It's Thursday...a day of normal political hell

[mrsukyankee]

link


A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that presidential electors who cast the actual ballots for president and vice president are free to vote as they wish and cannot be required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states.



The decision could give a single elector the power to decide the outcome of a presidential election — if the popular vote results in an apparent Electoral College tie.

[4speedy]

Does anyone know if the way the electoral college delegates vote is public record or is it anonymous?

ETA:

Google tells me it varies state by state.  Looks like electoral voting might be a free for all this year.

[Velar Fricative]

More reason to get rid of the Electoral College.

[mrsukyankee]

And in today's "no, duh" news...


a-new-poll-shows-what-really-interests-pro-lifers-controlling-women

According to self-identified “pro-life” advocates, the fundamental divide between those who want to outlaw abortion and those who want to keep it legal comes down to one question: when does life begin? Anti-abortion advocacy pushes the view that life begins at conception; the name of their movement carefully centers the conceit that opposition to abortion rights is simply about wanting to save human lives.



A new poll shows that’s a lie. The “pro-life” movement is fundamentally about misogyny.

[aliciabella]

Isn't that how it has always been? That the electoral college isn't required to follow the majority vote? But even though not required, historically has always worked that way, which probably was never an issue prior to this last election cycle?

[carmenere]

Aug 22, 2019 7:11:37 GMT -5 aliciabella said:

Isn't that how it has always been? That the electoral college isn't required to follow the majority vote? But even though not required, historically has always worked that way, which probably was never an issue prior to this last election cycle?

At a national level, yes, historically it is possible to win a majority of the electoral college without winning a majority of the nationwide popular vote. But historically most electors (except faithless electors) voted with the popular vote of their state. This change means electors don’t even have to vote with the vote of their state.

ETA: Reading the article made me even angrier than seeing the posts about it. The case is about a (probably white) man who was an elector for Colorado who tried to vote for Kasich because he didn't want to vote for HRC. Colorado said nope, you have to vote for the winner of the state popular vote, and since he wouldn't they tossed out his vote and replaced him with someone who did vote for HRC, so the guy sued. So our democracy is being scraped BUT HER MOTHERFUCKING EMAILS. 

[aliciabella]

Aug 22, 2019 7:23:31 GMT -5 carmenere said:

Aug 22, 2019 7:11:37 GMT -5 aliciabella said:

Isn't that how it has always been? That the electoral college isn't required to follow the majority vote? But even though not required, historically has always worked that way, which probably was never an issue prior to this last election cycle?

At a national level, yes, historically it is possible to win a majority of the electoral college without winning a majority of the nationwide popular vote. But historically most electors (except faithless electors) voted with the popular vote of their state. This change means electors don’t even have to vote with the vote of their state.

Right but I thought that state electors already had this freedom to vote as they wish and were not mandated to follow their states majority vote? I'll have to look it up when I get a chance. Thanks.

[carmenere]

Aug 22, 2019 7:33:37 GMT -5 aliciabella said:

Aug 22, 2019 7:23:31 GMT -5 carmenere said:

At a national level, yes, historically it is possible to win a majority of the electoral college without winning a majority of the nationwide popular vote. But historically most electors (except faithless electors) voted with the popular vote of their state. This change means electors don’t even have to vote with the vote of their state.

Right but I thought that state electors already had this freedom to vote as they wish and were not mandated to follow their states majority vote? I'll have to look it up when I get a chance. Thanks.

No, the article says 30 states have laws that bind electors to the outcome of the state's popular vote but the penalties for faithless electors are weak or unenforced. Historically faithless electors were rare (although apparently five refused to vote for HRC).

[mrsukyankee]

This system does not make an ounce of sense at all. Seriously. Everyone wants this one person, but as an elector I'll make up my own mind. WTF?

[waverly]

Let me guess all the electors are pretty much old white men? And they wouldn’t vote for HRC because of misogyny.

Apparently the people are too dumb to vote in their own elections hence the electoral college. Thanks founding fathers.

[pugz]

ugggggggh fuck the electoral college

[cattledogkisses]

Aug 22, 2019 7:00:45 GMT -5 mrsukyankee said:

And in today's "no, duh" news...


a-new-poll-shows-what-really-interests-pro-lifers-controlling-women

According to self-identified “pro-life” advocates, the fundamental divide between those who want to outlaw abortion and those who want to keep it legal comes down to one question: when does life begin? Anti-abortion advocacy pushes the view that life begins at conception; the name of their movement carefully centers the conceit that opposition to abortion rights is simply about wanting to save human lives.



