Early U.S. voting surges to new record as Trump, Biden make late push

[pixelaoffy]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/11/04/creepy-robocalls-told-27m-swing-state-voters-stay-home-us-election/?utm_content=news&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1604523087. And voter suppression on election Day with robocalls urging people not to vote

[polpott]

2 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

If Trump can get some critical case to the Supreme Court he will win.  Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barret were all part of Bush's legal team in Bush v. Gore in 2000 that led to the Court illegally stopping the recount in FL and handing the election to Bush, as we all know.

Which is why he packed the Supreme Court with stooges before the election. What I don't understand is that electoral procedures are governed by state laws not federal laws. Several challenges have already been made to state Supreme Courts. Why would the Federal Supreme court have jurisdiction over the state laws?

[Jeffr2]

Just now, polpott said:

Which is why he packed the Supreme Court with stooges before the election. What I don't understand is that electoral procedures are governed by state laws not federal laws. Several challenges have already been made to state Supreme Courts. Why would the Federal Supreme court have jurisdiction over the state laws?

Just read Trump is really tired, not feeling well.  He's resigned to losing and <deleted> at his lawyers for not doing better before election day to change how votes would happen.  I.E. ban mail in and early votes...ones that lean Dem.

 

The forecast is 270 to 264.  Wow...

[cmarshall]

4 minutes ago, polpott said:

Which is why he packed the Supreme Court with stooges before the election. What I don't understand is that electoral procedures are governed by state laws not federal laws. Several challenges have already been made to state Supreme Courts. Why would the Federal Supreme court have jurisdiction over the state laws?

 

A recent case called for the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as to what the State Constitution said.  The SC did not accept the case since it requires 5 justices to accept a case and only four did so.  So, that action declined to overturn the ruling by the PA Supreme Court, but it was a near thing.  Four justices were ready to take the case and in the written opinion of one of them the Supreme Court would have been fully entitled to overrule the PA Supreme Court even on the interpretation of the PA Constitution.

 

Bush v. Gore in 2000 was a judicial coup.  The current Supreme Court is fully prepared to execute another.

[Jeffr2]

11 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

A recent case called for the Supreme Court to overturn the ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as to what the State Constitution said.  The SC did not accept the case since it requires 5 justices to accept a case and only four did so.  So, that action declined to overturn the ruling by the PA Supreme Court, but it was a near thing.  Four justices were ready to take the case and in the written opinion of one of them the Supreme Court would have been fully entitled to overrule the PA Supreme Court even on the interpretation of the PA Constitution.

 

Bush v. Gore in 2000 was a judicial coup.  The current Supreme Court is fully prepared to execute another.

The entire voting system in the US is out of date and desperately needs to be revamped.  Get rid of the electoral college! ????

[cmarshall]

Just now, Jeffr2 said:

The entire voting system in the US is out of date and desperately needs to be revamped.  Get rid of the electoral college! ????

 

Utterly impossible. No one reading this will ever live to see another amendment to the US Constitution, which is the constitution that is the most difficult to amend by design.  Had the Dems taken the WH and the Senate they could have reformed voting nationwide and included an end to the winner-take-all, first-past-the-post method of awarding electoral votes in the states, which would have mitigated the ongoing damage to democracy of the Electoral College.  As we know now, that isn't going to happen any time soon.

[Jeffr2]

Just now, cmarshall said:

 

Utterly impossible. No one reading this will ever live to see another amendment to the US Constitution, which is the constitution that is the most difficult to amend by design.  Had the Dems taken the WH and the Senate they could have reformed voting nationwide and included an end to the winner-take-all, first-past-the-post method of awarding electoral votes in the states, which would have mitigated the ongoing damage to democracy of the Electoral College.  As we know now, that isn't going to happen any time soon.

Well put.  The GOP are masters at gerrymandering.  The Dems, not so much. LOL.

 

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

Well put.  The GOP are masters at gerrymandering.  The Dems, not so much. LOL.

 

 

Has nothing to do with gerrymandering.  PA has 20 electoral votes.  If Trump has 50% +1 of the votes cast he gets all 20 EVs.  Why should he get the EVs that Biden deserves in addition to his own?  It would be much fairer to award them proportionally so that in the case cited Trump would get 11 and Biden 9 or something like that.  

 

A nationwide voting reform passed by Congress could require that all states award their EVs proportionally to the popular vote.  The result is that the Electoral College vote and the popular vote would be more in sync, although not perfectly.  

[Jeffr2]

2 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

Has nothing to do with gerrymandering.  PA has 20 electoral votes.  If Trump has 50% +1 of the votes cast he gets all 20 EVs.  Why should he get the EVs that Biden deserves in addition to his own?  It would be much fairer to award them proportionally so that in the case cited Trump would get 11 and Biden 9 or something like that.  

 

A nationwide voting reform passed by Congress could require that all states award their EVs proportionally to the popular vote.  The result is that the Electoral College vote and the popular vote would be more in sync, although not perfectly.  

Agreed.  Change is desperately needed.  Heck, change is desperately needed for the entire political system.  It's massively broken and not doing things in favor of the people.  Just in favor of the politicians.

[cmarshall]

Just now, Jeffr2 said:

Agreed.  Change is desperately needed.  Heck, change is desperately needed for the entire political system.  It's massively broken and not doing things in favor of the people.  Just in favor of the politicians.

 

While I agree emphatically, you have to recognize that for the purposes of anti-democratic minority rule, the current constitutional system is little short of ideal.  The Republicans have had a strategy since the Powell memo of 1972 to offset their declining electoral popularity with control of the courts, especially the Supreme Court, since the federal courts have the power to overturn laws passed by the democratically-elected Congress, even though this power is nowhere in the Constitution.  The Rs don't oppose reform because they are stupid, but because they are able to exploit the design defects of the Constitution to maintain minority rule.