quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
If it is wrong for Moore to offer to pay fines for people because that is attempting to influence their decision, then threatening to fine the person if he doesn't vote your way is just as wrong because it is still trying to influence their decision. Goose - gander, pot - kettle etc.

It's not the same, igor. The laws (of most states) state that Electors have to vote according to the popular vote in that state. That's the rule. If you break the rule, there are (or may be, as it seems faithless electors haven't always been punished for breaking the rule) consequences. In most states, Electors are, pretty much, just rubberstampers.

What Michael Moore did was quite different.

All that being said, Moore didn't try to bribe people to vote for his candidate. What he did was offer to accept their consequences if they felt compelled to violate the rules. This wouldn't result in financial benefits to the Elector if he changes his vote. The elector would be no better off than if he didn't follow the rules.

I don't think Moore didn't anything illegal.

Regardless of state laws, if a person is threatened with being fined for not voting the way other people (or the state) wants him to it is still a means of making that person vote a certain way, and as such is just as wrong (or right) as Moore offering to pay said fines. If people were supposed to not be allowed to vote some other way, then what, exactly, is the purpose of using electors to do the voting? It seems it would be much easier to simply convert the votes of the citizens into electoral votes without going through the middle man (the electors). If there are enough citizen votes to elect an elector, and if that elector is not allowed to vote some other way, then what the hell is the point? Just turn the citizen votes into electoral votes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
If it is wrong for Moore to offer to pay fines for people because that is attempting to influence their decision, then threatening to fine the person if he doesn't vote your way is just as wrong because it is still trying to influence their decision. Goose - gander, pot - kettle etc.

It's not the same, igor. The laws (of most states) state that Electors have to vote according to the popular vote in that state. That's the rule. If you break the rule, there are (or may be, as it seems faithless electors haven't always been punished for breaking the rule) consequences. In most states, Electors are, pretty much, just rubberstampers.

What Michael Moore did was quite different.

All that being said, Moore didn't try to bribe people to vote for his candidate. What he did was offer to accept their consequences if they felt compelled to violate the rules. This wouldn't result in financial benefits to the Elector if he changes his vote. The elector would be no better off than if he didn't follow the rules.

I don't think Moore didn't anything illegal.

Regardless of state laws, if a person is threatened with being fined for not voting the way other people (or the state) wants him to it is still a means of making that person vote a certain way, and as such is just as wrong (or right) as Moore offering to pay said fines. If people were supposed to not be allowed to vote some other way, then what, exactly, is the purpose of using electors to do the voting? It seems it would be much easier to simply convert the votes of the citizens into electoral votes without going through the middle man (the electors). If there are enough citizen votes to elect an elector, and if that elector is not allowed to vote some other way, then what the hell is the point? Just turn the citizen votes into electoral votes.

I've kind of always wondered this. I believe that there are 21 states that allow don't require electors to vote with the popular vote. So if over half of the states legally require their electors to vote in line with the popular vote in the state, why even bother to have electors? Just have the state certify the vote and send it on.

And then, why the big to-do on Jan 6, where there is a Joint Session of Congress, the electoral votes are counted, and members of Congress can then object? For any objections to be considered, it has to be submitted in writing, and be signed by a Representative and a Senator. If that happens, the chambers split up and each considers the objections in meetings that last no more than two hours, and where the ones who object are allowed to speak for no more than 5 minutes. Then each chamber votes to accept or reject objection, the chambers meet together again, and announce their decisions. If they both accept the objection, the vote is not counted. If they both reject it, the vote is counted.

Like any objection would ever make it through all of that. Apparently there have only been a couple of times that there were objections, and each time they were voted down.

Its all just a big farce.

Seriously.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
If it is wrong for Moore to offer to pay fines for people because that is attempting to influence their decision, then threatening to fine the person if he doesn't vote your way is just as wrong because it is still trying to influence their decision. Goose - gander, pot - kettle etc.

It's not the same, igor. The laws (of most states) state that Electors have to vote according to the popular vote in that state. That's the rule. If you break the rule, there are (or may be, as it seems faithless electors haven't always been punished for breaking the rule) consequences. In most states, Electors are, pretty much, just rubberstampers.

