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

[martybegan]

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.

What is it that you don't understand that every state west of Michigan might as well not have voted? Trump won on an accumulated vote total of a measly 73K votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states, while losing the popular vote by 3 million, the WORST in history.

The electoral college has got to go. Every citizen of this country has a right to have their vote COUNTED during a Presidential race, and with the electoral college those votes aren't counted.

The electoral college has got to go.

Then propose an amendment to the Constitution to change the rules.

The method proposed above is probably unconstitutional.

Doesn't the Constitution give the States the right to choose the way it's electors are selected?

It's it a double edged sword anyway?

It does, but it also guarantees each State a "Republican style of government"

Something like the Governor picking the electors would probably fail that, and I would think people outside the State deciding on the Electors would fail it as well.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

What is it that you don't understand that every state west of Michigan might as well not have voted? Trump won on an accumulated vote total of a measly 73K votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states, while losing the popular vote by 3 million, the WORST in history.

The electoral college has got to go. Every citizen of this country has a right to have their vote COUNTED during a Presidential race, and with the electoral college those votes aren't counted.

The electoral college has got to go.

Then propose an amendment to the Constitution to change the rules.

The method proposed above is probably unconstitutional.

Doesn't the Constitution give the States the right to choose the way it's electors are selected?

It's it a double edged sword anyway?

Absolutely

If states want to defer to the national popular vote, they can

 

[Pogo]

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 "su

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.

You deflected the question instead of confronting it. Don't think you're gonna get away with it.

The question was on the MERITS of that indirect process, not what "could have" happened. Once again the question is, if it's a virtue, why don't we use it electing a governor as we do electing a president? Same process either way, yet somehow you'd have us believe it's worthwhile on one level yet not on another. And that's a Double Standard.

Again --- *IS* it a legitimate system, or IS IT NOT? If said system is ideal to pick a leader of a diverse nation, why isn't the same system ideal to pick the leader of a diverse state? Having it both ways is not a choice here. Pick one.

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.

I already did that math above and disproved the canard, put it in the oven, roasted it and had it for lunch, so this fantasy point was already shot down before it took off.

1st:

Please respond to my posts individually. I take the time to respond to each person in kind, and expect the same consideration.

That was a site glitch, carrying some previous residual content over, which, when I saw it, I deleted as irrelevant to this post. Did that a while ago and in fact it's gone, yet here you are bitching about something that already got fixed.

2nd:

The merits of the indirect process is that a person who wants to be president just can't run to the biggest population centers to win the job, he or she has to have broader appeal to win differing sections of the country.

Ah. Like this?

​

See below for an interesting related found object found while retrieving this map

The concept is not done at the State level because States are in theory small enough to not need the levelling of the field one wants at the federal level.

Uh huh.

California? "Small enough"?
Texas isn't diverse?
How 'bout New York?

One could argue that counties in States could benefit from a similar system, but remember a person's other citizenship besides US citizenship is to a State itself, not a county.

Irrelevant. The question was whether it's a legitimate system or not. If it is, then it should be legitimate for a President or for a Governor. If it isn't, then cancel both. Again --- pick one. Legitimate system or not? The whole world's waiting.

Besides which, I am simultaneously a citizen of my country, my state, my county, my town, and my Congressional District. You are too.

Local control of counties flows DOWN from the State Legislatures, not UP from the people. A person's sovereignty transfers to the State via the State's legislature, not through their local sub-division.

Already addressed. You're looking for exceptions to have your double standard.


Off the topic: found object food for thought related to above: This map dismisses the infamous "Three Fifths Compromise" and imagines enfranchised slaves having their votes count:

Note that Lincoln still wins. Also notice South Carolina being the only Breckinridge state --- that's because SC chose its electors via its state legislature and did not have a popular vote at all, so the model assumes that EV does not change. Note also that the level of Southern support for Bell, the Constitutional Unionist who favored keeping the Union intact as did every candidate except Breckinridge, implies the affected states would have voted similarly in their referenda about secession, if they were held at all, would have turned down the idea, and the Civil War doesn't happen.

Further interesting side note to this side note -- in that same election of 1860 (the real one, not a hypothetical), one of the states held a referendum on whether black people should be given the right to vote. The results came back a resounding "No". The state was --- New York.

 

[Pogo]

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.

