SC says no more faithless electors in the EC- what say conservatives?

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (48 posts)
  1. Credence2 profile image82
    Credence2posted 13 months ago

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … gK1iPD_BwE

    This nice reassurance ruling from the Supreme Court  may well give the Electoral College a new lease on life and make the institution less troublesome in my eyes than before.

    No more happenstance, if you don't want something to occur, the way to be sure it doesn't is to prohibit it. I am not subject to the rule of "electors" they are there to reflect the will of the majority of their respective states.

    Do you conservatives like it? Just curious...

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Either I'm not getting it, or your link is way behind the times.  SCOTUS has already ruled on faithless electors, and declared that they must vote the will of the people.

      https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme … d=71628464

      1. jackclee lm profile image85
        jackclee lmposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        I think it is wishful think on the part of Credence.
        He enjoyed the recent cases of Roberts sticking it to conservatives in recent controversial 5/4 decisions.
        The court is already on shaky grounds. Any deviation from precedence would cause a fire storm especially if it affects the outcome of the next election cycle. The Supreme Court is making itself irrelevant. If all future cases are determined by a 5/4 majority, Trump will make sure the court is packed with conservatives. It is the only way they can avoid the current politicization.

        1. Credence2 profile image82
          Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Has it occurred to you that conservatives are "part" of the politicalization?

          Trump's days are already numbered and he will not have the opportunity to replace another juror, as Ginsberg needs to hang on until Trump is out and a democratic administration can replace him.

          But again, were you satisfied about the ruling regarding the Electoral College? Is there anything that a standard conservative would be upset about?

          1. jackclee lm profile image85
            jackclee lmposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            the answer is simple. Conservative judges are never about politicization but about the law and the Constitution. Regardless of party, conservatives are true to the constitution while liberal justices try to interpret more meaning to the actual words.

            1. Credence2 profile image82
              Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              That is what you say, depends from which side of the looking glass you are seeing this all from.

              Again, did you like the decision or not?

              1. jackclee lm profile image85
                jackclee lmposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                Credence, this equivalency you speak of between the left and the right is not valid. The reason is very simple. The left is not abiding by the Constitution and the intent of the Founding fathers. They are the ones that treat it as a "living document" and open to all sorts of interpretations...
                The conservative view is the document is written in plain English so that average citizens could comprehend it. It was not written in legal jargon that only a lawyer could understand and interpret.
                To us, a living document takes on a totally different meaning. It means it can be modified with amendments, not that you can change what the word means...
                I hope you see the difference.

                1. Credence2 profile image82
                  Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

                  That is still just your opinion, Jack.

                  You never did answer me about the EC court decision, as pure as a conservative that you are, did not the decision bother you in some way?

                  1. jackclee lm profile image85
                    jackclee lmposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                    I believe the current court is not functioning. One change I would make, if I was in charge, is to adopt a 6/3 minimum rule to Supreme court decisions.
                    That is to say all decisions must be 6/3 or higher. A 5/4 decision is too close to call and we cannot have a country that makes important decisions based on a 1 vote majority appointed by political process.
                    These judges are appointed for life and should understand the gravity of their rulings and not allow their politics to get in the way of their decision.

                2. Credence2 profile image82
                  Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  When Earl Warren, liberal Chief Justice in 1954 reversed  Plessy vs Ferguson from 1896, was that "legislating from the bench. Where did you think the rulings for the Miranda notices, addressing the right of the accused come from?

                  There is a role for both conservative and liberal oriented justices on the Court. If I let conservatives control we be still be referencing whale bone corsets, powdered wigs and knickerbockers.

                  So, no, I don't see the difference.

                  Because you are a rightwing oriented person, you are going to come in against every decision that YOU think is over the top. Well, I support the liberal jurists as a counterbalance to a stolid sclorotic right wing. Your view of inadequate is not universally held.

