that I want to turn over the leadership of our nation to an individual who feels that being President of The United States of America is a part time job that he can work at from home while his children run his business empire from home as a "blind trust." ("Have fun kids!")

Perhaps we can communicate electronically with our Senators and Representatives at the Federal Level:

U.S. Senate: Senators of the 114th Congress allows you to contact your state’s Senators.

Directory of Representatives: House.gov allows you to search for your Federal Representative by your Zip Code.

Letters to the Editor seem to require the use of e-mail, but you know what your local papers are named.

I do not know the names of my state's Electors, so there is no way to lobby them directly and say, "Vote your conscience and not your party line.

It is likely that there will be members of Congress ready to impeach either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. (Those are the only two choices the Electoral College will have for President.) Donald Trump began his campaign while riding down an escalator and saying, "I've always felt the economy was better when Democrats are in charge. That's why I chose to run as a Republican."

The Republican Party should realize that 2018 is coming and an electorate under a President Pence or under a "part-time President Donald Trump" will not sustain their party through that election cycle, particularly if he attempts to Tweet his first State of The Union Address)
"
Questions for Debate:

Csn activists try to sway hard core Republican Party Electors that they will have a better chance in the Mid-Term Elections if they install (and likely impeach) Hillary Clinton?


Do members of The Electoral College have the freedom to vote their conscience?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 23)
Hobbes
post Dec 7 2016, 03:07 AM
Post #21


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,311
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(entspeak @ Dec 6 2016, 08:56 PM) *
Relatively evenly proportioned? In what way evenly proportioned?


Voting population by state in 1790

The states were all within about a factor of 3 of each other (and all were very small). Compare this to the difference between California and Maine today. Were that same ratio to exist today, then indeed having proportional EC college distribution would make more sense...no state would lost much relevance, and the relevance of its districts would increase.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Dec 7 2016, 01:53 PM
Post #22


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Dec 6 2016, 10:07 PM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Dec 6 2016, 08:56 PM) *
Relatively evenly proportioned? In what way evenly proportioned?


Voting population by state in 1790

The states were all within about a factor of 3 of each other (and all were very small). Compare this to the difference between California and Maine today. Were that same ratio to exist today, then indeed having proportional EC college distribution would make more sense...no state would lost much relevance, and the relevance of its districts would increase.


The fact that the voting populations were within a factor of three means they weren't relatively evenly proportioned. They were small, yes... relatively evenly proportioned? No. Besides, Congressional representation (and, therefore, all but two of a State's votes in the EC) was not apportioned based on voting population, but on total population (for these purposes, a slave counting as 3/5 of a person). And we have the congressional districts for the House based on population size, and two representatives for the Senate from each State regardless of population size, because the Founders saw that the States were not relatively evenly proportioned.

The relevance of the districts and the State Legislatures increase, yes. The original idea was that both a State's populace and the State Government would play a role in electing the President because the President would be representing both interests. That was the balancing point for smaller states and that would remain true today. Wyoming, for instance, has three electoral votes (one for its congressional district and the other two because of its representation in the Senate). Under the originally intended district mode, it's one district would choose an elector and the State Legislature would choose two. So, the importance of the State as a whole remains.

And, then there's Maine - which was viewed as a possibly key state in this election. Maine uses a proportional system similar to the way it was originally intended and has done since 1972. It has four electoral votes - two individually awarded based on who wins in each of its two congressional districts, and two awarded to the winner of the state-wide popular vote. Under that system, you not only have to do well on a per district basis, but you have to do well overall in the State.

Maine is actually leading the way in election reform. It also voted this year to adopt a ranked voting system for every position except President. If they adopted shortest split-line redistricting, they'd be close to having the fairest election system.

This post has been edited by entspeak: Dec 7 2016, 04:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Dec 14 2016, 03:17 PM
Post #23


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,311
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(entspeak @ Dec 7 2016, 08:53 AM) *
The fact that the voting populations were within a factor of three means they weren't relatively evenly proportioned.


No, it doesn't. Compare that to today (which is where the 'relatively' enters in). Also, the fact that the states were much smaller then is also important. With smaller states, districts are more important.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Dec 14 2016, 03:19 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
entspeak
post Dec 15 2016, 10:02 PM
Post #24


**********
Mammal

Sponsor
May 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,225
Member No.: 2,568
Joined: March-4-04

From: New York, NY
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Dec 14 2016, 10:17 AM) *
QUOTE(entspeak @ Dec 7 2016, 08:53 AM) *
The fact that the voting populations were within a factor of three means they weren't relatively evenly proportioned.


No, it doesn't. Compare that to today (which is where the 'relatively' enters in).


The "three times" figure you gave was irrelevant anyway because you were talking about voting population. Some states had roughly ten times the population of others. Perhaps, I shouldn't have specifically addressed the irrelevancy as I did.

QUOTE
Also, the fact that the states were much smaller then is also important.
The states were smaller? Which states were significantly smaller in 1787?

QUOTE
With smaller states, districts are more important.
How so? I mean, Wyoming has one district - the entire State. How does that make the district more important?

This post has been edited by entspeak: Dec 15 2016, 10:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: June 21st, 2018 - 02:07 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.