A new poll shows that’s a lie. The “pro-life” movement is fundamentally about misogyny.

Ding, ding, ding. 



My dog had a vet appointment yesterday, and on the way I have to drive by a doctors office that always has a big group of anti-choice protesters camped outside with those big, graphic signs of “aborted fetuses.” The whole group of them are all older white men. I always flip them off when I drive by. 

[eclaires]

Curious. Twitter seems to think this means internal GOP polls don’t look so hot for them in the Senate in 2020.

Couldn’t happen to a more deserving group of assholes though.

[biscoffcookies]

Aug 22, 2019 7:51:17 GMT -5 mrsukyankee said:

This system does not make an ounce of sense at all. Seriously. Everyone wants this one person, but as an elector I'll make up my own mind. WTF?

This was the point though. The Founding Fathers didn't trust the masses, so they wanted a way for the elite to be able to substitute their judgment for those of the populace.

It's also seen in how originally there was no direct election of senators. Instead, the masses got to vote for people at the state level, who then would use their judgment to pick senators.

But yeah. It's crap.

[biscoffcookies]

Aug 22, 2019 8:39:25 GMT -5 eclaires said:

Curious. Twitter seems to think this means internal GOP polls don’t look so hot for them in the Senate in 2020.

Don't tease me!!

Also GTFO McConnell. You were the first person in line to destroy norms and rules when they got in the way of your agenda.

[eclaires]

Aug 22, 2019 8:51:58 GMT -5 biscoffcookies said:

Aug 22, 2019 8:39:25 GMT -5 eclaires said:

Curious. Twitter seems to think this means internal GOP polls don’t look so hot for them in the Senate in 2020.

Don't tease me!!

Also GTFO McConnell. You were the first person in line to destroy norms and rules when they got in the way of your agenda.

I don’t want to get my hopes up because people suck but is interesting Mitch is ride or die for the filibuster right now after ditching it for scotus when it suited his purposes.

[WOT?*]

Aug 22, 2019 7:33:37 GMT -5 aliciabella said:

Aug 22, 2019 7:23:31 GMT -5 carmenere said:

At a national level, yes, historically it is possible to win a majority of the electoral college without winning a majority of the nationwide popular vote. But historically most electors (except faithless electors) voted with the popular vote of their state. This change means electors don’t even have to vote with the vote of their state.

Right but I thought that state electors already had this freedom to vote as they wish and were not mandated to follow their states majority vote? I'll have to look it up when I get a chance. Thanks.

IIRC, thirty states require that the electors vote for the chosen candidate. They can vote otherwise but there are penalties/sanctions. WA is one of those states that had faithless electors, one of whom is in my legislative district. The four who voted against Hillary and were all fined $1K for voting against the nominated candidate (I believe there were three Bernies and a Colin Powell write-in.) WA decided the opposite direction, in support of the rule as it now stands. There are those who are high-fiving and "see you at SCOTUS, dude!"-ing him with this CO ruling. (I believe we had three white guys and a woman vote against the candidate "because 75% of the state supports Bernie!")

(This is at the national level, once the candidate is selected and for the nomination. The party wants a unanimous support of a candidate to show unity and strength. But we have caucuses, which are BS and a whole 'nother argument. And YAY for that changing in 2020. Our first round, to determine apportionment, is by primary and then we hold caucuses to select delegates. No more of this "But we all support Bernie" when in actuality, with the primary "which doesn't count and doesn't matter" was Hillary at 53% and Bernie at 47% rather than the "caucus math" that gave Berners 75% apportionment of delegates.)

[carmenere]

Aug 22, 2019 9:34:05 GMT -5 WOT?* said:

Aug 22, 2019 7:33:37 GMT -5 aliciabella said:

Right but I thought that state electors already had this freedom to vote as they wish and were not mandated to follow their states majority vote? I'll have to look it up when I get a chance. Thanks.

IIRC, thirty states require that the electors vote for the chosen candidate. They can vote otherwise but there are penalties/sanctions. WA is one of those states that had faithless electors, one of whom is in my legislative district. The four who voted against Hillary and were all fined $1K for voting against the nominated candidate (I believe there were three Bernies and a Colin Powell write-in.) WA decided the opposite direction, in support of the rule as it now stands. There are those who are high-fiving and "see you at SCOTUS, dude!"-ing him with this CO ruling. (I believe we had three white guys and a woman vote against the candidate "because 75% of the state supports Bernie!")