What is it that you don't understand that every state west of Michigan might as well not have voted? Trump won on an accumulated vote total of a measly 73K votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states, while losing the popular vote by 3 million, the WORST in history.

The electoral college has got to go. Every citizen of this country has a right to have their vote COUNTED during a Presidential race, and with the electoral college those votes aren't counted.

The electoral college has got to go.

Then propose an amendment to the Constitution to change the rules.

The method proposed above is probably unconstitutional.

This is how it starts. To change or a repeal an amendment to the Constitution requires that 2/3's of the Senate & 2/3's of the house vote for it and then it has to be ratified by 36 state legislatures. This is good for this country & including both parties. Because this election was really a National brain fart, and had 73K stupid people in 3 blue states not voted for Trump, Hillary Clinton would be the POTUS today. That's not going to HAPPEN ever again, which will be bad for Republican Presidential nominee's, so the popular vote is the only way to go to insure that this nation gets the President they want and that each and every vote is counted to determine who the President will be.

The law is probably unconstitutional because it invalidates the votes of someone in a State via votes outside of a State.

That violates Article 4, Section 4, clause 1's guarantee of a republican form of government for each State.

Every time a state practices the infamous WTA unanimous bullshit that state is invalidating the votes of all of ITS OWN citizens who voted against that "unanimous" bulllshit. So that ship sailed long ago.

And again, I already pointed this out. Yet here it is sailing back in. If this could be held to be a violation, then we have literally hundreds if not thousands of violation cases going back centuries. If you can adequately demonstrate to SCOTUS that those elections were invalid, again more power to you.

I think the proposed law fails in the fact that is completely turns over the EV's of a State to voters OUTSIDE of the State, as opposed to nullifying the votes of the losing in-state candidate's voters.

To me the first does not meet the requirement of "Republican" form of government, but the second does.

If your vote is nullified by either system --- what the hell difference does it make whether it was voters inside or outside your state that nullified it?

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

What is it that you don't understand that every state west of Michigan might as well not have voted? Trump won on an accumulated vote total of a measly 73K votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states, while losing the popular vote by 3 million, the WORST in history.

The electoral college has got to go. Every citizen of this country has a right to have their vote COUNTED during a Presidential race, and with the electoral college those votes aren't counted.

The electoral college has got to go.

Then propose an amendment to the Constitution to change the rules.

The method proposed above is probably unconstitutional.

Doesn't the Constitution give the States the right to choose the way it's electors are selected?

It's it a double edged sword anyway?

It does, but it also guarantees each State a "Republican style of government"

Something like the Governor picking the electors would probably fail that, and I would think people outside the State deciding on the Electors would fail it as well.

What if the popular vote went to a candidate that one of the states in the agreement didn't vote for? Would the people in those States be able to sue their own State?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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.

What is it that you don't understand that every state west of Michigan might as well not have voted? Trump won on an accumulated vote total of a measly 73K votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states, while losing the popular vote by 3 million, the WORST in history.

The electoral college has got to go. Every citizen of this country has a right to have their vote COUNTED during a Presidential race, and with the electoral college those votes aren't counted. The President is supposed to be the representation of the majority of votes cast in this country, NOT a few select states.

The electoral college has got to go.

You don't really know if Hillary won the popular vote because of voter fraud.
Democrats are against the Right to Vote.
That is why the Corrupt Democratic Party blocks Voter ID laws and it's why they don't want to count military ballots.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

What is it that you don't understand that every state west of Michigan might as well not have voted? Trump won on an accumulated vote total of a measly 73K votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states, while losing the popular vote by 3 million, the WORST in history.

The electoral college has got to go. Every citizen of this country has a right to have their vote COUNTED during a Presidential race, and with the electoral college those votes aren't counted. The President is supposed to be the representation of the majority of votes cast in this country, NOT a few select states.

The electoral college has got to go.

Democrats are against the Right to Vote.
That is why the Corrupt Democratic Party blocks Voter ID laws and it's why they don't want to count military ballots.

View attachment 192761

You still haven’t identified any illegal votes

 

[Montrovant]

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. 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.

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..

There presumably some limits to how undemocratic a States Elector selection can be.

Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 guarantees a Republican form of government for each State, and if you add the whole 14th amendment thing, i doubt the governor could just pick electors whilly nilly.

Still the State does have some latitude, just not enough latitude, in my opinion, to select their electors based on mostly the votes of people outside the State.

