Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states

[Aikouka]

That's a fundamental change to the constitution, and one I disagree with. The EC is what gives the less populous states a say in the presidential election. Without the EC, a handful of states would determine the outcome of every election, negating the entire concept of a republic.
The people don't elect the president, the states do.
Clearly recent elections have come down to a few swing states, but that's a demographic blip that could, and does, change.

The problem is that no matter how you look at it, someone is getting screwed over. If you give more power to the larger, more populous states, then you can argue that the littler, sparsely populated states aren't getting much representation; however, if you give everyone equal representation, then the larger, more populous states are actually getting less representation per constituent. So, each person in that area effectively has less power.

Here's a real crazy solution that popped into my head while reading your post... what about just combining some of the smaller states? For example, VT + RI + MA + CT. I think Maine is kind of being left out in that, but eh... oh well. I don't like seafood anyway.

I used to be a strong proponent of the electoral college because I too mistakenly thought that the electors would be smarter and less likely to elect a strongman. The electoral college should be removed as both reasons for its existence have been invalidated. Slavery doesn’t exist and the electoral college is worse than the electorate at selecting the best candidate.

I guess I don't understand your phrasing "the electors would be smarter"? The electoral college serves as a method of simplifying the population to a predefined number of votes. In the vast majority of states, the electors are deemed to just vote for whoever won the state's popular vote and that's it. (In a few states, they're allowed to have split votes.) Although, in some states, there's also nothing to stop an elector for voting whatever way they want, but generally, that's not how it works.

 

[ivwshane]

The problem is that no matter how you look at it, someone is getting screwed over. If you give more power to the larger, more populous states, then you can argue that the littler, sparsely populated states aren't getting much representation; however, if you give everyone equal representation, then the larger, more populous states are actually getting less representation per constituent. So, each person in that area effectively has less power.

Here's a real crazy solution that popped into my head while reading your post... what about just combining some of the smaller states? For example, VT + RI + MA + CT. I think Maine is kind of being left out in that, but eh... oh well. I don't like seafood anyway.



I guess I don't understand your phrasing "the electors would be smarter"? The electoral college serves as a method of simplifying the population to a predefined number of votes. In the vast majority of states, the electors are deemed to just vote for whoever won the state's popular vote and that's it. (In a few states, they're allowed to have split votes.) Although, in some states, there's also nothing to stop an elector for voting whatever way they want, but generally, that's not how it works.

One of the purposes of the electoral college according to the founding fathers was to be a final check on the people electing a strongman. It was thought at the time that white land owners were more up on current events and not as easily persuadable as the common folk when it came to a candidate who was capable of manipulating the people. So someone like Donald trump, who ignored norms, who had no problem demonizing institutions, and who put himself first before country all while being the most lyingest politician in US history, should have never gotten a single electoral vote according to the founding fathers. Yet not only did he get the electoral votes but he didn’t even get the popular vote.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I guess I don't understand your phrasing "the electors would be smarter"? The electoral college serves as a method of simplifying the population to a predefined number of votes.

I could only find casual reference to it when I looked a while ago, but part of the intent of the EC is/was to act as a sort of circuit breaker to keep the popular vote winner out if they could be determined to be unfit to serve. If that had happened in '16, the Orange Guy would never have won the EC regardless of the PV.

But it's been bastardized in recent decades and the Electors have lost some of their freedom to act as intended. They've become partyline stooges. This is why I say they either need to be eliminated or restored to their original purpose which means they would have to be fully non-partisan.

 

[ivwshane]

I could only find casual reference to it when I looked a while ago, but part of the intent of the EC is/was to act as a sort of circuit breaker to keep the popular vote winner out if they could be determined to be unfit to serve. If that had happened in '16, the Orange Guy would never have won the EC regardless of the PV.

But it's been bastardized in recent decades and the Electors have lost some of their freedom to act as intended. They've become partyline stooges. This is why I say they either need to be eliminated or restored to their original purpose which means they would have to be fully non-partisan.

When the party’s get to pick the electors, there is no nonpartisan option.

I also suspect that even if there were state laws that said who the elector had to vote for that they could vote however they want and if it went to court, it would be ruled in their favor (assuming we had a competent Supreme Court).

 

[pete6032]

That's a fundamental change to the constitution, and one I disagree with. The EC is what gives the less populous states a say in the presidential election.

So basically it makes some peoples' vote count more than others...

 

[fskimospy]

I have a radical idea - let’s elect the president the way we elect every single other official in the entire country. Odd that if it’s such a good idea no state has adopted it for their chief executive.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

I also suspect that even if there were state laws that said who the elector had to vote for that they could vote however they want and if it went to court, it would be ruled in their favor (assuming we had a competent Supreme Court).

Look up 'faithless electors'. Some have been fined and/or threatened with jail if they didn't vote how they were told to. That's why I say if we keep the EC and expect it to work as intended, the electors MUST be non-partisan.

