Major ruling out of the 10th Circuit regarding Presidential Electors (Baca v Colorado Department of State)

Why? Because we are not a democracy, a mob rule system of government.

And just what did our founder think of democracy?

Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they

“…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate “the evils we experience,” saying that those “evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy…”

And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out “democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel…”

And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: "Democracy never lasts long” . . . “It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.”. . . “There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’”

And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: “We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”

And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying “A republic, if you can keep it.”

And finally, our Constitution, in crystal clear languages declares: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government . . . "

Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced directly by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership.

JWK

Socialist democrats running for office will promise food on the table, free public housing, health care for all, guaranteed income, free college tuition, and other niceties by taxing the so called rich; and if by chance they ever do get political power because of such promises made, their socialist iron-fisted dependency will enslave the very fools who elected them.

Not to mention needing to change the 14th amendment, which is the basis for birthright citizenship. Which will never happen.

I’m in a minority. I’m a Dem that fully supports the electoral college. Yes -Its hurt Dem 2 of the 2 of the last 5 elections. ■■■■ happens. But the system is the right system. Otherwise you campaigns would simply work to drive up vote counts in places they are already strong. We would actually become more divided.

I’ll continue in the Minority - This is the right ruling. NO where in the constitution, or any amendment say that the president is to be elected by Electors and that the state can select how to pick Electors. This was not a accident.
If a state decided to have no Presidential election and do a random drawing to select their electors -that would be legal.

Meanwhile - if the Founding fathers wanted the states to dictate WHO to vote for, they would have said “States vote for president”. but they didn’t. they said Electors, chosen by the state, select electors. It was SUPPOSE to stop the country from, just spit balling here, electing someone who was a popular entertainer who has not business running a country. Just cause it didn’t, doesn’t mean its not still the system.

I haven’t read the entire decision - but I suspect that a state could still have the electors do a loyalty pledge, they could prob even give some sort of punishment such as baring them from every being a elector in the future, if they didn’t vote the way the state told them to vote. BUT - their vote will still count.

1 Like

Of course - why would the smaller states, heavily over-represented in the Electoral College, agree to give up that advantage?

The state might be barred from punishing but such an elector would still have to face the home folks who he betrayed with his vote.

Agreed mostly. Be interesting to see what he’s really up to. It’s not this and Greenland.

They are not heavily over represented.

1 Like

To remove the Electoral College is an act of Communism is it not?

Wyoming: 1 elector for every 190,000 persons
California: 1 elector for every 720,000 persons

Proportionate to Wyoming, California would have 209 electors instead of 55.

They are not heavily over represented.

1 Like

From a population perspective, of course they are. If you’re basing your position on something, else, that could be a different story.

They are represented exactly according to current law.

You over estimate the value of “population”.

2 Likes

Exactly…what small state in their right mind would sell out there state like that.

Authoritarian tyranny, again.

I think my ha ha post was deleted. :rofl:

But the ruling did bring up interesting question thou.

You mean we’re the only non-communist country in the world, only because we have an “electoral college”?

No, it is not.

How did that popular vote ■■■■ work out with the Senate?

I don’t know if this kills the national popular vote movement at all, it may help it.

Basically it states that if a candidate wins the national popular vote then all states cast their electoral votes for the candidate whether or not they won the state.

So in that case, the elector would now be free to cast their vote for someone who didn’t win the state since the court ruled that they are not bound to the state’s results.

I don’t know, am I reading this wrong?

1 Like

Excellent question Torey. I was wondering this very same thing.