11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[martybegan]

because the same question was brought up when the document was written about votes from Delaware being worth more than votes from Virginia, and that was the compromise that was made. Big States agreed to it to get some of the items they wanted included in the document.

They also never foresaw a federal government as powerful as it is now.

Want it changed? Amend the Constitution.

You're not understanding what I'm asking.

I don't want it changed - at least, not to a national popular vote. I'm asking you to give me an argument for why what we have is a good system right now. I know the history already.

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

We don't live in a pure democracy, and for direct representation you have that at the State level.

The rules of our Republic were specifically designed to retard the power of the majority. It's a feature of our system, not a bug.

If that's a virtue, why don't states elect governors that way? Why doesn't each of its counties (parishes, boroughs) have its own electors to pick the governor?

Or Senator? Or Representative? Or Mayor? Or sheriff?

Prior to the 14th amendment and subsequent rulings, they could have, but most didn't.

They did it at the federal level because they were afraid of an overbearing federal government controlled by 2-3 large States.

Well we now have the overbearing federal government, and people like you want it controlled by 2-3 large States, so it appears they were correct in their worries.

 

[Votto]

No, it's really not. But I'm not surprised that my question flew over your head.

It flew straight into the ground.

You have a serious problem that you need to address. I hate to to tell you again, but you have a serious reading disability. You simply cannot process the written language.

Did you sustain any significant head injury as a child or adult?

You asked a question. It was answered. Because you don't like the answer, you claim that the questions was not answered.

There are two possibilities here: The first is like I said, that you have a learning disability. The second is that you are simply a dumbass.

I asked for a logical argument for the electoral college.

"Because the Constitution says so" is not an answer to that question.

We are a coalition of States, a Union. A few are not allowed such complete control.

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

because the same question was brought up when the document was written about votes from Delaware being worth more than votes from Virginia, and that was the compromise that was made. Big States agreed to it to get some of the items they wanted included in the document.

They also never foresaw a federal government as powerful as it is now.

Want it changed? Amend the Constitution.

That is what the states will be forced into doing, otherwise the Feds will take complete control over the entire country and with the backing of New York and California there will be nothing the rest of the country can do about it.

That is why the Article V movement is so important. States need to rise up and amend the Constitution so that states can resume the role they played before the Progressives amended the Constitution themselves at the turn of the 20th century.

 

[rightwinger]

I asked for a logical argument for the electoral college.

"Because the Constitution says so" is not an answer to that question.

We are a coalition of States, a Union. A few are not allowed such complete control.

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

because the same question was brought up when the document was written about votes from Delaware being worth more than votes from Virginia, and that was the compromise that was made. Big States agreed to it to get some of the items they wanted included in the document.

They also never foresaw a federal government as powerful as it is now.

Want it changed? Amend the Constitution.

You're not understanding what I'm asking.

I don't want it changed - at least, not to a national popular vote. I'm asking you to give me an argument for why what we have is a good system right now. I know the history already.

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

It is the small states that have unwarranted influence

 

[Pilot1]

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Pure Democracy is MOB RULE. Do you want a few states to decide for the entire country? That is now what has made this county successful.

The Federal government exists due to the STATES which were supposed to be stronger than the Feds, and thus States elect Presidents, not people. Take some History, and Civics courses, and read the Constitution.

 

[Pogo]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

Tissue?

You mean the system the Blue States agreed to when joining the union?

Have you actually not yet figured out that when "blue states" joined the union there was no such thing as a "blue state" or a "red state" and that that artificial division was created by the later WTA abuse of the Electoral College?

 

[martybegan]

We are a coalition of States, a Union. A few are not allowed such complete control.

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

because the same question was brought up when the document was written about votes from Delaware being worth more than votes from Virginia, and that was the compromise that was made. Big States agreed to it to get some of the items they wanted included in the document.

They also never foresaw a federal government as powerful as it is now.

Want it changed? Amend the Constitution.

You're not understanding what I'm asking.

I don't want it changed - at least, not to a national popular vote. I'm asking you to give me an argument for why what we have is a good system right now. I know the history already.

