‘Prepare for war’: A local GOP official goes all-in with election conspiracy theories

[Dashinka 24,950]

1 hour ago, moxy said:

I suppose we de facto agree to the rules by participating in citizenship and voting, but agreeing to the rules doesn't mean we believe all these rules to be fair or that they should forever and ever be set in stone. If that was the case, women wouldn't be allowed to vote and there would be no amendments to the constitution past the original amendments. In fact, voting is at the very core of changing rules we all agreed to. The rules governing the way we vote are set in a very difficult to change medium (as it should be), but it wasn't handed down from god, and the founders never intended for the constitution to be forever preserved in amber.

 

And because you disagree doesn't make it bad faith. It's fine if you disagree. I'd be surprised if you did agree, actually. There are plenty of good arguments against the popular vote, but "bad faith" is not one of them. Neither is "it's the rules."

The founders provided multiple ways to make changes to the Constitution which at least one method has been utilized 17 times since it, the Constitution was adopted.  Of course they did not make it easy, but it is not impossible.  Now with the Parties as partisan as they are (this started way before Trump ever came on the scene), this is a highly unlikely option, so we have what we have short of the States implementing Article V.

[moxy 1,051]

5 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I believe we should go back to the core principles that this country was founded on.  The House represents the people, and the Senate represents the States, the President Represents the country which is a collection of individual States.  What you are suggesting is that the Federal Government should have ultimate power and the States should be meaningless.  The simple thing is are the States relevant or not?  If the EC is eliminated, what would stop the populated states from demanding the end of the Senate, "why should WY or AK get two votes in the Senate the same as CA or NY?

 

The only way third parties would become viable would be in a Parliamentary System

What I am suggesting is that the people should have ultimate power. Not the federal government, and not the states.

 

This is literally a core conservative value.

 

When you ask "what would stop the populated states from demanding the end of the Senate" you're asking the wrong question. First, ending the Senate would require a Constitutional amendment, which states would have to ratify. It's a big discussion, but I don't want to derail your question. You're basically saying "what's top stop California or New York from running roughshod over Wyoming or Nebraska." Fair point. And the answer to that is Congress. Congress still makes the laws just like before. Each state still gets its two senators, and its population-based representatives.

 

The only thing ending the EC does is change how we vote for President. There are no more "safe states" and Republicans in California and New York now find themselves just as represented as their party brethren in Wyoming and Kansas. It forces candidates to appeal to all voters, not just the interests of swing states.

[moxy 1,051]

4 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

We vote to our states, the electors chosen by the state votes. That is the process of elections, called the electoral college. So I don't really get the confusion. I totally get that in theory, if one were starting from scratch, a Republic doesn't require electors, but I've not been discussing this and it's a massive red herring. If you're going through the archives, read Washington's outgoing address, relevant here, where he talks about amending the constitution. Not that I think it has any meaning on this discussion, because right now the attempt is to bypass the constitution and enter into an illegal interstate compact that would precisely do the very thing you complain about -- diluting votes, according to the constitution, which all states are party to. The state part is a uniform requisite for elections which can't be subverted by a compact or law. That is how it's done. Even if one doesn't personally like it, the amount of EC votes are proportional according to the state, giving plenty of respect to the national "popular" will, and it's only in closer elections where it winds up an issue, where the heaviest partisan ideologues want to change the system as something that gives them their way all the time rather than sometimes. This approach tends to get the disdain it deserves.

If your argument continues to be "we can't change it because that's the way it was designed and we should never change it," then ok. I disagree. We've amended the Constitution 27 times. But ok.

 

I'm not sure where you get that the interstate compact is illegal though. If states pass it, then it is by definition legal. I get that you would believe it's bad policy, bad law, and flies in the face of the wishes of the founders and all that. That's cool. But it's not illegal.

[moxy 1,051]

7 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

The founders provided multiple ways to make changes to the Constitution which at least one method has been utilized 17 times since it, the Constitution was adopted.  Of course they did not make it easy, but it is not impossible.  Now with the Parties as partisan as they are (this started way before Trump ever came on the scene), this is a highly unlikely option, so we have what we have short of the States implementing Article V.

Yeah, I agree no constitutional amendment is happening in this environment, and perhaps the rest of my lifetime. And agreed, it should be hard to change the constitution. But it's an interesting topic, and I guess change has to start somewhere. Talking about it on dumb internet forums is just one way to start.

[Dashinka 24,950]

2 minutes ago, moxy said:

What I am suggesting is that the people should have ultimate power. Not the federal government, and not the states.

 

This is literally a core conservative value.

 

When you ask "what would stop the populated states from demanding the end of the Senate" you're asking the wrong question. First, ending the Senate would require a Constitutional amendment, which states would have to ratify. It's a big discussion, but I don't want to derail your question. You're basically saying "what's top stop California or New York from running roughshod over Wyoming or Nebraska." Fair point. And the answer to that is Congress. Congress still makes the laws just like before. Each state still gets its two senators, and its population-based representatives.