                  1. jackclee lm profile image85
                    jackclee lmposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    No, I am against any supreme court decision that is wrong on the side of Constitutionality. It is their job and they are failing to do their job.
                    We can disagree on policy but ultimately, the policies and laws has to pass the Constitution as intended. Ever so often, we have a change in public sentiment and in those cases, we have an amendment process which allow for changes to the Constitution.
                    It really is that simple.
                    We now have some justices that think they are above the law. They can just change the meaning of a word or rule based on the intent of a law rather than the language of the law.
                    Where does this end?

      2. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

        At least I know that as a conservative you take no issue with the unanimous decision.

    2. GA Anderson profile image91
      GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

      Well, because I believe in the purpose and benefit of the EC, it is grudgingly that I say I don't have a problem with the Court ruling.

      GA

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

        It seems to me that the original intent of the EC was to give the power of election to a few of the "intelligencia", or at least some of those writers felt that way.

        If so, the purpose was NOT what we assume and the court is changing that meaning.  While I support the decision, as being in line with my own feelings of intent, it may not have been the intent of the writers.

        1. Credence2 profile image82
          Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

          Wilderness, your decision to support the Court Ruling is wise but why is  GA unhappy? The decision gives rmany of us fewer reasons to be suspicious of the Electoral College.

          Do you really think that the intelligentsia should have final say over our elections?

          That is contrary to the very concept of Democracy from my progressive liberal position. And my distrust of elitists that are given power not received from the masses is quite strong.

          Somewhere in the Conservative mindset is this fear of popular sovereignty and I was trying to get Jack to admit to as much, but he was not forthcoming. Thanks to you both for allowing me to gather evidence to support my hypothesis.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            "Do you really think that the intelligentsia should have final say over our elections?"

            I absolutely do not, and thought I made it plain I liked the decision.

            But at the same time, if (IF) I'm right and that was the original intent (to override the people's choice by those "smarter" about such things) then the court is once more making law from the bench and clearly violated the intent of the constitution in so doing.  This is a major problem I see with SCOTUS (and courts all over the land) - they don't make decisions based on law, but on their private political beliefs.

            1. Credence2 profile image82
              Credence2posted 13 months agoin reply to this

              That a reasonable assumption, but the states do get to control the electors and the process. Elitism is just another 18th century idea whose time has passed. letting this intelligentsia go. Perhaps a more formal change thru constitutional amendment would make dissenters that complain about "original intent" happy?

          2. jackclee lm profile image85
            jackclee lmposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            Credence, the reason I chose to avoid your question is that I am of the opinion the current Supreme Court is broken. I have no confidence in them after the botched and tortured decisions made over the past few years.
            The only solution is to replace some of the liberal justices and John Roberts.

          3. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            You are right about the Framers' fear of popular sovereignty, and that was the primary reason for the EC, (closely tied with the demands of the less populated states).

            Contrary to "admitting" that, it should be openly acknowledged.

            ps. I am not unhappy with the Court decision.

            GA

          4. Readmikenow profile image96
            Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

            "That is contrary to the very concept of Democracy from my progressive liberal position."

            I believe this is a good thing since we don't have a democracy.  We live in a representative republic.  The Electoral College was designed to avoid the Tyranny of the Majority. 

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_o … 0minority.

            I believe the ruling is the right thing.

            1. jackclee lm profile image85
              jackclee lmposted 13 months agoin reply to this

              you do know if the Democrats have their way, they would get rid of the electoral college all together. After hillary lost in 2016, they made a big fuss over the fact she won by 4 million popular vote.

              1. Readmikenow profile image96
                Readmikenowposted 13 months agoin reply to this

                I agree with you.  If Democrats have their way we'd use the Venezuelan/Cuban economic model.

                They'd think it was a good thing until they had no money and no hope of getting any.  I should write about my experiences of visiting the Ukraine back in the 1970s when it was controlled by communist Russia.  Trust me...it was an eye opener.