 

[dank69]

I have a radical idea - let’s elect the president the way we elect every single other official in the entire country. Odd that if it’s such a good idea no state has adopted it for their chief executive.

My town has less people in it than the bigger cities! Totally unfair!

 

[uallas5]

I grew up in the Midwest and there is a firm belief among Midwesterners that they are more virtuous than people from back east or out west. It only makes sense that Midwesterners should have more say in electing a President as those other folks just don't have the cultural advantages of common sense and virtue God bestowed on us. People who don't even know what a bubbler is can't be trusted to pick a President.

It's not just that Midwesterners have that view of themselves, large chunks of people throughout this country believe that. It's the whole "country folk/farmers/ranchers are the REAL Americans" schtick and the rest of us are somehow lesser.

Oh I'm from MA and I know what a bubbler is, so it can't be that midwestern of a saying. I guess the only thing is you spell it different. Around here it's BUBBLAH!

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Wisconsin seems unhappy too......

2020 Election
Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan Requests Federal Probe Into Fake Elector Allegations

Complaints indicate that, after the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in Biden's favor, some Republicans allegedly attempted to claim the state's electoral votes.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not just that Midwesterners have that view of themselves, large chunks of people throughout this country believe that. It's the whole "country folk/farmers/ranchers are the REAL Americans" schtick and the rest of us are somehow lesser.

Oh I'm from MA and I know what a bubbler is, so it can't be that midwestern of a saying. I guess the only thing is you spell it different. Around here it's BUBBLAH!

It’s weird how the places principally responsible for the creation of the US are not ‘real Americans’.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

^^^ Who? The city folk swilled ale while the country folk slaughtered the REAL Americans.

 

[fskimospy]

^^^ Who? The city folk swilled ale while the country folk slaughtered the REAL Americans.

I was thinking the states as a whole in that essentially all of the US was rural at that time. The cities comprised a tiny fraction of the population.

 

[kage69]

EC is a relic, a carrot used for slave holders who are gone. Ours is a living Constitution, meaning it can roll with the realities of time. Or should anyway.

A real popular vote shouldn't be a worry for a party that's convinced it has all the answers, plus the silent majority. These days the EC is a crutch to help entrench a minority, one that's become increasing hostile to the democratic process and it's credibility. Not sure I care about what insurrection and treason supporters think of the EC, but I hope indies give it enough research to be honest about it.

Just saw a blurb on the Trump kids, ahahah. I feel like we're days away from finding out Ivanka is taking care of something rrreally important in Abu Dhabi, and TweedleDee and TweedleDumbfuck are hunting in the wilds of Africa, no word on their return dates.

 

[cytg111]

That's where, I kind of feel sorry for the drunk. You know now, he's going to be the big fall guy. Hell, Trump could probably get away with saying he couldn't stop the crazy man. He's great at shifting blame.

you remember that clip with Rudy, cnn I think, around the Cohen ordeal, he was being asked if he was worried it be him next time under the bus… He held up the phone and said I hope not, I got insurance policy.
If we’re lucky, lordy, there be tapes.

 

[allisolm]

you remember that clip with Rudy, cnn I think, around the Cohen ordeal, he was being asked if he was worried it be him next time under the bus… He held up the phone and said I hope not, I got insurance policy.
If we’re lucky, lordy, there be tapes.

From your mouth to the investigating body's ears.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

If we’re lucky, lordy, there be tapes.

From your mouth to the investigating body's ears.

Well, OK, since you twisted my arm to post this ......

Federal prosecutors just got access to 3,000 of Rudy Giuliani's communications as they investigate him for illegal lobbying

Business Insider|2 hours ago
The US attorney's office that Giuliani once led obtained access to thousands of his messages and communications as part of its criminal investigation.


I mean, all these investigations have one common central party, don't they?

 

[cytg111]

Rudy may be a raving alcoholic but he was once something… I hope he has some real shit somewhere to bargain with.

 

[gothuevos]

Can we just be honest with ourselves for a moment?

This is Trump's "5th Avenue" moment. So unless there are going to be some substantial charges brought forth for him and the people involved, all these revelations will do nothing to stop the next attempt.

Time is running out.

 

[kage69]

Can we just be honest with ourselves for a moment?

This is Trump's "5th Avenue" moment. So unless there are going to be some substantial charges brought forth for him and the people involved, all these revelations will do nothing to stop the next attempt.

Time is running out.

No, it's not. Things are just getting started. Why don't you be patient and stop proclaiming the fight already over?

I've been here awhile, and I don't think I've seen too many posters who can match your commitment to doom. I don't think you're being honest with anyone here, certainly not yourself. You should work on that, and there's always that blanket idea.