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

It is the small states that have unwarranted influence

it's not unwarranted, it's the end result of the purpose of the system.

Why do people feel the need to do so much at the federal level anyway? Blue States have shown they can go nuts with laws they like, why do they feel the need to force it on everyone else?

 

[oreo]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

GOOD--it's about time. There is no need for the electoral college vote today. Everyone can get to polling a precinct and or use mail in ballots. The electoral college was designed for people who couldn't vote because they lived out in the middle of nowhere. So our forefathers decided to do the electoral college system, in essense casting a vote for those people.

And as we saw on election night, any state west of Michigan didn't count, because Trump secured the 270 electoral college vote requirement by a measly 73K accumulated votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states.

Meaning that the Electoral college today is the worst case example of voter disenfranchisement still operational in the nation today.

Incorrect.

There was a bitter debate over whether or not the Constitution made the Federal government too powerful, as well as debate as to whether more populated states would hold more power over less populated states. That is why the Senate has two representatives per state no matter how big the population levels are.

And so it is with the Electoral college. If it were not for the Electoral College, the populations of both New York and California would decide each Presidential election as the rest of the nation would be held captive.

New York and California, combined, have a total of 84 electoral votes. It is impossible to decide a Presidential election with 84 votes Matter of fact you could multiply it by 3 and you still wouldn't have enough.

Ever take a math class? Might be time.

The electoral college is archaic and was designed for people who could not get to the polling precincts to cast a vote back since this country was founded. Everyone can vote today. There are voting precincts everywhere with the use of mail in ballots.

Trump winning on an accumulated vote total of 73K votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states while losing the popular vote by 3 million makes him the most illegitimate President to ever be sworn into the Oval office. Any state west of Michigan didn't count in this National election, and the President is supposed to be representative of every single vote in this country, not just certain states.

The electoral college is the very worst case of voter disenfranchisement used in this country today. It's got to go before another disaster like this happens again.

 

[Hum Dinger]

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

because the same question was brought up when the document was written about votes from Delaware being worth more than votes from Virginia, and that was the compromise that was made. Big States agreed to it to get some of the items they wanted included in the document.

They also never foresaw a federal government as powerful as it is now.

Want it changed? Amend the Constitution.

You're not understanding what I'm asking.

I don't want it changed - at least, not to a national popular vote. I'm asking you to give me an argument for why what we have is a good system right now. I know the history already.

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

We don't live in a pure democracy, and for direct representation you have that at the State level.

The rules of our Republic were specifically designed to retard the power of the majority. It's a feature of our system, not a bug.

If you want it changed, amend the Constitution.

We don't live in a pure democracy because a pure democracy is not possible. That doesn't mean that we should not try to get as close to a pure Democracy as is possible.

So, you think that it's a good idea to 'retard' that power of the majority and have rule by the minority? That's called a 'dictatorship'.

We do have popular representation at the state level. The states are acting to make the electoral college obsolete.

 

[Pogo]

If they are dem states does it really change anything.....wouldn't the dem alrdy have won all of em

True, but with the Democratic Party's mass voter fraud they could flip a few states. The other possibility is that it could backfire on them. They could be screwing over their own voters. There might be some big legal battles with this one.

Oh, it's gonna backfire on them, one way or another. Either a) they're gonna end up having to give their Electoral votes to a Republican, and all hell will break loose, or b) one of those states is gonna give their Electoral votes to someone who would not have gotten them under the previous laws, and their own residents are going to go ballistic.

And that's completely aside from the Constitutional questions this is going to trigger.

As far as your (b) scenario --- states are already giving away up to half their own electoral votes directly against their populations' choice, and the residents have yet to go ballistic. Although it would be productive if they did.

 

[martybegan]

because the same question was brought up when the document was written about votes from Delaware being worth more than votes from Virginia, and that was the compromise that was made. Big States agreed to it to get some of the items they wanted included in the document.

They also never foresaw a federal government as powerful as it is now.

Want it changed? Amend the Constitution.

You're not understanding what I'm asking.

I don't want it changed - at least, not to a national popular vote. I'm asking you to give me an argument for why what we have is a good system right now. I know the history already.