                I'm sure if you deducted the illegals voting as well as dead people and felons, the number would have been much lower.  This is the Democrat way.

      2. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

        I needed to call you out on this, GA.

        "Grudgingly" ?

        Virtual every voice including a unanimous Surpeme Court decision supported this clarification, down to and including the notorious conservative, Clearance Thomas.

        What was your problem with it as even the conservative voices on this forum supported it?

        Was it because that it may not have reflected the original intent of the founders?

        You talk about true conservatives verses "nostalgists". Resistance to the this ruling seems only an attitude by nostalgists, pining for the past for its own sake, oblivious to changing times.

        You really would allow an handful of "wise guys" to independently pull the emergency brake on the train representing the democratic process? Is that what lies behind your misgivings about the decision?

        When I look at your adverse attitude regarding the very mention of Trimp's name when he figures prominently in virtually every issue of the day in some manner, I question the extent of what appears to be an authoritarian streak on your part.

        Authoritarian is as far from Blue, as the left hand is from the right.

        1. GA Anderson profile image91
          GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Well hell Cred, if I have to go to the woodshed it should at least be for a good reason.

          I am not sure my comment; "Well, because I believe in the purpose and benefit of the EC, it is grudgingly that I say I don't have a problem with the Court ruling." warrants the trip.

          The bottom line was that I said; "I say I don't have a problem with the Court ruling."

          The grudgingly" part was also explained; ". . . because I believe in the purpose and benefit of the EC . . ."

          I didn't resist this change Cred, I accepted it. Of course, my "grudgingly" certainly indicated I wasn't jumping up and down and clapping, but it also indicated I accepted the ruling as correct.

          As for your "Resistance to this ruling seems only an attitude by nostalgists . . .", I agree, if your "resistance" is synonymous with refusal. However, I didn't resist or refuse, I accepted the change—the position of a true Conservative.

          As a last point to clarify, I am not "adverse" to the mention of Trump's name, or discussions about him, or anything related to him. What I am averse to is the insertion of his name into discussions not relevant to him or his actions.

          For instance; I could start a conversation about a horse that had a big ass, and you would pop in with, "Trump has a big ass too." Even if you were right, it has nothing to do with the conversation about the horse.

          *I thought about including a jokingly sarcastic "Now sit down and do as I say" response to your "Authoritarian" jab, but decided not to because I don't do sarcasm well. ;-)

          GA

          1. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

            I guess that I have to ask why you are not "jumping up and down", as it seems to be the case across all spectrums of the ideological mix?

            What is the source of your misgivings expressed as "grudgingly"?

            1. GA Anderson profile image91
              GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

              You are certainly consistent Cred—you never make it easy. ;-)

              I am not sure of your first question, but maybe my answer to the last one will also answer the first.

              I said "grudgingly" because I believe the modern "electors" laws have already corrupted the original intent of this aspect of the electoral college and bring us closer to a system of pure democracy. I am still as against that now as our Framers were then.

              I accept the change because those modern circumstances, (state laws requiring a certain obligation), and the development of our society in terms of knowledge and numbers, have already negated the original purpose, so I can accept the change as appropriate.

              My bottom line for grudging acceptance was my resistance to another step towards pure democracy. which, (as I think recent protest's riots show), is still nothing less than mob rule.

              GA

              1. Credence2 profile image82
                Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                Yeah, I can be difficult at times, when I want to get to the bottom of it.

                So, you are saying that to avoid "pure democracy" a handful of men should have the prerogative to overrule the wishes of the mass majority of voters? You are more comfortable allowing these men free rein to act independently, such is the true nature of your remorse?

                I know that you have accepted the ruling, but it is interesting to note that you have more confidence in the caprice of  "wise guys" to act independently over the wishes of the people. How are these people qualified to hold such power? It does tell me a little about you as I could never consider having any remorse about this ruling from any position.

                1. GA Anderson profile image91
                  GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

                  Read Cred. Read what I say. It is usually different from the preconceived response you expect and allow to cloud your perception.