 

The only thing ending the EC does is change how we vote for President. There are no more "safe states" and Republicans in California and New York now find themselves just as represented as their party brethren in Wyoming and Kansas. It forces candidates to appeal to all voters, not just the interests of swing states.

Except we get back to the founding principle that elections are local and not federal.  As already stated, since the EC is apportioned by population giving large populated states a bigger say overall, what is the big deal.  Again, we do not elect a King to preside over us, and in fact for the last four years we kept hearing about Trump being an authoritarian even though there was little evidence of that actually happening.  Trump was hammered for the Covid19 pandemic even though his power in dealing with pandemics is by design very limited.

 

As you said, being a Republic of Sovereign States does not necessitate the Electoral College, but it was the way this Republic was designed.  The Founders could have very easily put the choosing of the President and VP to the House and Senate.  Heck, maybe that would not be such a bad thing except for the fact that most of the folks these bodies would choose would be ultimate DC insiders.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, moxy said:

If your argument continues to be "we can't change it because that's the way it was designed and we should never change it," then ok. I disagree. We've amended the Constitution 27 times. But ok.

 

I'm not sure where you get that the interstate compact is illegal though. If states pass it, then it is by definition legal. I get that you would believe it's bad policy, bad law, and flies in the face of the wishes of the founders and all that. That's cool. But it's not illegal.

 

   "We can't change it, that's how we have always done it" is also a core conservative value. The inherent definition of conservatism really, is not wanting things to change. I've heard numerous arguments in defense of the current system, and many are nonsense. What they all boil down to is, the current setup is traditional and it currently favors conservatives.  

[moxy 1,051]

Just now, Dashinka said:

Except we get back to the founding principle that elections are local and not federal.  As already stated, since the EC is apportioned by population giving large populated states a bigger say overall, what is the big deal.  Again, we do not elect a King to preside over us, and in fact for the last four years we kept hearing about Trump being an authoritarian even though there was little evidence of that actually happening.  Trump was hammered for the Covid19 pandemic even though his power in dealing with pandemics is by design very limited.

 

As you said, being a Republic of Sovereign States does not necessitate the Electoral College, but it was the way this Republic was designed.  The Founders could have very easily put the choosing of the President and VP to the House and Senate.  Heck, maybe that would not be such a bad thing except for the fact that most of the folks these bodies would choose would be ultimate DC insiders.

When you say elections are local and not federal, what that means is states are in charge of their own elections. I'm not saying remove the EC and put elections in the hands of the Fed. I'm saying instead of the states certifying "Joe Biden has won x electoral votes," the states now certify "Joe Biden has won this many individual votes, and Donald Trump has won this many individual votes." And at the end of it all, whoever got the most votes in totum is President. There's no involvement at all on the federal level. I suppose if you wanted to keep an electoral college that meets and awards vote totals instead of electoral votes, that would work too.

 

Your second paragraph is spot on. The founders could have made any number of bad decisions, or any number of better decisions. You're right, this is what we got. But through our history we've changed it because we felt either that they got it wrong, or that our society had changed in ways that were not envisioned by the founders. And that's exactly what the founders had in mind.

 

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

15 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

yes, it means tyranny by majority to me - and the lesser populated states would be relegated to total insignificance. 

you know quite well why our country has the electoral college.
imo one of the worst things to happen to our constitution was the 17th amendment.

 

 

 

  Ironic, but many of the people who bring up "tyranny of the majority" in defense of the electoral college are the same people going nuts celebrating having as many right wing justices as they possibly can get on the supreme court. 

[Dashinka 24,950]

1 minute ago, moxy said:

When you say elections are local and not federal, what that means is states are in charge of their own elections. I'm not saying remove the EC and put elections in the hands of the Fed. I'm saying instead of the states certifying "Joe Biden has won x electoral votes," the states now certify "Joe Biden has won this many individual votes, and Donald Trump has won this many individual votes." And at the end of it all, whoever got the most votes in totum is President. There's no involvement at all on the federal level. I suppose if you wanted to keep an electoral college that meets and awards vote totals instead of electoral votes, that would work too.

 

Your second paragraph is spot on. The founders could have made any number of bad decisions, or any number of better decisions. You're right, this is what we got. But through our history we've changed it because we felt either that they got it wrong, or that our society had changed in ways that were not envisioned by the founders. And that's exactly what the founders had in mind.

 

 

So in your scenario, what would be the threshold for triggering a nationwide recount?  Heck, with a 155M votes, if someone won by only 1M votes, we could see a real mess.  With such a diverse country, I don't see Majority Rule as being a good thing.  People in CA and NY could not care less about those in IA or KS.  Is the Electoral College and its apportioned votes a perfect system, probably not, but I think it would be much better than the alternative.  Regardless, if people do want the way their state chooses the electors for President, there is nothing stopping them, and I believe there is already quite a few that have decided to join the National Popular vote movement.  The funny thing is that no one ever paid attention to the National Popular vote until recently, and in our system, it really is meaningless.