I'd be curious to see how the SCOTUS would rule on the issue.

Article 4 Section 4 guarantees each state a Republican form of government. That is in no way harmed by having EC electors not voted on; the government is still representational and has a chief of state which is not a king. Add in the explicit choice given to state legislatures in how electors are chosen, and I don't know if there's any ground to prevent a state from doing just about whatever they want to choose electors, so long as the legislature makes the decision in accordance with that state's laws.

With the 14th amendment, while people (men, specifically, but I would think women also are included now) are guaranteed the right to vote at any election of presidential or vice presidential electors, I think that if the legislature gets rid of elections, that becomes moot.

I can't see any state legislature doing away with some form of voting being the way electors are chosen, but they do seem to have that right per the Constitution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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..

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.

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. If Trump wins 60% of the popular vote in state XYZ, that state cannot say that Hillary won the national popular vote (which is a meaningless, non-binding statistic only with no legal value), by 2%, so they are giving Trump's 60% state win over to Hillary. That violates every election law in the books.

For the Dems to even suggest such a thing is the hare-brained fascist power-grab to end all hare-brained fascist power grabs and will be challenged and defeated in the Supreme Court.

The states involved would be changing their laws regarding how they seat electors. In that case, what law would be violated, specifically?

Well, if it contradicts the results in the state, it would amount to disenfranchising their voters. I'm gonna say any number of people could make a convincing case that that's illegal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Those states are alloting their electoral votes according to the results IN THEIR STATE, not according to results in all the other states. Rather a different scenario.

I agree that it would be productive if people would wake up and realize just how important the workings of our government are, and I think that's really the only thing this attempt to make an end-run around the Constitution is going to achieve.

 

[Montrovant]

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..

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.

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. If Trump wins 60% of the popular vote in state XYZ, that state cannot say that Hillary won the national popular vote (which is a meaningless, non-binding statistic only with no legal value), by 2%, so they are giving Trump's 60% state win over to Hillary. That violates every election law in the books.

For the Dems to even suggest such a thing is the hare-brained fascist power-grab to end all hare-brained fascist power grabs and will be challenged and defeated in the Supreme Court.

The states involved would be changing their laws regarding how they seat electors. In that case, what law would be violated, specifically?

Well, if it contradicts the results in the state, it would amount to disenfranchising their voters. I'm gonna say any number of people could make a convincing case that that's illegal.

The state could do away with any presidential elections and just use the results from the rest of the country.

It also might be argued that the voters are not being disenfranchised, as their votes are counting equally with every other voter in the country. I'm not sure if that would work or not since it's the state electors in question.

There's also the argument that the winner-take-all system of assigning electors already disenfranchises many voters.

Electors have not always been chosen by voters within a state, so there is precedent as well as the text of Article 2 Section 1.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

What is it that you don't understand that every state west of Michigan might as well not have voted? Trump won on an accumulated vote total of a measly 73K votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states, while losing the popular vote by 3 million, the WORST in history.

The electoral college has got to go. Every citizen of this country has a right to have their vote COUNTED during a Presidential race, and with the electoral college those votes aren't counted.

The electoral college has got to go.

Then propose an amendment to the Constitution to change the rules.

The method proposed above is probably unconstitutional.

Doesn't the Constitution give the States the right to choose the way it's electors are selected?

It's it a double edged sword anyway?

Absolutely

If states want to defer to the national popular vote, they can

The contortions you idiots are going through to push your BS is funny as hell to watch...

Do you really think you can just take away citizens rights, especially the right to vote by your fiat wish? This is precisely why we have a second amendment. The founders were right, they gave us a republic, if were smart enough to keep it..

 

[Care4all]

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?

We need to do things at the level where they are most efficient

Doing something 50 times at the state level is not as efficient as doing it once at the federal level

Even if the people in 40 of those 50 States don't want it?

Who says they don’t want it?

Say the 10 largest states want a plastic bag ban. They can pass it themselves just fine, but they want to be "efficient" and try to pass it at the federal level.

Now say 40 States don't want to do it, but when you make your changes you want, now those 10 populous States can force their wants on the other 40 that want nothing to do with it.

Get it yet?

that's why we have the Senate....no matter what, the 10 largest populated states only have 20 senators, the 40 smaller have 80....