                  I said:
                  "I said "grudgingly" because I believe the modern "electors" laws have already corrupted the original intent of this aspect of the electoral college and bring us closer to a system of pure democracy. I am still as against that now as our Framers were then.

                  I accept the change because those modern circumstances, (state laws requiring a certain obligation), and the development of our society in terms of knowledge and numbers, have already negated the original purpose, so I can accept the change as appropriate."


                  How did you get that;

                  ". . . to avoid "pure democracy" a handful of men should have the prerogative to overrule the wishes of the mass majority of voters?"

                  and ". . .  interesting to note that you have more confidence in the caprice of  "wise guys" to act independently over the wishes of the people.", from my statement?

                  GA

                  1. Credence2 profile image82
                    Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

                    "I said "grudgingly" because I believe the modern "electors" laws have already corrupted the original intent of this aspect of the electoral college and bring us closer to a system of pure democracy. I am still as against that now as our Framers were then"

                    ( I am repeating what you have basically said in this paragraph)

                    Don't mean to put you on the spot, GA, so you DO make it clear that if you had your preference you would distrust Democracy and are comfortable with the original intent where electors were allowed to be independent of reflecting the vote of the majority of the state. You don't like the idea of the "original intent" being corrupted?

                    The fact that the Electoral College exists at all is a compromise to those that fear the power and authority of the direct vote, and more important to me, giving the smaller states a reason to participate. No way would I allow these men(electors) to choose independently, why should I trust the will of a handful over  the will of  the many?

                    Allowing a handful of men the ability overrule many is more than not trusting the Democratic process, its borders on Oligarchy.

    3. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      In my view, the Supreme Court decision makes perfect common sense. The ruling protects the people believe that their votes count in the presidential election, and that’s what the Supreme Court clearly reaffirmed,

      I am very satisfied with the decision.

    4. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      This should please you... You are aware that the party that emerged to champion Hamilton's views of the EC was the Federalist party. Its opponents, at first called Anti-Federalists, drew together into a Jeffersonian party; first called the Republicans and later the Democratic-Republicans, they eventually became known as today's Democratic party.

      Hamilton's understanding of the Electoral College
      Federalist No. 68 is the continuation of Alexander Hamilton's analysis of the presidency, in this case concerning the method of electing the president. Hamilton argues the advantages of the indirect electoral process described in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution, although in the case of a tied vote in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives was to make the choice.

      Hamilton viewed the system as superior to a direct popular election. First, he recognized, the "sense of the people should operate in the choice", and would through the election of the electors to the Electoral College.

      I guess over the years the Democratic party has found the EC inconvenient, just did not suit their narrative as the country became larger and more populated. 

      I am very satisfied with the  SC decision. I feel The Constitution has served us well.

  2. GA Anderson profile image91
    GA Andersonposted 13 months ago

    My understanding of the EC was that it had three purposes; to avoid the dangers of a pure democratic vote, to offer less populated states a smidgeon of extra voice, and to avoid the popular effects of a demagogue.

    As I see it, prohibiting faithless electors only affects the third, (and to me the least important now), reason for its creation.

    As for your "intelligensia" thought, I think you might be right. The Framers might have been a bit elitist. But considering the times and circumstances that might not have been such a bad thing.

    GA

  3. GA Anderson profile image91
    GA Andersonposted 12 months ago

    . . . and when the court is expanded and packed with 13, 17, or 21 judges. (shades of FDR). and eating sheep is no longer unconstitutional? Or when the "majority" amends the Constitution to allow sheep eating? Would you still be fine with majority rule?

    Can you recall no historical instances when the passions of the moment, (pure democracy/mob rule), were thankfully tempered by reason and time before any unrecoverable damage was done?

    I recall that the "majority" opinion was against the U.S. entering WWII, or even assisting Britain. Where do you think we would be now if FDR had not had the wisdom to 'work around' that majority opinion and save Britain and defeat the Germans?

