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

[martybegan]

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.

If you had the legislators directly selecting electors, you might be able to get away with it, but by signing legislation like this you are taking your own votes and diluting them with votes outside the state, thus basically making any of your votes moot.

Someone else deciding the outcome of your own election is decidedly un-republican.

again, switch "the popular vote winner" with "the candidate from party X" and you see how pretty daft the whole concept is.

 

[martybegan]

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....

And having the Presidency decided the way we do it now gives another layer of protection.

I'm an Engineer, and we are fans of redundancy.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

If you had the legislators directly selecting electors, you might be able to get away with it, but by signing legislation like this you are taking your own votes and diluting them with votes outside the state, thus basically making any of your votes moot.

Someone else deciding the outcome of your own election is decidedly un-republican.

again, switch "the popular vote winner" with "the candidate from party X" and you see how pretty daft the whole concept is.

It may be a poor concept, but that doesn't mean it isn't Constitutionally acceptable.

I wouldn't want to hang my hopes on how the Supreme Court defines "Republican." That's a much less clear argument when compared to the more well-defined rules for how electors are chosen.

 

[Pilot1]

I'm an Engineer, and we are fans of redundancy.

I'm a pilot, so also a fan of redundancy, but I am also a fan of the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

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..

The Electoral College takes away your right to vote. If you voted for the loser in your state, that vote did not count

This way, your vote counts towards the candidate of your choice regardless of how others in your state voted

 

[martybegan]

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.

If you had the legislators directly selecting electors, you might be able to get away with it, but by signing legislation like this you are taking your own votes and diluting them with votes outside the state, thus basically making any of your votes moot.

Someone else deciding the outcome of your own election is decidedly un-republican.

again, switch "the popular vote winner" with "the candidate from party X" and you see how pretty daft the whole concept is.

It may be a poor concept, but that doesn't mean it isn't Constitutionally acceptable.

I wouldn't want to hang my hopes on how the Supreme Court defines "Republican." That's a much less clear argument when compared to the more well-defined rules for how electors are chosen.

I still can't see them allowing a State's voters to be disenfranchised like that.

One can't vote oneself into slavery either.

 

[martybegan]

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..

The Electoral College takes away your right to vote. If you voted for the loser in your state, that vote did not count

This way, your vote counts towards the candidate of your choice regardless of how others in your state voted

By that logic any vote for the loser in an election doesn't count.

Try again.

 

[Pilot1]

Without the Electoral College we have MOB RULE.

 

[Lumpy 1]

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?

Eh, we hear you ... waaaay tooooo much...



.

 

[rightwinger]

Without the Electoral College we have MOB RULE.

The American people are a mob?

 

[iceberg]

great. then to ensure the count is accurate and so forth, we'll need to verify voters since these states are pretty much giving citizenship away like halloween candy. if they want to go this route then fine - we'll counter with voter ID and tying it to something we can validate.

they don't get to fuck up this system then take advantage of the voter reg mess they left behind.

 

[DGS49]

Hate to rain on anyone's parade, but Trump would have won the Popular Vote, had the election been decided by popular vote.

Democrats point to the total number of HRC votes vs Trump votes in the 2016 election to "prove" that HRC would have won if the race had been decided by popular vote. But this ignores reality.

If the Constitution had been changed, say, two years ago, and the entire primary season and general election season had been run on the basis of a popular vote, the entire process would have played out differently. NO CANDIDATE would have spent as much as 15 minutes in Iowa or New Hampshire, but instead they would have focused on high population areas that promised the best return for time and money spent. It is absolutely unknowable who would have gotten the nomination of either party, but one suspects that both Trump and HRC would have been quickly eliminated because of their respective "negatives." It is likely that the nominees would have been popular politicians from one of the most populous states.

Democrats believe in their hearts that they are in the majority, nation wide, but in a national popular vote, the personalities of the individual candidates would "trump" political factors, and the candidates that Democrats THINK are their best representatives are generally leftist twits with no general appeal (HRC, Biden, Warren, Sanders). Maybe the same thing is true on the Right. Nobody knows, because we have never had such an election.

And footnotally on the "popular vote" of 2016, Democrats never consider the overwhelming number of Republicans/Conservatives in California who did not even bother to vote because of the pre-destination of an HRC win at the top of the ticket, and the TWO DEMOCRATS running against one another in the Senate. Why would any California Republican waste his time to vote? The same phenomenon would hold for New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, and several other Dem-controlled states. EVEN IN 2016, an HRC victory was not obvious, based on the actual results.

As The Donald has already said...if you want to hold the next Presidential election based on popular vote, bring it on. He will win again, regardless.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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..

The Electoral College takes away your right to vote. If you voted for the loser in your state, that vote did not count

This way, your vote counts towards the candidate of your choice regardless of how others in your state voted

If you voted for the loser in your state, that vote did not count

Your vote counts, you just voted for the loser.

This way, your vote counts towards the candidate of your choice regardless of how others in your state voted

But if you voted for the loser in the country, that vote did not count

 

[Pilot1]

The American people are a mob?

The American people, the judicial system, and our government allowed slavery to exist for hundreds of years. Would you want the people of NY, and L.A. dictating to you for something like that to be legal again?

 

[hunarcy]

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?

So, why should the people of Connecticut vote if the Electoral Votes go to whoever wins the national popular vote?

 

[Pilot1]

The states that are going along with the popular vote are giving up their sovereignty with regards to electing a President. It is just stupid, and a Democrat Partisan attempt to be a one party Democrat country. It won't work.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

There is no one in our History that is more LAWLESS than President Trump....and there never will be anyone who could be as lawless as the man of lawlessness you put in power. He has broken near every rule of ethics, of protocol, of rules, of laws and of the constitution.... in just a little over a year in office.... and crazy you, applauds him!

Yup.

• He sent millions in cash to a sworn enemy without Congressional approval.
• He decided that a group of illegal immigrants deserved to stay here in this country even though he openly admitted he didn't have the authority to do so.
• He claimed he did not know Hillary was hiding her communications by operating an unauthorized and insecure server even though he used an alias to send emails to her secret server.
• He used the IRS to attack his critics and then obstructed the investigation into said illegal activity.
• He spied on thousands of not millions of Americans using the CIA, NSA, and FBI.
• He stole billions of dollars from the Treasury and never accounted for what the money was used for.
• He committed fraud and espionage on a massive scale against the American people and his political opponents.
• He claimed Bush mistreated GITMO detainees and attempted to expose Rendition techniques to the public as well as blowing the covers of various CIA interrogators risking their lives in the process even though it was later learned he never ended the program.

OH.......wait.....Obama did all of this.

 

[Billy_Bob]

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...

Cities forcing the middle to give them their wealth, BY POPULAR VOTE..... Whats next? divide us into regions and kill our kids once a year to keep us in line?

 

[jillian]

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?

Eh, we hear you ... waaaay tooooo much...

View attachment 192869

.

funny coming from a loser trump troll.

but carry on hack.

 

[ChrisL]

The states that are going along with the popular vote are giving up their sovereignty with regards to electing a President. It is just stupid, and a Democrat Partisan attempt to be a one party Democrat country. It won't work.

Because the problem is that they do NOT think. They parrot whatever their leaders tell them they should think. Lol. It couldn't be any more obvious that our biggest problem is very shallow, short-term thinkers who lack critical thinking skills and want instant gratification without doing any work to get it.