The Electoral College and Sports

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, June 19. 2019

The Electoral College and Sports

Sports shouldn't seem to have much in common with the Electoral College, but in fact they share very interesting facets. Sometimes the team that reaches the championship level doesn't 'seem' like it should be there, or even deserve to win. Yet that team, amazingly, will wind up victorious.

I still have friends who want to eliminate the Electoral College. Apparently, they didn't take any courses about history while in high school or college. More and more states are approving bills that will give their Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote. That will 'work' until the national popular vote winner is someone they do not like. It may be Donald Trump, in 2020, who makes that happen. It would be amusing to see these states passing a bill like this because of 2016, and pulling it back because the man they hoped to stop made them look foolish.

Posted by Bulldog in Politics at 11:50 | Comments (18) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Let's make it even easier and just award the presidency to whomever wins California which is the goal anyway.

#1 Andrew Stanton on 2019-06-19 12:26 (Reply)

If the first president elected via this quiet electoral college usurpation doesn't also win the conventional Electoral college that president will have a serious legitimacy problem. This sudden change from what people expect will be an actual constitutional crisis.

#2 JK Brown on 2019-06-19 12:27 (Reply)

Yes, you will have 2 persons each claiming to be president, and probably a civil war at that point.

Also the question is, what is the remedy for this illegal tinkering? Disqualify all the state's electoral votes? Declare them awarded to the candidate who won that state, despite the refusal of the state to have their electors vote that way?

And then there is the bugaboo of whether you can get the federal courts to act on this. Before the situation happens they will probably declare a challenge "premature." But if it becomes an actual thing, and then a citizen of a state challenges on the ground that the "popular vote" illegal compact deprived him/her of his/her vote, you will by then already be into the civil war.

#2.1 Jim on 2019-06-19 14:27 (Reply)

I don't think war is likely until many cards have been played. People will look to the Supreme Court to decide. There is also likely to be a difference of style. Those on the left will push, perhaps with violence, to remove a person they believe illegitimate. the conservative style will be more to refuse to obey the orders of a person they believe illegitimate. There will be some of both, certainly, but the personalities are different.

#2.1.1 Assistant village Idiot on 2019-06-19 15:54 (Reply)

Those who want Presidential elections decided by nationwide popular vote instead of by the Electoral College should focus their minds on the 2000 Florida recount. That was a mess. A Presidential election decided by nationwide popular vote would be the Florida 2000 recount mess multiplied by 50- or more.

I voted Third Party in 2000. Democrat behavior during the Florida recount led me to the decision to vote Democrat only over my dead body. In several Democrat-controlled counties, there were a lot of disqualified ballots. Democrats told us those disqualified ballots should be "interpreted" as votes for Democrats. After all, those Democrat voters couldn't understand the ballot setup.

I had several problems with that narrative. Democrats designed the ballots. If Democrat-designed ballots resulted in a lot of disqualified ballots, that is their problem. Democrats should have tested those ballots on study groups beforehand. Apparently they didn't do so.

Democrat attempts to change rules in the middle of the process convinced me that the only principles Democrats had were to maximize Democrat votes by whatever means possible.

Rather like the Massachusetts legislature changing the rules for filling US Senate vacancies several times in the last 20 years according to whether there was a Republican or a Democrat governmer

#3 Gringo on 2019-06-19 12:35 (Reply)

After all, those Democrat voters couldn't understand the ballot setup.

You couldn't write this in a novel and have it be believable. Yet, it happened in real life.

Democrat party hacks in two of Florida's biggest counties adopted the butterfly ballot, which thoroughly confused voters there. I think the even BIGGER irony is that Gore might well have carried Florida if Democrat voters in those 2 counties had been given a better ballot and understood their options better. But as Gringo pointed out, Democrats confused their voters and then threw a hissy fit when they lost. This was the best example I can think of to illustrate the concept of shooting yourself in the foot (or in through a vital organ, to better fit the result).

Another fact you rarely hear about the 2000 election is that if Gore had carried his home state of Tennessee, he wouldn't have needed Florida to win the Whitehouse.

And Thank GOD that we didn't get stuck with Mr. I am saving the planet while spewing tons of carbon into the atmosphere with my private jet while I fleece the world with my Global Warming con Gore for 4 or 8 years. If you think we are in trouble now, just imagine him in charge.