    The protections you trust now could easily be discarded by majority vote tomorrow Cred. California's Prop 8 is modern, (only 12 years ago), proof of that. That is the danger of pure democracy.

    I think your comment;"These were just men reflecting the attitudes and values of their times." about Plessy vs Ferguson further makes my point—"values of the times" is what pure democracy is all about. What should be the determining power is reason and the values of our tommorrows.

    However, I completely agree with your opening statement, and it makes me wonder, with such an attitude, why you are such an advocate of majority rule at a national level. The dangers are obvious and examples of them are clear to see.

    Help me out with an example where the passion of the moment, (pure democracy/mob rule), was the right and just choice?

    GA

    1. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

      I thought that while the President can select his choice of jurors, the Senate has to confirm him or her. That is a check and balance right there.

      But a better question would be this, without destroying democracy in its entirety, what would be your solution if you could make the change? I support majority rule on a national level because every alternative that I could imagine would be a move away from democracy, pure or otherwise.

      What other perspective can one have than "the values of our times"? Who could have the foresight in 1896 to see the error in the Plessy ruling? What mere mortal is really equipped and can be trusted with foresight and understanding ahead and beyond his peers?

      I am satisfied with the status quo as the best compromise between one extreme over the other.

      What would you do? Tell me what would be better and why.....

      1. GA Anderson profile image91
        GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

        "I thought that while the President can select his choice of jurors, the Senate has to confirm him or her. That is a check and balance right there."

        And when all three legislative arms are controlled by one party, aka majority rule, your "checks and balances" could be weakened to the point of uselessness. However, that may not be a great example because you are not talking a pure democracy for the citizens. This example is a majority of our elected representatives, which I am fine with.

        What would I do, or change? Nothing. I think our form of representative democracy is the best choice discovered so far.

        Here is the way I see it: Any society of citizens should be able to make any just laws they want to govern their society. By "just laws" I mean laws that are fair to all. Of course, this thought is qualified by scale. From camp ground-size groups to small towns, and even to state levels, it is not hard to move if one doesn't like the rules of that society.

        So until a societal group gets too large and reality requires representatives instead of individual voices I can accept pure democratic rule because there will always be a higher authority to guard against the tyranny of the majority. 

        But when that scale reaches a national level—not so easy for most to change nations, and there is no superior authority to rule on unjust laws, then I do not support pure democratic rule.

        Plus, since this conversation is generally about the election of our national leader—our president, a popular vote, (pure democracy), is contrary to the structure of our nation and our government. You can't just ignore the fact that we are a federation of states, and it is the states that elect their national leader. The people's voice and choice is heard through the instrument of their state.

        Simple, right?

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image82
          Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, but that "total control" moves regularly between the two political parties, the component representatives as such are determined by the electorate.

          As I said, I have no problem with representatives (status quo) in this regard as long as they ultimately have to answer to the electorate and not some vague appointing authority. For obvious reasons, I exclude the courts from that requirement.

          Allowing sheep to be devoured by wolves despite their number is an unjust law anywhere. A national involvement is necessary to make sure, that as sheep, we should be able to live anywhere in safety and not have to be compelled to move because of quirky local ordinances that are in conflict with federal law or protection established and applicable to all.

          The states do elect the national leader but respect comes first and foremost to those that consent to be governed, the electorate. The electors in the EC as a result are to be nothing more than a simple mathematical representation of their respective states popular vote tally.

          The people's voice and choices are REPRESENTED, not just "heard" through the instruments of their respective states. If they are not being properly represented, the people must always have the option to acquire new voices and choices that are more responsive to their concerns.

          And again, I reiterate that I have no problem with the machinery of the current system as it is.

          1. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 12 months agoin reply to this

            Sure took the long road on this one, didn't we? ;-)

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image82
              Credence2posted 12 months agoin reply to this

              Yes, just to basically find out  that we end up at the same destination.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)