On 6/11/16 11:42 AM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/10/16 9:31 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100
years), it is now.

Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience.
Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat.
C'est la vie.


I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is
challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that
a black or a woman would never get the nomination.



You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC
is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a
future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time.

It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish
the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice.


If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the
procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with
the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one.
DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it
could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the
house so they don't get to vote in the selection process.



I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing
the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights.


You should have paid more attention in school. The federal government was
never supposed to be all empowered. The President was the states choice.
How they chose their candidate was up to the state legislatures.



D'oh. I know how and why our "system" is structured in the EC. How
we elect a POTUS has changed over the centuries, and it can change
again. Stick to falling down and breaking bones, doofus...it's your area
of expertise.


How we elect the President has not changed. How the Electors are chosen
has, but that is a states right. Your education does not seem to have
helped your critical thinking.

Read the 12th amendment and get back to us. The duties and procedures of
the EC were changed.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:32:55 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Read the 12th amendment and get back to us. The duties and procedures of
the EC were changed.

How electors are selected did not change and there is still nothing
that forces the electors to vote for the person they were supposed to.
Plenty of elections have at least one rogue elector. Most recently was
2004 where one idiot from Minnesota voted for Edwards as president and
vice president. In 1988 a West Virginia democrat voted for Bentsen for
president and Dukakis for VP. In 76 Reagan got a vote and he wasn't
even running.

wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:32:55 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Read the 12th amendment and get back to us. The duties and procedures of
the EC were changed.

How electors are selected did not change and there is still nothing
that forces the electors to vote for the person they were supposed to.
Plenty of elections have at least one rogue elector. Most recently was
2004 where one idiot from Minnesota voted for Edwards as president and
vice president. In 1988 a West Virginia democrat voted for Bentsen for
president and Dukakis for VP. In 76 Reagan got a vote and he wasn't
even running.


California only requires the electors to vote for their pledge delegate on
the first two votes. After that they can vote for whomever.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:01:03 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:32:55 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Read the 12th amendment and get back to us. The duties and procedures of
the EC were changed.

How electors are selected did not change and there is still nothing
that forces the electors to vote for the person they were supposed to.
Plenty of elections have at least one rogue elector. Most recently was
2004 where one idiot from Minnesota voted for Edwards as president and
vice president. In 1988 a West Virginia democrat voted for Bentsen for
president and Dukakis for VP. In 76 Reagan got a vote and he wasn't
even running.


California only requires the electors to vote for their pledge delegate on
the first two votes. After that they can vote for whomever.

Are you talking about convention delegates? EC electors only get one
swing at it, then it goes to the house if nobody has 270.

wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:01:03 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:32:55 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Read the 12th amendment and get back to us. The duties and procedures of
the EC were changed.

How electors are selected did not change and there is still nothing
that forces the electors to vote for the person they were supposed to.
Plenty of elections have at least one rogue elector. Most recently was
2004 where one idiot from Minnesota voted for Edwards as president and
vice president. In 1988 a West Virginia democrat voted for Bentsen for
president and Dukakis for VP. In 76 Reagan got a vote and he wasn't
even running.


California only requires the electors to vote for their pledge delegate on
the first two votes. After that they can vote for whomever.

Are you talking about convention delegates? EC electors only get one
swing at it, then it goes to the house if nobody has 270.


I bad. Yes.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 15:32:32 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:01:03 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:32:55 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Read the 12th amendment and get back to us. The duties and procedures of
the EC were changed.

How electors are selected did not change and there is still nothing
that forces the electors to vote for the person they were supposed to.
Plenty of elections have at least one rogue elector. Most recently was
2004 where one idiot from Minnesota voted for Edwards as president and
vice president. In 1988 a West Virginia democrat voted for Bentsen for
president and Dukakis for VP. In 76 Reagan got a vote and he wasn't
even running.


California only requires the electors to vote for their pledge delegate on
the first two votes. After that they can vote for whomever.

Are you talking about convention delegates? EC electors only get one
swing at it, then it goes to the house if nobody has 270.


I bad. Yes.

All of this arcane stuff does seem to blur together when you actually
look at it too long. The only thing you really come away with is how
little most people's votes actually count. It usually comes down to a
few swing states because the rest of them are so partisan, one way or
the other, that the average guy is lost in the landslide.

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/11/16 11:42 AM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/10/16 9:31 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100
years), it is now.

Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience.
Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat.
C'est la vie.


I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is
challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that
a black or a woman would never get the nomination.



You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC
is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a
future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time.

It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish
the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice.


If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the
procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with
the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one.
DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it
could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the
house so they don't get to vote in the selection process.



I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing
the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights.


You should have paid more attention in school. The federal government was
never supposed to be all empowered. The President was the states choice.
How they chose their candidate was up to the state legislatures.



D'oh. I know how and why our "system" is structured in the EC. How
we elect a POTUS has changed over the centuries, and it can change
again. Stick to falling down and breaking bones, doofus...it's your area
of expertise.


How we elect the President has not changed. How the Electors are chosen
has, but that is a states right. Your education does not seem to have
helped your critical thinking.

Read the 12th amendment and get back to us. The duties and procedures of
the EC were changed.


The 12th defines how the election goes if not a majority of the votes by
the electors is not reached. Otherwise, has not changed how electors are
chosen, or their duties.