Some Trump electors voting illegally

[Minoosh]

Was it SNL? I don't remember. But someone in a skit said that trying to take the presidency away from Donald once he'd been granted it was like trying to take a loaded machine gun back from a chimpanzee. You just hope he can't figure out how it works, eventually gets bored and puts it down.

Bring on Jan. 20 so the meter can begin officially running with no presumed tolerance for gaffes due to inexperience. Trump will have no learning curve. As far as I know he has not acknowledged that he has anything to learn. Perhaps he is the most accomplished troll ever, and his perceived gaffes are in fact masterful misdirection, soon to become apparent to those who say he is ill-suited for the presidency. Then we can relax, knowing that the buffoonery is all part of a coherent strategy.

I agree that the time is past to look for remedies in the fine print of Electoral College guidelines. Trump will be president, and we all will take it from there.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If you were truly the pedant you claim to be (and act as), then you would know that to be an office holder you literally need an office where you can fulfill the obligations of your office. I doubt that electors are given an office. Maybe some of them have one at home, like I do.

Not correct. Wikipedia describes office holder as "other official" after listing two others. The link to official says,

"An official is someone who holds an office (function or mandate, regardless whether it carries an actual working space with it) "

To be super pedantic, you are mixing up all pedants with pedants focused on the literal meaning of words.

As the definition of pedant is "a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning," that doesn't mean solely literalist meaning.

 

[sunmaster14]

Sorry bob, your are stuck with lame duck trump. Being outside the US there is nothing I can do about, or even give a damn. You borked your country. Live with it. Stand by for episode 1 of "I'm a President, get me out of here".

All of us non-USians are aghast that you would elect an idiot as president. Most USians agree. It is no different than the UK appointing a buffoon as foreign secretary.

The tragedy is that the US could have been great, but has chosen to be mediocre, trash TV populist bollocks.

One might as well consider "Keeping up with the useless Kardashians" as news. Who remotely cares?

So how about the ISS? Why does the US not care? Why must the US rent seats from the russians?

They don't care about it.

If that is the US priority, so be it. The simple fact is that the US has now lost any space race, pure and simple. Once the US was the creme de
la creme. Now it is a backwater.

This is a depressing notion.

Call me when the US has a viable means of reaching the ISS at least. The russians pretty much do it at will and have done so for decades. Yanks cannot. Why? The interference of politics.

There's still a space race? What a quaint concept. Oh, and for the record, the US has already elected idiots to the Presidency. One of them is just finishing off his second term. We survived. A little worse for wear though. Fortunately, that idiot's entire 8 year reign will be pretty much expunged by the next idiot in the sequence.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Im not trolling ... just curious .. the wiki article was bit verbose for the time I have right now.. I don't know what spotted eagle means

So seriously ... previously elected politicians actually decide who is president? ... NOT the voters?

Why have an election at all then??

The election is to determine who the electors are. You are voting on a slate of electors.

Faith spotted Eagle is a person who received one electoral vote for president today.

 

[Random]

Hey, just let them console their loser mentality. It makes them feel good!

The EC is NEVER going to go away no matter how many sore losers cry and complain when they lose. The only thing that could actually happen is that more States might go to proportional distribution of Electors, as opposed to winner take all.

What smaller State is going to vote to allow major urban centers in CA and NY decide a Presidential election? The answer is none.
Congressional elections by popular vote is fine because people within districts usually have common interests. However, a farmer in Iowa or a rancher in Utah has very little common interest with city dwellers in LA and NYC. The urban dwellers don't know grass from a woolen carpet or a tree from a lamp post, so they don't get to exclusively decide the chief executive. It's a good system that properly represents the whole, so it won't change in the next 1,000 years.

Actually, DC, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont have already signed up, and they are only worth three or four EC votes each.

Frankly, I have never understood the “small states will get ignored, so keep the Electoral College” argument.

Wyoming gets ignored right now. So do North and South Dakota. Even larger states like Massachusetts get ignored on the Presidential level, just because whether they are going to vote Dem or Rep is a statistical certainty. The value of a state in the EC is not determined by its size, but by how wishy-washy its population is. (“We don’t want the Presidency decided by New York, California, and Texas! We demand that it be decided by Florida, Michigan, and Ohio!”)

A lot of people might be willing to trade in their big proportional Electoral College vote that no one questions for a smaller direct vote that politicians would actually compete for.

 

[Minoosh]

If you were truly the pedant you claim to be (and act as), then you would know that to be an office holder you literally need an office where you can fulfill the obligations of your office. I doubt that electors are given an office. Maybe some of them have one at home, like I do.

It's fortunate that words in English generally have only one meaning.

"An office where you can fulfill the obligations of your office."

You need a room that can fulfill the obligations of your room? I'm not sure how that works. I'm not sure a room can have obligations. I could be wrong.

 

[sunmaster14]

Not correct. Wikipedia describes office holder as "other official" after listing two others. The link to official says,

"An official is someone who holds an office (function or mandate, regardless whether it carries an actual working space with it) "

To be super pedantic, you are mixing up all pedants with pedants focused on the literal meaning of words.

As the definition of pedant is "a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning," that doesn't mean solely literalist meaning.

First of all, it's illegitimate to concatenate definitions from different sources. I think you know that's an obvious trick. Second, I doubt that any state law on the books refers, either explicitly or implicitly, to Wikipedia for its definition.

You need to go to the legal definition implicit in the law. I'm uninterested in doing so, but I've pointed out a distinction which suits my purposes for now.

 

[Cylinder]

Im not trolling ... just curious .. the wiki article was bit verbose for the time I have right now.. I don't know what spotted eagle means

So seriously ... previously elected politicians actually decide who is president? ... NOT the voters?

