Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part IV

[Bob001]

I get what you are saying, but once the colleges have chosen, surely the popular vote (even if a landslide the other way) must be irrelevant till the next presidential election.

I'm a bit skeptical about the popular vote swaying the prez's policy. They have won.

You seem to have basic misconceptions about how the Electoral College (just one) works. In each state voters select electors who are bound to vote for a particular candidate. The electors don't act independently. The number of electors is equal to the number of the state's senators and representatives. The candidate who gets the most popular votes (often a majority, sometimes just a plurality) wins all of that state's electors (there are two states, I believe, that distribute them proportionally). The candidate who wins the most electoral votes wins the White House.

In 2000, Florida was so hotly contested because the popular vote was so close. Its electoral votes determined who became President, even though Gore won half-a-million more votes nationally than Bush. Bush's actual Florida margin came down to about 600 votes. But that was a rare and unusual circumstance.

In short, individual votes do matter, at least in the swing states. You could argue that if you are a Democrat in Mississippi or a Republican in California, your vote doesn't count for much. But that's demographics, not the Electoral College.

 

[Bob001]

You know. Parent's home, college, I don't really care. But let them VOTE!

But they can vote now. Nothing's stopping them. The only issue is what address students can use.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trump in Mexico, "I employ so many Mexican Americans, wonderful people."

Body language is tense.

Now Trump is going on about ending illegal immigration.

"We didn't discuss who pays for the wall."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

By the same standards that apply to everybody else: What's the address on their driver's license? Where is their car registered and insured? Where do they pay taxes? Student status is not the issue. An 18-year-old can be independent and self-supporting, and a 30-year-old TA living in campus housing might still list his mom's house on all his important documents. It's case by case, starting with the person's intent.

Legal residence has legal definitions. It's not just where you sleep. One thing colleges have to think about is that if a person is a legal resident for voting purposes, is he also a legal resident for tuition purposes, meaning that after the first year -- maybe less -- an out-of-state student at a state school would not pay fat out-of-state tuition? You think that wouldn't go to court? Could someone who is not a student just rent a room somewhere for the purpose of voting in the local election, then go home? Could a locality boost its voter rolls artificially to increase the money it might get from federal programs? Etc. "Let'em vote!" doesn't nearly cover all the issues.

And yet in the primary, some voters were not allowed to use the dorm as an address.

 

[Bob001]

What happens if the delegate goes against the popular vote?

Are there repercussions?

That's called a "faithless elector." It's pretty rare, since electors are selected by their party to represent their party's candidate. But it has happened, and the consequences, if any, are prescribed by their states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

Perhaps this is the place to note that all elections in the U.S. are conducted by states, counties and municipalities. There is no national election, even for the two national offices.

 

[Donal]

How about that. He went.

 

[acbytesla]

But they can vote now. Nothing's stopping them. The only issue is what address students can use.

Why make it so hard? It's only because you're afraid they will vote.

 

[halleyscomet]

What happens if the delegate goes against the popular vote?

Are there repercussions?

That varies state by state. By and large the electors tend to follow the popular vote however.

State Control of Electors

There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions. The states with legal control over their electors are the following 29 and D.C.:

 

[cullennz]

You seem to have basic misconceptions about how the Electoral College (just one) works. In each state voters select electors who are bound to vote for a particular candidate. The electors don't act independently. The number of electors is equal to the number of the state's senators and representatives. The candidate who gets the most popular votes (often a majority, sometimes just a plurality) wins all of that states electors (there are two states, I believe, that distribute them proportionally). The candidate who wins the most electoral votes wins the White House.

In 2000, Florida was so hotly contested because the popular vote was so close. Its electoral votes determined who became President, even though Gore won half-a-million more votes nationally than Bush. Bush's actual Florida margin came down to about 600 votes. But that was a rare and unusual circumstance.

In short, individual votes do matter, at least in the swing states. You could argue that if you are a Democrat in Mississippi or a Republican in California, your vote doesn't count for much. But that's demographics, not the Electoral College.

Sorry mate. It is because to me. (admittedly not the brightest bulb in the room), it seems so complicated.

I'll try it another way. Just questions

• Are the electors chosen before the election, or are they chosen after the popular vote. If the later why have them? Just go with the popular vote.
• If the Electors are already chosen before election day and have to vote a certain way doesn't this mean everyone knows already who is going to win?

 

[Tony Stark]

Sorry mate. It is because to me. (admittedly not the brightest bulb in the room), it seems so complicated.

I'll try it another way. Just questions

• Are the electors chosen before the election, or are they chosen after the popular vote. If the later why have them? Just go with the popular vote.
• If the Electors are already chosen before election day and have to vote a certain way doesn't this mean everyone knows already who is going to win?

Basically, you're voting for electors who are members of that party. The states that Hillary wins will have Democratic electors that will vote for her while the states that the orange turd wins will have Republican electors that vote for him.

As for why not just to with the popular vote, because the electoral college is written into the Constitution. Neither party really has much motivation to change it. It allows them to focus their efforts in Presidential elections on a fraction of the states.

 

[Bob001]

Why make it so hard? It's only because you're afraid they will vote.

It shouldn't be hard. I endorsed voting by mail. The question is where should a student be registered to vote? Keep in mind that for every jurisdiction that gains a voter, another one loses one. I'm not sure it's a good idea to concentrate all the youth vote in college towns, removing their (presumably progressive) influence from all the places they are from.

 

[Tony Stark]

So apparently Donald and Pena talked about the wall but Donald was too much of a cuck to demand that Mexico pay for it.

 

[Bob001]

Sorry mate. It is because to me. (admittedly not the brightest bulb in the room), it seems so complicated.