What Michael Moore did was quite different.

All that being said, Moore didn't try to bribe people to vote for his candidate. What he did was offer to accept their consequences if they felt compelled to violate the rules. This wouldn't result in financial benefits to the Elector if he changes his vote. The elector would be no better off than if he didn't follow the rules.

I don't think Moore didn't anything illegal.

Regardless of state laws, if a person is threatened with being fined for not voting the way other people (or the state) wants him to it is still a means of making that person vote a certain way, and as such is just as wrong (or right) as Moore offering to pay said fines. If people were supposed to not be allowed to vote some other way, then what, exactly, is the purpose of using electors to do the voting? It seems it would be much easier to simply convert the votes of the citizens into electoral votes without going through the middle man (the electors). If there are enough citizen votes to elect an elector, and if that elector is not allowed to vote some other way, then what the hell is the point? Just turn the citizen votes into electoral votes.

I've kind of always wondered this. I believe that there are 21 states that allow don't require electors to vote with the popular vote. So if over half of the states legally require their electors to vote in line with the popular vote in the state, why even bother to have electors? Just have the state certify the vote and send it on.

And then, why the big to-do on Jan 6, where there is a Joint Session of Congress, the electoral votes are counted, and members of Congress can then object? For any objections to be considered, it has to be submitted in writing, and be signed by a Representative and a Senator. If that happens, the chambers split up and each considers the objections in meetings that last no more than two hours, and where the ones who object are allowed to speak for no more than 5 minutes. Then each chamber votes to accept or reject objection, the chambers meet together again, and announce their decisions. If they both accept the objection, the vote is not counted. If they both reject it, the vote is counted.

Like any objection would ever make it through all of that. Apparently there have only been a couple of times that there were objections, and each time they were voted down.

Its all just a big farce.

Seriously.

Not quite right, see the election of 1876 when a special committee was set up to determine which of two sets of electors was to be accepted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
If it is wrong for Moore to offer to pay fines for people because that is attempting to influence their decision, then threatening to fine the person if he doesn't vote your way is just as wrong because it is still trying to influence their decision. Goose - gander, pot - kettle etc.

It's not the same, igor. The laws (of most states) state that Electors have to vote according to the popular vote in that state. That's the rule. If you break the rule, there are (or may be, as it seems faithless electors haven't always been punished for breaking the rule) consequences. In most states, Electors are, pretty much, just rubberstampers.
What Michael Moore did was quite different.
All that being said, Moore didn't try to bribe people to vote for his candidate. What he did was offer to accept their consequences if they felt compelled to violate the rules. This wouldn't result in financial benefits to the Elector if he changes his vote. The elector would be no better off than if he didn't follow the rules.
I don't think Moore didn't anything illegal.

Regardless of state laws, if a person is threatened with being fined for not voting the way other people (or the state) wants him to it is still a means of making that person vote a certain way, and as such is just as wrong (or right) as Moore offering to pay said fines. If people were supposed to not be allowed to vote some other way, then what, exactly, is the purpose of using electors to do the voting? It seems it would be much easier to simply convert the votes of the citizens into electoral votes without going through the middle man (the electors). If there are enough citizen votes to elect an elector, and if that elector is not allowed to vote some other way, then what the hell is the point? Just turn the citizen votes into electoral votes.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
I've kind of always wondered this. I believe that there are 21 states that allow don't require electors to vote with the popular vote. So if over half of the states legally require their electors to vote in line with the popular vote in the state, why even bother to have electors? Just have the state certify the vote and send it on.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
If it is wrong for Moore to offer to pay fines for people because that is attempting to influence their decision, then threatening to fine the person if he doesn't vote your way is just as wrong because it is still trying to influence their decision. Goose - gander, pot - kettle etc.

It's not the same, igor. The laws (of most states) state that Electors have to vote according to the popular vote in that state. That's the rule. If you break the rule, there are (or may be, as it seems faithless electors haven't always been punished for breaking the rule) consequences. In most states, Electors are, pretty much, just rubberstampers.
What Michael Moore did was quite different.
All that being said, Moore didn't try to bribe people to vote for his candidate. What he did was offer to accept their consequences if they felt compelled to violate the rules. This wouldn't result in financial benefits to the Elector if he changes his vote. The elector would be no better off than if he didn't follow the rules.
I don't think Moore didn't anything illegal.