Why have an election at all then??

Electors aren't necessarily "previously elected politicians." Generally, electors are made up of party loyalists with a scattering of up-and-comers and notable persons interested in politics.

General elections are to choose which slate of electors will represent a given political division -- normally states, though Maine and Nebraska also award electoral votes to the ticket winning congressional districts. Awarding electors via a general election is functionally required by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[sunmaster14]

It's fortunate that words in English generally have only one meaning.

"An office where you can fulfill the obligations of your office."

You need a room that can fulfill the obligations of your room? I'm not sure how that works. I'm not sure a room can have obligations. I could be wrong.

Huh? They're two different words. As the moderators are fond of saying (when they don't have anything else to say), "context matters!"

 

[WilliamSeger]

Why have an election at all then??

For President, the Constitution doesn't require any election. State legislatures decide how they appoint electors, but all decided to do it by election, each state with its own rules. Today anyway, electors are expected to represent the winner of that vote, but "faithless" electors sometimes make protest votes. So theoretically they could overturn an election, but it's unlikely that faithless electors would ever change an outcome -- it's never happened before, anyway.

ETA Correction:

There was only one time in history that faithless electors altered the result of an electoral vote. In 1836, all 23 electors in Virginia opted to be faithless. They were pledged to vote for Martin Van Buren and his running mate, Richard Mentor Johnson. But instead, they all refused to vote for Johnson. The Senate decided the election and ended up choosing Johnson anyway.

 

[BobTheCoward]

First of all, it's illegitimate to concatenate definitions from different sources. I think you know that's an obvious trick. Second, I doubt that any state law on the books refers, either explicitly or implicitly, to Wikipedia for its definition.

You need to go to the legal definition implicit in the law. I'm uninterested in doing so, but I've pointed out a distinction which suits my purposes for now.

I am actually searching for that legal definition in the background of my day today.

 

[Minoosh]

Actually, DC, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont have already signed up, and they are only worth three or four EC votes each.

Frankly, I have never understood the “small states will get ignored, so keep the Electoral College” argument.

Wyoming gets ignored right now. So do North and South Dakota. Even larger states like Massachusetts get ignored on the Presidential level, just because whether they are going to vote Dem or Rep is a statistical certainty. The value of a state in the EC is not determined by its size, but by how wishy-washy its population is. (“We don’t want the Presidency decided by New York, California, and Texas! We demand that it be decided by Florida, Michigan, and Ohio!”)

A lot of people might be willing to trade in their big proportional Electoral College vote that no one questions for a smaller direct vote that politicians would actually compete for.

A state's total EC votes = number of U.S. House members + 2.

An alternative to "winner takes all" would be "winner takes most" - i.e., total electors minus 2 would be assigned proportionally; while 2 seats would still vote on the "winner takes all" formula. I haven't analyzed what, if any, effect this would have on the most recent election or any others. It does seem to me that it would be consistent with the U.S. two-chamber system. Low-population states would still retain a slight edge in that 2 of its electors would be automatically assigned to the winner of the state's popular vote.

 

[Ron Swanson]

Electors aren't necessarily "previously elected politicians."
General elections are to choose which slate of electors will represent a given political division

For President, the Constitution doesn't require any election.

Thanks guys I had NO idea ... amazing

I guess we are not much better off here in Canada ... technically the Queen has the final say ... AND once elected the only way out is if you quit .... or (again) the Queens says go away

On and the "Birthers" would have no leg hold here ... you don't even have to be Canadian to run in federal elections.

 

[sunmaster14]

Actually, DC, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont have already signed up, and they are only worth three or four EC votes each.

Frankly, I have never understood the “small states will get ignored, so keep the Electoral College” argument.

Wyoming gets ignored right now. So do North and South Dakota. Even larger states like Massachusetts get ignored on the Presidential level, just because whether they are going to vote Dem or Rep is a statistical certainty. The value of a state in the EC is not determined by its size, but by how wishy-washy its population is. (“We don’t want the Presidency decided by New York, California, and Texas! We demand that it be decided by Florida, Michigan, and Ohio!”)

A lot of people might be willing to trade in their big proportional Electoral College vote that no one questions for a smaller direct vote that politicians would actually compete for.

Actually, Massachusetts doesn't really get ignored. It gets to bask in the glow of New Hampshire's swing-stateyness. A good portion of New Hampshire's population is in the Boston metropolitan area (sort of), and 1/8th of NH's workers work in MA. I kind of wish Massachusetts did get ignored, though.

 

[Cylinder]

For President, the Constitution doesn't require any election. State legislatures decide how they appoint electors, but all decided to do it by election, each state with its own rules

Functionally, the 14th Amendment requires electors be chosen in a general election.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I am actually searching for that legal definition in the background of my day today.

Here it is if we want to debate Florida

http://myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/Main/92e25864d475966f85256cc6007b96cb

 

[Minoosh]

Huh? They're two different words. As the moderators are fond of saying (when they don't have anything else to say), "context matters!"

Huh? "Office" and "office" are two different words?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Obviously you are wrong, or why would such a no-dual-office even be a req?

I'm all for more scandals, one, because maybe people will wake up and dump the EC system. And two, because it causes Trump to show his egotistical pettiness, something the news media is actually beginning to say out loud.

Would you want to dump the EC system if Hillary had won..

Where were you when the media was bashing Trump from day one?

When will the losers stop whining....

 

[Minoosh]

I am actually searching for that legal definition in the background of my day today.

I like this distinction. There's "today," then the background of "today." Now, what are we searching for? The legal definition of "office"? Of "office holder"? Or something else?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Functionally, the 14th Amendment requires electors be chosen in a general election.

Could be -- do you know if it's ever been interpreted that way in a decision?