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

We don't live in a pure democracy, and for direct representation you have that at the State level.

The rules of our Republic were specifically designed to retard the power of the majority. It's a feature of our system, not a bug.

If you want it changed, amend the Constitution.

We don't live in a pure democracy because a pure democracy is not possible. That doesn't mean that we should not try to get as close to a pure Democracy as is possible.

So, you think that it's a good idea to 'retard' that power of the majority and have rule by the minority? That's called a 'dictatorship'.

We do have popular representation at the state level. The states are acting to make the electoral college obsolete.

No, it's called a Republic. A system where everything goes to the will of the majority is Mob rule.

They are doing it in a way that is probably Unconstitutional via Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1.

 

[martybegan]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

GOOD--it's about time. There is no need for the electoral college vote today. Everyone can get to polling a precinct and or use mail in ballots. The electoral college was designed for people who couldn't vote because they lived out in the middle of nowhere. So our forefathers decided to do the electoral college system, in essense casting a vote for those people.

And as we saw on election night, any state west of Michigan didn't count, because Trump secured the 270 electoral college vote requirement by a measly 73K accumulated votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states.

Meaning that the Electoral college today is the worst case example of voter disenfranchisement still operational in the nation today.

Incorrect.

There was a bitter debate over whether or not the Constitution made the Federal government too powerful, as well as debate as to whether more populated states would hold more power over less populated states. That is why the Senate has two representatives per state no matter how big the population levels are.

And so it is with the Electoral college. If it were not for the Electoral College, the populations of both New York and California would decide each Presidential election as the rest of the nation would be held captive.

New York and California, combined, have a total of 84 electoral votes. It is impossible to decide a Presidential election with 84 votes Matter of fact you could multiply it by 3 and you still wouldn't have enough.

Ever take a math class? Might be time.

The electoral college is archaic and was designed for people who could not get to the polling precincts to cast a vote back since this country was founded. Everyone can vote today. There are voting precincts everywhere with the use of mail in ballots.

Trump winning on an accumulated vote total of 73K votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states while losing the popular vote by 3 million makes him the most illegitimate President to ever be sworn into the Oval office. Any state west of Michigan didn't count in this National election, and the President is supposed to be representative of every single vote in this country, not just certain states.

The electoral college is the very worst case of voter disenfranchisement used in this country today. It's got to go before another disaster like this happens again.

And you only btich about it because your candidate lost.

Too bad, so sad.

It's purpose is to make the President, and only the President, the representative of a population skewed majority of the States.

 

[Pogo]

EVERY state, no matter how big or small, is entitled to equal representation within the federal government, hence the electoral college.

Technically not equal, but population proportioned representation.

Sorry, but I'm a stickler for details.

Your correction is correct.

As far as that state's representation in the Congress that's a functional plan. The problem comes in when that state's Presidential electors of the same number waltz into Congress and report that "wow, haven't seen anything like this in four years, literally everybody in our state voted for X. It was unanimous". And that's complete bullshit, it's dishonest, and it takes all the votes of anyone who voted for Y or Z and tosses them into a bonfire.

 

[Claudette]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

Tissue?

LMAO That electoral college has elected Dems, many Dems in the past. Guess WE THE PEOPLE didn't count then either. LOL

Tissue???

 

[Pogo]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

Ummmm news flash for those who skipped all their high school civics classes ---- the individual states all decide how their electors will be selected. They're not bound by any vote at all. The entire 'voting' charade is bread and circus.

Who says so? The Constitution. Prove me wrong.

Due to the fact that there has never been a national “popular vote” in this country, this will be struck down very easily. The democracy that you retards worship so much has never existed anywhere but state elections.

This is no more constitutional than gerrymandering in the most egregious way imaginable.

Checkmate Democrats.

You can't "strike down" the Constitution. Try actually reading the post you quoted before you fail to address it.

Also it's got zero to do with political parties, which didn't even exist then.

 

[Pop23]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

Tissue?

You mean the system the Blue States agreed to when joining the union?

Have you actually not yet figured out that when "blue states" joined the union there was no such thing as a "blue state" or a "red state" and that that artificial division was created by the later WTA abuse of the Electoral College?