The Senate protects the less populated states and gives them their power....

 

[Rustic]

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?

Small rural states might well not be involved in presidential elections if the electoral college is removed...
the electoral college is the only voice rural states have in presidential elections

 

[Rustic]

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?

We need to do things at the level where they are most efficient

Doing something 50 times at the state level is not as efficient as doing it once at the federal level

Even if the people in 40 of those 50 States don't want it?

Who says they don’t want it?

Say the 10 largest states want a plastic bag ban. They can pass it themselves just fine, but they want to be "efficient" and try to pass it at the federal level.

Now say 40 States don't want to do it, but when you make your changes you want, now those 10 populous States can force their wants on the other 40 that want nothing to do with it.

Get it yet?

that's why we have the Senate....no matter what, the 10 largest populated states only have 20 senators, the 40 smaller have 80....

The Senate protects the less populated states and gives them their power....

Ok, there is no reason for rural states to even be involved in presidential elections without the electoral college...

 

[Rustic]

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?

Here's why this is a bad idea.

Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Tennessee all agree to give their votes to the GOP, regardless of the state outcome, in perpetuity.

Electoral college, gerrymandering, voter suppression, vote theft - Its the only way the gop can win.

Why is the right so against their own country?

Why don't RWNJs just move to Russia?

What suits progressives will never suit conservatives/Libertarians... and Vice versa

 

[Rustic]

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?

Here's why this is a bad idea.

Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Tennessee all agree to give their votes to the GOP, regardless of the state outcome, in perpetuity.

That's what will happen. Republican states will simply ignore voters and give all delegates to whomever they please.

We'd note this as the official end of democracy. What comes after would be ugly. Again I think it past time to split the US into 2-4 smaller countries. Conservatives have gotten to a point they will cheat or simply ignore elections now so let them go form their new Hillbillies-R-Us-Land. Their states combined won't amount to much of an economy and they'll be happy all making minimum wage of $7.50/hr. They can also force women to have children which they are dying to do. But the point is they'd have their own shithole to fuckup as they see fit. No more blaming anyone else for their failures.

The blue states combined have a huge economy and are really the engine that drives the American economy so breaking off into a smaller country will in fact mean that economy is concentrated and benefits a much smaller but much more productive populace.

It's time isn't it folks? We had a good run, let's move on and split the country up before cons really lose their shit and demand to impose their lifestyle on everyone else permanently.

Split it in two...

 

[martybegan]

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 "su

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.

You deflected the question instead of confronting it. Don't think you're gonna get away with it.

The question was on the MERITS of that indirect process, not what "could have" happened. Once again the question is, if it's a virtue, why don't we use it electing a governor as we do electing a president? Same process either way, yet somehow you'd have us believe it's worthwhile on one level yet not on another. And that's a Double Standard.

Again --- *IS* it a legitimate system, or IS IT NOT? If said system is ideal to pick a leader of a diverse nation, why isn't the same system ideal to pick the leader of a diverse state? Having it both ways is not a choice here. Pick one.

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.

I already did that math above and disproved the canard, put it in the oven, roasted it and had it for lunch, so this fantasy point was already shot down before it took off.

1st:

Please respond to my posts individually. I take the time to respond to each person in kind, and expect the same consideration.

That was a site glitch, carrying some previous residual content over, which, when I saw it, I deleted as irrelevant to this post. Did that a while ago and in fact it's gone, yet here you are bitching about something that already got fixed.

2nd:

The merits of the indirect process is that a person who wants to be president just can't run to the biggest population centers to win the job, he or she has to have broader appeal to win differing sections of the country.

Ah. Like this?

​

See below for an interesting related found object found while retrieving this map

The concept is not done at the State level because States are in theory small enough to not need the levelling of the field one wants at the federal level.

Uh huh.

California? "Small enough"?
Texas isn't diverse?
How 'bout New York?

One could argue that counties in States could benefit from a similar system, but remember a person's other citizenship besides US citizenship is to a State itself, not a county.

Irrelevant. The question was whether it's a legitimate system or not. If it is, then it should be legitimate for a President or for a Governor. If it isn't, then cancel both. Again --- pick one. Legitimate system or not? The whole world's waiting.

Besides which, I am simultaneously a citizen of my country, my state, my county, my town, and my Congressional District. You are too.