#3.1 Dangerous Dean on 2019-06-20 10:56 (Reply)

Democrats/Socialists/union leaders want total control. BUT, the real cherry they are reaching for is to wedge a hole into the Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Communists all around the world want that -- can't stand for the people of the US to be so successful at managing human effort!

#4 faculty wife on 2019-06-19 14:47 (Reply)

I have been using the World Series analogy for twenty years. Glad the rest of the world is finally catching on.

#5 Assistant Village Idiot on 2019-06-19 16:01 (Reply)

Why can't the cooperation between several states to undermine the Electoral College be seen as sedition? Sure seems like it to me!

#6 Marv on 2019-06-19 16:48 (Reply)

The Compact is illegal under the Constitution, unless consented to by Congress. Article I, Section 10 provides:

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power. . . ."

This is already being flaunted by some of the seditious states. California has entered directly into agreements with our enemy Communist China, for example.

#6.1 Jim on 2019-06-19 20:48 (Reply)

state cooperation to undermine the Constitution sounds like sedition to me. perhaps they should get kicked out.

#7 talgus on 2019-06-19 19:58 (Reply)

I think any voter in a state that does this has standing to sue on the basis that their vote has been invalidated.

#8 Assistant Village Idiot on 2019-06-19 22:43 (Reply)

It used to be that elections were stolen in the back rooms and basements of election offices and DNC offices. But since 2000 and the famous hanging chad the left has become more open about how to steal elections. We let them do it and THAT is our fault.

#9 Anon on 2019-06-19 22:55 (Reply)

Doesn't work that way. Remember the campaign in 2016 to have electors change their votes? The election is not a vote for president but rather for a slate of electors pledged to a candidate. The states can not direct or bind the electors' votes. For example, East Missouri votes for a slate pledged to the Troglodyte candidate but the national vote is for the Barbicans. The Troglodytes get the votes.

#10 Roy Lofquist (Link) on 2019-06-20 07:10 (Reply)

This is very different than the campaign to get Electors to change votes in 2016.

Faithless Electors are rare, but they do generally align with whatever guidelines they are instructed to by the state. If the state's laws instruct the Electors to vote for the National Popular Vote winner, that is the slate that will be sent to the EC, even if the state voted for another candidate.

This is why, as Steve points out below, it puts some of these states in play by getting Republicans energized. It's also why I believe this strategy will backfire on the people who believe changing the EC is the best path forward. Let's just say Trump wins the popular vote next year (a long shot, but possible if Republicans ARE energized). Then all of a sudden 196 Electoral Votes are assigned to Trump with no effort, even if he LOST those states.

The irony will suddenly hit home and this idea will be abandoned by his electoral landslide.

In fact, I'd make this a campaign point if I was Republican campaigning in states that have signed the compact....get marginalized people to show up.

Seems unlikely as the only one of these states that is marginally 'close' is Rhode Island - 2016 was only 8 percentage points. The others are significantly larger differentials.

But...it would be fun.

#10.1 Bulldog on 2019-06-20 09:36 (Reply)

An unintended consequence is that suddenly, New York and California ARE in play.

Whereas those 2 states always went D, awarding EC votes, accordingly, R voters posessed a disincentive to actually go to the polls. Now, getting the margin of victory just a a bit lower in those 2 states can actually end up awarding those EVs to an R.

Interestingly, this significantly changes the strategy for campaigns. It is no longer sufficient to "win the game by 1 run", (to borrow the world series analogy). Instead you would run up the score in every inning of every game.

And the campaign professionals across the country can throw their playbooks into the trash. No one will know what to expect, or which strategems are most likely to deliver the desired result.

#11 Steve on 2019-06-20 07:48 (Reply)

What are the odds that California would actually mandate a pledge of all of it's electoral votes to a Trump-like candidate that took 50.1% of the popular vote but who got 30% in California?
there's actually no enforcement mechanism in the compact - it is not only illegal and unconstitutional, but unworkable in reality, the only state that doesn't have electoral votes.

#12 Another guy named Dan on 2019-06-20 10:11 (Reply)

That is the whole point of this effort. To create a system that can 'legally' benefit the Democrat party under prescribed conditions BUT when those conditions aren't met can "reasonably" be altered to benefit the Democrat party anyway. It is a win/win.

This isn't about giving the electoral vote to the national winner regardless of party affiliation. It is about fabricating a system that would give the backroom dealers a way to steal the election no matter what the actual vote is.

#12.1 Anon on 2019-06-20 10:45 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Wednesday, June 19. 2019

The Electoral College and Sports