You do realize I referenced Blue and Red according to today's reputation as to how they vote right? Not their actual color?

 

[martybegan]

EVERY state, no matter how big or small, is entitled to equal representation within the federal government, hence the electoral college.

Technically not equal, but population proportioned representation.

Sorry, but I'm a stickler for details.

Your correction is correct.

As far as that state's representation in the Congress that's a functional plan. The problem comes in when that state's Presidential electors of the same number waltz into Congress and report that "wow, haven't seen anything like this in four years, literally everybody in our state voted for X. It was unanimous". And that's complete bullshit, it's dishonest, and it takes all the votes of anyone who voted for Y or Z and tosses them into a bonfire.

"Winner takes all" has its own issues, but to be fair some States don't do it.

I would be happier with the 2 Senate EV's going to the Statewide winner, and each Congressional district awarding 1 EV based on the vote there.

Of course that would make redistrcting even a bigger fight.

I am still not a fan of a national vote President though.

 

[Pop23]

We are a coalition of States, a Union. A few are not allowed such complete control.

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

because the same question was brought up when the document was written about votes from Delaware being worth more than votes from Virginia, and that was the compromise that was made. Big States agreed to it to get some of the items they wanted included in the document.

They also never foresaw a federal government as powerful as it is now.

Want it changed? Amend the Constitution.

You're not understanding what I'm asking.

I don't want it changed - at least, not to a national popular vote. I'm asking you to give me an argument for why what we have is a good system right now. I know the history already.

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

It is the small states that have unwarranted influence

And, since the large States agreed to same, it is not unwarranted.

 

[martybegan]

There's a reason the Constitution starts with "We the People...", not "We the States..."

Why should someone in North Dakota's vote for President be worth more than someone in California?

because the same question was brought up when the document was written about votes from Delaware being worth more than votes from Virginia, and that was the compromise that was made. Big States agreed to it to get some of the items they wanted included in the document.

They also never foresaw a federal government as powerful as it is now.

Want it changed? Amend the Constitution.

You're not understanding what I'm asking.

I don't want it changed - at least, not to a national popular vote. I'm asking you to give me an argument for why what we have is a good system right now. I know the history already.

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

It is the small states that have unwarranted influence

And, since the large States agreed to same, it is not unwarranted.

and before someone brings up the point of the original agreement being between 13 former colonies only, when the States after entered the Union, they agreed to the same rules.

 

[Pogo]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

Ummmm news flash for those who skipped all their high school civics classes ---- the individual states all decide how their electors will be selected. They're not bound by any vote at all. The entire 'voting' charade is bread and circus.

Who says so? The Constitution. Prove me wrong.

Article II, Section l of the U.S. Constitution proves you're right.

The state must represent their constituency. They can proportionality distribute their college votes by the populace within their state or they can give them all to the winner of the popular vote WITHIN THEIR STATE, but they can not give their votes away due to voting in other states.. This violates FEC rules..

Really. What FEC rule would this be?

In fact, states are not required to hold an election at all. Up to and including 1860, South Carolina had no popular presidential election at all. All they have to do is choose electors, and how they choose said electors is entirely up to that state. Show us how that's not the case.

Subversion of the US Constitution and its defined means of electing our president is an act of treason against the United States. The compac will be held unconstitutional as it subverts the intent of each area having an equal vote. This keeps population centers from becoming dictatorial to the rest of the US. We have never been a popular vote democracy. We are a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

If they do this each states governor needs to be removed from power and kept from ever holding office again..

It would appear you need to actually read the Constitution before putting your foot in your mouth about what "subverts" it. See above.

And if i was a voter in one of those states they would find themselves in court defending that disenfranchisement of my right to vote.

Presumably you've already been in court on the same complaint every time your state gave its entire electoral vote to a candy you voted against then, correct? Good for you, hope you get results someday..

 

[BlindBoo]

Great news. Thanks Connecticut.

But in reality we need an amendment to not only abolish the EC Constitutiionally, but also to reform elections in general and abolish the corrupt monopoly the two parties have on our political system.