Local control of counties flows DOWN from the State Legislatures, not UP from the people. A person's sovereignty transfers to the State via the State's legislature, not through their local sub-division.

Already addressed. You're looking for exceptions to have your double standard.


Off the topic: found object food for thought related to above: This map dismisses the infamous "Three Fifths Compromise" and imagines enfranchised slaves having their votes count:

Note that Lincoln still wins. Also notice South Carolina being the only Breckinridge state --- that's because SC chose its electors via its state legislature and did not have a popular vote at all, so the model assumes that EV does not change. Note also that the level of Southern support for Bell, the Constitutional Unionist who favored keeping the Union intact as did every candidate except Breckinridge, implies the affected states would have voted similarly in their referenda about secession, if they were held at all, would have turned down the idea, and the Civil War doesn't happen.

Further interesting side note to this side note -- in that same election of 1860 (the real one, not a hypothetical), one of the states held a referendum on whether black people should be given the right to vote. The results came back a resounding "No". The state was --- New York.

Using the 1860 election as an example of anything but the 1860 election is like modeling a human lifetime based on observing a sneeze.

As for "small enough" why do you think some of those states currently have some if not serious at least organized "split us up" movements?

I live in NYC and I know plenty of upstaters that want to blow up the Tappan Zee Bridge and kiss us all goodbye.

 

[martybegan]

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.

What is it that you don't understand that every state west of Michigan might as well not have voted? Trump won on an accumulated vote total of a measly 73K votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states, while losing the popular vote by 3 million, the WORST in history.

The electoral college has got to go. Every citizen of this country has a right to have their vote COUNTED during a Presidential race, and with the electoral college those votes aren't counted.

The electoral college has got to go.

Then propose an amendment to the Constitution to change the rules.

The method proposed above is probably unconstitutional.

This is how it starts. To change or a repeal an amendment to the Constitution requires that 2/3's of the Senate & 2/3's of the house vote for it and then it has to be ratified by 36 state legislatures. This is good for this country & including both parties. Because this election was really a National brain fart, and had 73K stupid people in 3 blue states not voted for Trump, Hillary Clinton would be the POTUS today. That's not going to HAPPEN ever again, which will be bad for Republican Presidential nominee's, so the popular vote is the only way to go to insure that this nation gets the President they want and that each and every vote is counted to determine who the President will be.

The law is probably unconstitutional because it invalidates the votes of someone in a State via votes outside of a State.

That violates Article 4, Section 4, clause 1's guarantee of a republican form of government for each State.

Every time a state practices the infamous WTA unanimous bullshit that state is invalidating the votes of all of ITS OWN citizens who voted against that "unanimous" bulllshit. So that ship sailed long ago.

And again, I already pointed this out. Yet here it is sailing back in. If this could be held to be a violation, then we have literally hundreds if not thousands of violation cases going back centuries. If you can adequately demonstrate to SCOTUS that those elections were invalid, again more power to you.

I think the proposed law fails in the fact that is completely turns over the EV's of a State to voters OUTSIDE of the State, as opposed to nullifying the votes of the losing in-state candidate's voters.

To me the first does not meet the requirement of "Republican" form of government, but the second does.

If your vote is nullified by either system --- what the hell difference does it make whether it was voters inside or outside your state that nullified it?

Because at least when it happens from inside, you did have a vote that could impact the outcome. When you sell your votes to people outside your State, you pretty much give that up entirely.

 

[martybegan]

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.

What is it that you don't understand that every state west of Michigan might as well not have voted? Trump won on an accumulated vote total of a measly 73K votes coming out of 3 blue rust belt states, while losing the popular vote by 3 million, the WORST in history.

The electoral college has got to go. Every citizen of this country has a right to have their vote COUNTED during a Presidential race, and with the electoral college those votes aren't counted.

The electoral college has got to go.

Then propose an amendment to the Constitution to change the rules.

The method proposed above is probably unconstitutional.

Doesn't the Constitution give the States the right to choose the way it's electors are selected?

It's it a double edged sword anyway?

It does, but it also guarantees each State a "Republican style of government"

Something like the Governor picking the electors would probably fail that, and I would think people outside the State deciding on the Electors would fail it as well.

What if the popular vote went to a candidate that one of the states in the agreement didn't vote for? Would the people in those States be able to sue their own State?

Honestly I don't know what the hell would happen, I don't think anyone does. However it will not be pretty.