5 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Ironic, but many of the people who bring up "tyranny of the majority" in defense of the electoral college are the same people going nuts celebrating having as many right wing justices as they possibly can get on the supreme court. 

I did not think that Justices of SCOTUS were supposed to be partisan?

[moxy 1,051]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Ironic, but many of the people who bring up "tyranny of the majority" in defense of the electoral college are the same people going nuts celebrating having as many right wing justices as they possibly can get on the supreme court. 

Definitely.

 

And I'm not saying anyone here is doing this, but having a national vote instead of the electoral college is about as conservative a principle you can get. But because Republicans have been losing the popular since G.W. Bush (if I remember correctly), they tie themselves in knots trying to justify a system that is philosophically opposed to their core values. A national vote would mean Republicans would have to reform to appeal to a wider population, and that's really the last thing they want to do. Again, not saying anyone here is arguing in that spirit, but that's the majority of the opposition I see to it.

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

So in your scenario, what would be the threshold for triggering a nationwide recount?

Same as it is now. As I said, states would still control their own elections, and every state has a threshold and procedures for recounts. If an election is close nationwide,  then by math it's going to be close in some states.

 

It's really pretty easy. In a national vote, everything stays the same except it's "one person one vote," not "one state x electoral votes."

[moxy 1,051]

6 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I did not think that Justices of SCOTUS were supposed to be partisan?

But you don't really believe that, do you?

 

Otherwise, why would it be so important to push a nominee through two weeks before an election?

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

29 minutes ago, moxy said:

If your argument continues to be "we can't change it because that's the way it was designed and we should never change it," then ok. I disagree. We've amended the Constitution 27 times. But ok.

That was never my argument, so you're disagreeing with nothing but imagined text. Look to the context of what you want to get a better understanding of why its rejected, it's precisely why the efforts to do a constitutional amendment are absent and other methods to circumvent it are being attempted.

 

Quote

I'm not sure where you get that the interstate compact is illegal though. If states pass it, then it is by definition legal. I get that you would believe it's bad policy, bad law, and flies in the face of the wishes of the founders and all that. That's cool. But it's not illegal.

I guess you'll figure it out when you do. Not all state laws are legal, and most certainly not all interstate compacts are legal, and this involves an issue of federal significance which strikes directly at the power of certain states, for which there are already supreme governing rules the states are signatory to. And this would likely not even be an interstate compact that Congress can okay (something that hasn't even happened, by default making it an illegal compact), due to the litany of constitutional infringements elsewhere too not just on interstate agreements.

 

17 minutes ago, moxy said:

When you say elections are local and not federal, what that means is states are in charge of their own elections. I'm not saying remove the EC and put elections in the hands of the Fed. I'm saying instead of the states certifying "Joe Biden has won x electoral votes," the states now certify "Joe Biden has won this many individual votes, and Donald Trump has won this many individual votes." And at the end of it all, whoever got the most votes in totum is President. There's no involvement at all on the federal level. I suppose if you wanted to keep an electoral college that meets and awards vote totals instead of electoral votes, that would work too.

 

Your second paragraph is spot on. The founders could have made any number of bad decisions, or any number of better decisions. You're right, this is what we got. But through our history we've changed it because we felt either that they got it wrong, or that our society had changed in ways that were not envisioned by the founders. And that's exactly what the founders had in mind.

What they had in mind was people trying to work together and respect the laws of the land, not build factions to undermine it. Washington specifically warned against what the left and Dems in certain states advocate:

 

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Washingtons_Farewell_Address.pdf

 

Quote

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

Quote

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I did not think that Justices of SCOTUS were supposed to be partisan?

 

  A good argument for a president selecting the best candidate rather than the most partisan one. Also a good argument for congress not coming up with baloney excuses for rushing candidates through or deferring the appointment for a  year.

 

  I am not calling out anyone in particular, but I have just seen several people (here) comment on how great it is that there are now six conservative justices and three liberal justices. To me, what would be great is not having the political affiliation of justices ever enter the conversation.

[moxy 1,051]

Burnt, I guess I"m just whiffing on your entire argument. It's not you, it's me I'm sure. I keep trying, but I cannot suss out where I seem to be misunderstanding your position, and it seems to be annoying you and thinking that I'm trying to twist your words. I'm not. So maybe if you could just sum up your objection to a national vote in a couple sentences, that would help.

 

Washington did indeed dislike the notion of parties controlling the government. Again, having a hard time trying to determine how it relates, unless you're saying that a national vote would encourage more parties, and hence more "usurpation" in Washington parlance?