(This is at the national level, once the candidate is selected and for the nomination. The party wants a unanimous support of a candidate to show unity and strength. But we have caucuses, which are BS and a whole 'nother argument. And YAY for that changing in 2020. Our first round, to determine apportionment, is by primary and then we hold caucuses to select delegates. No more of this "But we all support Bernie" when in actuality, with the primary "which doesn't count and doesn't matter" was Hillary at 53% and Bernie at 47% rather than the "caucus math" that gave Berners 75% apportionment of delegates.)

Just to be clear this case is about the electoral college, not party nominations. There's no indication that this would apply to party nominations - the rules for nominations are generally made by the parties' national committees, they are not defined by law.

[mbcdefg]

Former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders is joining Fox News as a contributor, the network announced Thursday.

Sanders, who left the Trump administration roughly two months ago, will appear on various Fox platforms to provide political commentary. She will make her first appearance on "Fox & Friends" during its Sept. 6 broadcast.

thehill.com/homenews/media/458401-sarah-huckabee-sanders-becomes-fox-news-contributor

[AAM2012]

Aug 22, 2019 10:21:08 GMT -5 mbcdefg said:

Former White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders is joining Fox News as a contributor, the network announced Thursday.

Sanders, who left the Trump administration roughly two months ago, will appear on various Fox platforms to provide political commentary. She will make her first appearance on "Fox & Friends" during its Sept. 6 broadcast.

thehill.com/homenews/media/458401-sarah-huckabee-sanders-becomes-fox-news-contributor

I’m shocked.

[Velar Fricative]

Aug 22, 2019 8:39:25 GMT -5 eclaires said:

Curious. Twitter seems to think this means internal GOP polls don’t look so hot for them in the Senate in 2020.

Couldn’t happen to a more deserving group of assholes though.

MERRICK GARLAND

[WOT?*]

On the "we need a smile" front: Elizabeth Warren has a doppelganger in Klobuchar country. lol.
www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/elizabeth-warren-met-her-lookalike-at-a-rally-and-people-are-doing-double-takes/ar-AAG53WK?ocid=spartandhp

[redheadbaker]

New Trump administration rules stand to block the public from knowing anything about the treatment of migrant children in America’s detention facilities.

www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/08/trump-administration-unveils-new-family-separation-rule/596587/

For months at a time, the detention of migrant children seems to fall off the national radar, somehow fading to the background, behind the daily dramas of scandals big and small. And then suddenly, news will erupt: The children don’t have soap. They are freezing. The food is rotten.

Where this information comes from is not primarily from journalists but monitors—lawyers and advocates who regularly visit the nation’s detention facilities and border-patrol facilities to document the conditions. They do so not because these sites request the monitoring, but because that monitoring is allowed by what’s known as the Flores settlement, a 22-year-old consent decree that governs the care of migrant children in custody.

But with new rules that the Trump administration is expected to publish this week, even that single, infrequent geyser of information could go away. As part of a sweeping proposal to scrap the Flores regulations—including a change that would enable the Trump administration to detain migrant children in secure facilities indefinitely—the administration will lose the existing monitoring requirements entirely, according to two lawyers familiar with this area of law. The result will be that the long-term detention of migrant children would carry on out of view from advocates, the American public at large, and the entire world.

[georgeglass]

Huh.

The CEO of internet retailer Overstock has just resigned after comments he made recently about the "deep state" and admitted he was romantically involved with Maria Butina, the Russian operative who was sentenced to 18 months in prison for using NRA activism to infiltrate American politics.

thehill.com/homenews/458427-overstock-ceo-resigns-after-comments-about-deep-state?fbclid=IwAR13jxQUloChRK6icn8ddlSzoYYntfIVzorhfAEOnqtygPxgm18ZhQSXHIs

[aliciabella]

Aug 22, 2019 7:45:59 GMT -5 carmenere said:

Aug 22, 2019 7:33:37 GMT -5 aliciabella said:

Right but I thought that state electors already had this freedom to vote as they wish and were not mandated to follow their states majority vote? I'll have to look it up when I get a chance. Thanks.

No, the article says 30 states have laws that bind electors to the outcome of the state's popular vote but the penalties for faithless electors are weak or unenforced. Historically faithless electors were rare (although apparently five refused to vote for HRC).

Okay, thank you!

[aliciabella]

Aug 22, 2019 18:05:15 GMT -5 georgeglass said:

Huh.