I'll try it another way. Just questions

• Are the electors chosen before the election, or are they chosen after the popular vote. If the later why have them? Just go with the popular vote.
• If the Electors are already chosen before election day and have to vote a certain way doesn't this mean everyone knows already who is going to win?

Try to pay attention. Each party selects a slate of electors before the election. In effect, a vote for a candidate is a vote for his electors. The popular vote determines which electors will vote in the electoral college.

The Electoral College was created in the Constitution, to balance large state vs. smaller interests and for other reasons. It has functioned in different ways over time. But abolishing it would require a Constitutional amendment, for which there is little if any support.

 

[Dr. Keith]

By the same standards that apply to everybody else: What's the address on their driver's license? Where is their car registered and insured? Where do they pay taxes? Student status is not the issue. An 18-year-old can be independent and self-supporting, and a 30-year-old TA living in campus housing might still list his mom's house on all his important documents. It's case by case, starting with the person's intent.

Legal residence has legal definitions. It's not just where you sleep. One thing colleges have to think about is that if a person is a legal resident for voting purposes, is he also a legal resident for tuition purposes, meaning that after the first year -- maybe less -- an out-of-state student at a state school would not pay fat out-of-state tuition? You think that wouldn't go to court? Could someone who is not a student just rent a room somewhere for the purpose of voting in the local election, then go home? Could a locality boost its voter rolls artificially to increase the money it might get from federal programs? Etc. "Let'em vote!" doesn't nearly cover all the issues.

Why do you assume the residency requirements for voting are the same as the residency requirements for other purposes? Such as in-state tuition?

There is no reason to have one standard for all purposes. That is why we don't have one standard for all purposes.

I see no reason why a person should be allowed to vote wherever they are sleeping. So long as they only vote in one location, and so long as it is actually somewhere that they are actually living.

 

[halleyscomet]

Sorry mate. It is because to me. (admittedly not the brightest bulb in the room), it seems so complicated.

I'll try it another way. Just questions

• Are the electors chosen before the election, or are they chosen after the popular vote. If the later why have them? Just go with the popular vote.
• If the Electors are already chosen before election day and have to vote a certain way doesn't this mean everyone knows already who is going to win?

I've written a thumbnail summary, but a better explanation can be found here:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

The general idea when this was all cooked up was that the President would be elected by what's essentially a temporary House of Representatives, elected by the people for the explicit job of electing a President, and no more. This would, in theory, make the electors more objective than the sitting congress.

Each party running a candidate for President must nominate electors.

This means if a state has 5 Electoral college seats, the Democrats, the Republicans, Green party and everyone else on the ballot will each nominate 5 electoral college nominees.

When people vote for President, they are in fact voting for the electors for that candidate's party. For example, if I vote for Hillary Clinton, I am, in reality, voting for the Democratic elector.

When the votes are counted, most states will grant a total win to the electors for a particular party based upon the state's popular vote. There are a small number of states who do not have an "All or noting" law for the electoral college and will, instead, split up the electoral college seats based upon the state's popular vote.

The electors meet, vote, and the new POTUS is selected.

 

[acbytesla]

Try to pay attention. Each party selects a slate of electors before the election. In effect, a vote for a candidate is a vote for his electors. The popular vote determines which electors will vote in the electoral college.

The Electoral College was created in the Constitution, to balance large state vs. smaller interests and for other reasons. It has functioned in different ways over time. But abolishing it would require a Constitutional amendment, for which there is little if any support.

It also was created because of the challenging issue of managing a nationwide popular vote in 1789 and a certain amount of distrust of the people.

 

[dudalb]

Basically, you're voting for electors who are members of that party. The states that Hillary wins will have Democratic electors that will vote for her while the states that the orange turd wins will have Republican electors that vote for him.

As for why not just to with the popular vote, because the electoral college is written into the Constitution. Neither party really has much motivation to change it. It allows them to focus their efforts in Presidential elections on a fraction of the states.

It also gives the states that have small population (Nevada and Alaska for example) a bigger say then if it was decided by popular vote alone. It was part of the "Great Compromise" that created the US Constitution.

 

[dudalb]

So apparently Donald and Pena talked about the wall but Donald was too much of a cuck to demand that Mexico pay for it.

SOmehow I think this will not turn out well for Donald.....High Risk,Low Reward.

 

[cullennz]

I've written a thumbnail summary, but a better explanation can be found here:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

The general idea when this was all cooked up was that the President would be elected by what's essentially a temporary House of Representatives, elected by the people for the explicit job of electing a President, and no more. This would, in theory, make the electors more objective than the sitting congress.

Each party running a candidate for President must nominate electors.

This means if a state has 5 Electoral college seats, the Democrats, the Republicans, Green party and everyone else on the ballot will each nominate 5 electoral college nominees.

When people vote for President, they are in fact voting for the electors for that candidate's party. For example, if I vote for Hillary Clinton, I am, in reality, voting for the Democratic elector.

When the votes are counted, most states will grant a total win to the electors for a particular party based upon the state's popular vote. There are a small number of states who do not have an "All or noting" law for the electoral college and will, instead, split up the electoral college seats based upon the state's popular vote.

The electors meet, vote, and the new POTUS is selected.

Aah!

Thanks

This I get

 

[acbytesla]

It shouldn't be hard. I endorsed voting by mail. The question is where should a student be registered to vote? Keep in mind that for every jurisdiction that gains a voter, another one loses one. I'm not sure it's a good idea to concentrate all the youth vote in college towns, removing their (presumably progressive) influence from all the places they are from.

I don't care. A person should be able to say I live here and this is where I'm going to cast my ballot and the people should respect that choice.

You're acting as if college students that effectively live where they attend college should have no rights or representation where they live. Nevrr mind that they buy groceries and are a part of the fabric of that community.