 

[cytg111]

No, it's not. Things are just getting started. Why don't you be patient and stop proclaiming the fight already over?

I've been here awhile, and I don't think I've seen too many posters who can match your commitment to doom. I don't think you're being honest with anyone here, certainly not yourself. You should work on that, and there's always that blanket idea.

To be fair he is not the only one, here Beau is… concerned, that if they dont ramp up the speed, the next attempt will succeed.
But its so glaringly obvious by now, that I cant fathom zero accountability… It has to come full circle.

 

[mikeymikec]

No, it's not. Things are just getting started. Why don't you be patient and stop proclaiming the fight already over?

One problem is that if the wheels take so long to turn that the 2024 election is on the horizon, it'll become politically problematic to do anything meaningful for probably six months before and after the election. If that happens, then a lot of people will see it as pure smoke, an air of legitimacy around GQP operations, investigations against the GQP as a 'witch hunt', and a subsequent whiff of 'both sides' as the GQP starts a fresh round of whatever 'lock her up' flavour of the year is relevant then.

Trump and his ilk have to be seen as truly yesterday's news by that election, or the US will have serious problems (e.g. another coup attempt).

@gothuevos may be acting prematurely fatalistic at this point, but a year has gone by since Trump left office, and he's still walking free.

Robert Mueller on Whether Trump Could be Indicted

The former special counsel fielded questions on Donald Trump, ethics, and Russia’s interference in the 2016 Presidential election.

www.newyorker.com

There Mueller was, saying the only reason Trump could not be charged is that he was a sitting President at that point. Maybe you could argue that the Justice Department has a bigger fish to fry with Trump and Jan 6th. IMO it's not as if a President obstructing an investigation into his actions is small fry compared to a President trying to stage a coup; they're apples and oranges, but they're both fucking serious allegations and a threat to democracy. Is there a good reason not to charge him with obstruction and charge him with his coup conspiracy when that investigation has finished bearing fruit?

Coming back to my earlier point, Trump's obstruction of justice really looks like yesterday's news. I'd be very surprised if anyone here honestly believes that Trump will be charged for that, ever. I can see why people like @gothuevos are pessimistic this time around. Justice in the US isn't something that the rich and influential need to worry about very often.

 

[cytg111]

Coming back to my earlier point, Trump's obstruction of justice really looks like yesterday's news. I'd be very surprised if anyone here honestly believes that Trump will be charged for that, ever. I can see why people like @gothuevos are pessimistic this time around. Justice in the US isn't something that the rich and influential need to worry about very often.

Yea, wtf happened to that? Out of sight out of justice?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

It's the whole "country folk/farmers/ranchers are the REAL Americans" schtick and the rest of us are somehow lesser.

Odd that after an entire lifetime of having their voice count for more than others, they feel that they're better than everyone else.

 

[Fenixgoon]

One problem is that if the wheels take so long to turn that the 2024 election is on the horizon, it'll become politically problematic to do anything meaningful for probably six months before and after the election. If that happens, then a lot of people will see it as pure smoke, an air of legitimacy around GQP operations, investigations against the GQP as a 'witch hunt', and a subsequent whiff of 'both sides' as the GQP starts a fresh round of whatever 'lock her up' flavour of the year is relevant then.

Trump and his ilk have to be seen as truly yesterday's news by that election, or the US will have serious problems (e.g. another coup attempt).

@gothuevos may be acting prematurely fatalistic at this point, but a year has gone by since Trump left office, and he's still walking free.

Robert Mueller on Whether Trump Could be Indicted

The former special counsel fielded questions on Donald Trump, ethics, and Russia’s interference in the 2016 Presidential election.

www.newyorker.com

There Mueller was, saying the only reason Trump could not be charged is that he was a sitting President at that point. Maybe you could argue that the Justice Department has a bigger fish to fry with Trump and Jan 6th. IMO it's not as if a President obstructing an investigation into his actions is small fry compared to a President trying to stage a coup; they're apples and oranges, but they're both fucking serious allegations and a threat to democracy. Is there a good reason not to charge him with obstruction and charge him with his coup conspiracy when that investigation has finished bearing fruit?

Coming back to my earlier point, Trump's obstruction of justice really looks like yesterday's news. I'd be very surprised if anyone here honestly believes that Trump will be charged for that, ever. I can see why people like @gothuevos are pessimistic this time around. Justice in the US isn't something that the rich and influential need to worry about very often.

Yea, wtf happened to that? Out of sight out of justice?

I think it comes down to optics, basically. Charge Trump with "old stuff" or doing too quickly (right after Biden assumes office), and even though it's entirely legitimate, people will cry foul (especially Republicans course).

So it would appear to delegitimize the current administration. And I can't stress the appearance part enough, because that's what people will actually buy into, as opposed to Trump being a criminal POS. If they truly believed that, I doubt so many would have voted for him a second time.