The CEO of internet retailer Overstock has just resigned after comments he made recently about the "deep state" and admitted he was romantically involved with Maria Butina, the Russian operative who was sentenced to 18 months in prison for using NRA activism to infiltrate American politics.

thehill.com/homenews/458427-overstock-ceo-resigns-after-comments-about-deep-state?fbclid=IwAR13jxQUloChRK6icn8ddlSzoYYntfIVzorhfAEOnqtygPxgm18ZhQSXHIs

Speaking of her, there is an interesting documentary on Netflix called "The Family" and it is fascinating! It is now just getting into how the family and their connections involve Russians including Maria. It is fucking terrifying.

[WOT?*]

Aug 22, 2019 10:04:54 GMT -5 carmenere said:

Aug 22, 2019 9:34:05 GMT -5 WOT?* said:

IIRC, thirty states require that the electors vote for the chosen candidate. They can vote otherwise but there are penalties/sanctions. WA is one of those states that had faithless electors, one of whom is in my legislative district. The four who voted against Hillary and were all fined $1K for voting against the nominated candidate (I believe there were three Bernies and a Colin Powell write-in.) WA decided the opposite direction, in support of the rule as it now stands. There are those who are high-fiving and "see you at SCOTUS, dude!"-ing him with this CO ruling. (I believe we had three white guys and a woman vote against the candidate "because 75% of the state supports Bernie!")

(This is at the national level, once the candidate is selected and for the nomination. The party wants a unanimous support of a candidate to show unity and strength. But we have caucuses, which are BS and a whole 'nother argument. And YAY for that changing in 2020. Our first round, to determine apportionment, is by primary and then we hold caucuses to select delegates. No more of this "But we all support Bernie" when in actuality, with the primary "which doesn't count and doesn't matter" was Hillary at 53% and Bernie at 47% rather than the "caucus math" that gave Berners 75% apportionment of delegates.)

Just to be clear this case is about the electoral college, not party nominations. There's no indication that this would apply to party nominations - the rules for nominations are generally made by the parties' national committees, they are not defined by law.

I think we're on the same page, except I didn't need the second paragraph at all. Totally irrelevant and confusing the issue. It was their rationale for anti-Hillary, anti-"corporatist" votes. That and "our state doesn't want her so we're not voting for her." (grrrrr.) The plan was apparently "If we don't vote for our candidate, we can be an example to others and get three dozen or so Rs to not vote for Trump." (and now that I'm done laughing...) So despite being bound by state law to vote for Clinton when our state went blue, they voted "other." (Three voted for Colin Powell and one voted for Faith Spotted Eagle.)

The case is about their refusal to vote for Hillary in the electoral college once she was nominated. The state fined each of them $1K for non-compliance. They appealed, and the WA courts upheld the fines up to the WA Supreme Court level. This CO case, I think, can be persuasive in a SCOTUS appeal since the argument is that state penalties are unconstitutional . They are refusing to pay the fines and are pledging to appeal to SCOTUS. "Not paying the fines. It's unconstitutional! and now CO (and the dissent in the WA decision) says so too!"

An article from the WA courts on the case here (note the dissent also):

www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicupload/eclips/2019%2005%2024%20State%20high%20court%20upholds%201k%20fines%20on%20faithless%20electors.pdf

Am I making sense? (probably not.)

[StrawberryBlondie]

Aug 22, 2019 17:39:17 GMT -5 WOT?* said:

On the "we need a smile" front: Elizabeth Warren has a doppelganger in Klobuchar country. lol.
www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/elizabeth-warren-met-her-lookalike-at-a-rally-and-people-are-doing-double-takes/ar-AAG53WK?ocid=spartandhp

TBF, Elizabeth Warren looks like basically every liberal white woman in Highland Park & Mac Groveland (the area where she had her rally in St. Paul).

[Velar Fricative]

Hey remember how Sarah Huckabee Sanders got replaced by someone? Yeah, I forgot too. All I knew about Stephanie Grisham was that she previously worked for Melania, but this goes into her background:

www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/us/politics/stephanie-grisham-press-secretary.html

I am not saying someone fired twice and charged with DUIs twice should never be able to be gainfully employed again, but WH Press Secretary? Only the best.

[VillainV]

Aug 22, 2019 20:05:35 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Hey remember how Sarah Huckabee Sanders got replaced by someone? Yeah, I forgot too. All I knew about Stephanie Grisham was that she previously worked for Melania, but this goes into her background:

www.nytimes.com/2019/08/22/us/politics/stephanie-grisham-press-secretary.html

I am not saying someone fired twice and charged with DUIs twice should never be able to be gainfully employed again, but WH Press Secretary? Only the best.

I mean, it’s not like she gives press conferences or anything.