Regardless of state laws, if a person is threatened with being fined for not voting the way other people (or the state) wants him to it is still a means of making that person vote a certain way, and as such is just as wrong (or right) as Moore offering to pay said fines. If people were supposed to not be allowed to vote some other way, then what, exactly, is the purpose of using electors to do the voting? It seems it would be much easier to simply convert the votes of the citizens into electoral votes without going through the middle man (the electors). If there are enough citizen votes to elect an elector, and if that elector is not allowed to vote some other way, then what the hell is the point? Just turn the citizen votes into electoral votes.

It's not regardless of State laws. That's the point. The States get to make the laws regarding appointing electors and how those electors have to vote. In addition, there are only 2 states (Nebraska and I think New Hampshire) that allow for proportionate assignment of electors. The rest are winner-take-all.

If the residents of a state don't care for the way their state appoints electors and holds them to their vote, then they can bring it up to their state representatives and get it changed.

There are laws written and passed by the State government. Some of them threaten a fine and/or jail time if those laws are broken. Those penal consequences are there so people are less likely to break the laws.

And, fwiw, I state I don't think Michael Moore did anything wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul
I've kind of always wondered this. I believe that there are 21 states that allow don't require electors to vote with the popular vote. So if over half of the states legally require their electors to vote in line with the popular vote in the state, why even bother to have electors? Just have the state certify the vote and send it on.

There are only two states that apportion electors according to the popular vote, too. The rest are winner-take-all.

The fines are usually around $1,000, so not incredibly punitive, but it will make most people think twice about not following the laws.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

Belatedly occurred to me, but why didn't those who are hatin' on Moore for offering to pay fines take exception to cheeto fuhrer's offer to pay legal bills if any of his horde of unspeakables beat up a protestor or two, like they used to in the old days?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bondageerone

my personal [U>K>] opinion of MM.is he is a very clever, and funny man.
maybe too clever for American audiences. xx Terri.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003
If it is wrong for Moore to offer to pay fines for people because that is attempting to influence their decision, then threatening to fine the person if he doesn't vote your way is just as wrong because it is still trying to influence their decision. Goose - gander, pot - kettle etc.

It's not the same, igor. The laws (of most states) state that Electors have to vote according to the popular vote in that state. That's the rule. If you break the rule, there are (or may be, as it seems faithless electors haven't always been punished for breaking the rule) consequences. In most states, Electors are, pretty much, just rubberstampers.
What Michael Moore did was quite different.
All that being said, Moore didn't try to bribe people to vote for his candidate. What he did was offer to accept their consequences if they felt compelled to violate the rules. This wouldn't result in financial benefits to the Elector if he changes his vote. The elector would be no better off than if he didn't follow the rules.
I don't think Moore didn't anything illegal.

Regardless of state laws, if a person is threatened with being fined for not voting the way other people (or the state) wants him to it is still a means of making that person vote a certain way, and as such is just as wrong (or right) as Moore offering to pay said fines. If people were supposed to not be allowed to vote some other way, then what, exactly, is the purpose of using electors to do the voting? It seems it would be much easier to simply convert the votes of the citizens into electoral votes without going through the middle man (the electors). If there are enough citizen votes to elect an elector, and if that elector is not allowed to vote some other way, then what the hell is the point? Just turn the citizen votes into electoral votes.

It's not regardless of State laws. That's the point. The States get to make the laws regarding appointing electors and how those electors have to vote. In addition, there are only 2 states (Nebraska and I think New Hampshire) that allow for proportionate assignment of electors. The rest are winner-take-all.

If the residents of a state don't care for the way their state appoints electors and holds them to their vote, then they can bring it up to their state representatives and get it changed.

There are laws written and passed by the State government. Some of them threaten a fine and/or jail time if those laws are broken. Those penal consequences are there so people are less likely to break the laws.

And, fwiw, I state I don't think Michael Moore did anything wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Nonetheless, if state laws handcuff electors, those laws are unConstitutional and should be challenged.
If not, then the 12th Amendment is just a dog and pony show.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)