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

[Pogo]

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.

Yyyyyeah unfortunately "evidence of voter fraud" is not the same thing as "pulling fantasies of voter fraud out of the ass of the Imaginarium". Historical events don't just revert to whatever you wish they had been just because you wish it had gone that way. Unless you're either three years old and waiting for the tooth fairy, or maybe seventy-one years old with a self-delusional personality arrested at a developmental stage of three years old waiting for the tooth fairy. Either way ----- grow the fuck up.

 

[PredFan]

I think that's great. next election when Trump wins the popular vote, they will have to give him their delegates.

 

[ChrisL]

I think that's great. next election when Trump wins the popular vote, they will have to give him their delegates.

Oh, just you wait. If a republican wins the popular vote, they will be crying to have it changed back, like children.

 

[Loving91390]

Clueless ......

 

[Pogo]

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.

As I read it, if a state is going to go through the charade of a popular vote purportedly to select Electors, then every state that apportions any of its electors contrary to a significant portion of those votes --- as they all do with the WTA system --- is in so doing disenfranchising that portion of its voters. And as already noted, that's already been going on longer than any of us have been alive. If a case can be made that that is in fact illegal, then I wish somebody would make it, yesterday. James Madison would agree, and already did.

Of course this bubbles up the question of whether that's what the vote is actually doing and is not just a charade, doesn't it. The fact that a state can lump all its EVs into a single candidate, or can cast protest votes for candidates who weren't even running, demonstrates that the election exercise is in fact a charade, which would have to be the states' legal defense.. Thus they would squirm out of it but at the same time, one would hope, wake up its somnambulistic citizenry to the stark wonder of How Things Actually Work.

Then again considering the intellectual passivity of a populace numbed out by TV culture, it's a fair bet the reaction of that somnabulistic citizenry would be to crack open another can of Soma and turn on Dancing with the Fucking Stars as the double-drug of choice to make it all fade away.

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.

If it does that, it will have been worth it. And we would have to assume that it does to some degree, the question being whether it's enough to inspire a public call for change.

But it still technically cannot be described as an end-run around the Constitution since according to that framework a state could select its electors by having monkeys work a Ouija board if it so chose. Nothing in the Constitution requires electors to follow (or ignore) any election, inside or outside the state.

What has to be realized is that the charade of "Election Day" trotted out every four years does not represent a Constitutional requirement, and therefore can be, and already is, manipulated to present the illusion of public participation. An illusion that appears to provide a desired effect (but does not) can keep the actual desired effect from happening, indefinitely. To paraphrase Godwin, if Almighty TV keeps telling people that elections actually exist, long enough, eventually the people will come to believe it.

 

[ChrisL]

One more time, the reason for the electoral college is so that every state in the union gets equal representation when it comes to federal elections.

 

[Pilot1]

The Religious Left is so funny. If they don't get their way they throw temper tantrums like the children they are.

 

[Pogo]

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..

You ah, are not getting an iota of what's going on here, are you.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Yyyyyeah unfortunately "evidence of voter fraud" is not the same thing as "pulling fantasies of voter fraud out of the ass of the Imaginarium". Historical events don't just revert to whatever you wish they had been just because you wish it had gone that way. Unless you're either three years old and waiting for the tooth fairy, or maybe seventy-one years old with a self-delusional personality arrested at a developmental stage of three years old waiting for the tooth fairy. Either way ----- grow the fuck up.

Actually she did not win the popular vote, the conservative/libertarian candidates got the most votes... easily

Donald J. Trump Republican 62,980,160
Hillary R. Clinton Democratic 65,845,063
Gary Johnson Libertarian 4,488,931
Jill Stein Green 1,457,050

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

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.

Yyyyyeah unfortunately "evidence of voter fraud" is not the same thing as "pulling fantasies of voter fraud out of the ass of the Imaginarium". Historical events don't just revert to whatever you wish they had been just because you wish it had gone that way. Unless you're either three years old and waiting for the tooth fairy, or maybe seventy-one years old with a self-delusional personality arrested at a developmental stage of three years old waiting for the tooth fairy. Either way ----- grow the fuck up.

Actually she did not win the popular vote, the conservative/libertarian candidates got the most votes... easily

Donald J. Trump Republican 62,980,160
Hillary R. Clinton Democratic 65,845,063
Gary Johnson Libertarian 4,488,931
Jill Stein Green 1,457,050

Hillary's impeached rapist husband also never won the popular vote

Are the Clintons racist?

 

[Pogo]

One more time, the reason for the electoral college is so that every state in the union gets equal representation when it comes to federal elections.

Then it's a failure. An Electoral Vote from Wyoming represents 143,000 people, while one from Florida represents more than three times that. Or to put it more meaningfully, a vote from Florida is worth about 30% of a vote from Wyoming.

To put it more meaningfully, if I hire you and give you a choice of being paid a value of 100 dollars or 100 Polish Zlotys, (a Zloty being worth 28 US cents) --- would you have a preference or would you claim they're "equal" because either way it's "a hundred'?

Here's a map to illustrate (from this page):

​

Illustrated thusly, now the truth comes out --- while these whiny wags wail about "New York and California deciding elections", it's actually the opposite going on. They're already being diluted.

 

[Mac1958]

Whatever happens, I'm confident that we can depend on both parties to spend far more time and energy maneuvering for political advantage and trashing each other than in working together like normal adults to move this country forward in a positive way.

Gosh. Gives me a warm feeling in my tummy.
.

 

[Rustic]

One more time, the reason for the electoral college is so that every state in the union gets equal representation when it comes to federal elections.

Then it's a failure. An Electoral Vote from Wyoming represents 143,000 people, while one from Florida represents more than three times that. Or to put it more meaningfully, a vote from Florida is worth about 30% of a vote from Wyoming.

To put it more meaningfully, if I hire you and give you a choice of being paid a value of 100 dollars or 100 Polish Zlotys, (a Zloty being worth 28 US cents) --- would you have a preference or would you claim they're "equal" because either way it's "a hundred'?

Here's a map to illustrate (from this page):

​

Illustrated thusly, now the truth comes out --- while these whiny wags wail about "New York and California deciding elections", it's actually the opposite going on. They're already being diluted.

There is no reason for rural states to even be involved in presidential elections without the electoral college.
It would be pointless...

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

It will last until republicans win the popular vote.

Can you imagine if Donald trump does that in 2020 and all those blue states end up sending him electors?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

You guys are already requiring voter ID

That card has been played

 

[rightwinger]

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?

It will last until republicans win the popular vote.

Can you imagine if Donald trump does that in 2020 and all those blue states end up sending him electors?

Wouldn’t matter.

 

[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 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.

Yyyyyeah unfortunately "evidence of voter fraud" is not the same thing as "pulling fantasies of voter fraud out of the ass of the Imaginarium". Historical events don't just revert to whatever you wish they had been just because you wish it had gone that way. Unless you're either three years old and waiting for the tooth fairy, or maybe seventy-one years old with a self-delusional personality arrested at a developmental stage of three years old waiting for the tooth fairy. Either way ----- grow the fuck up.

Actually she did not win the popular vote, the conservative/libertarian candidates got the most votes... easily

Donald J. Trump Republican 62,980,160
Hillary R. Clinton Democratic 65,845,063
Gary Johnson Libertarian 4,488,931
Jill Stein Green 1,457,050

Hillary's impeached rapist husband also never won the popular vote

View attachment 192882
Are the Clintons racist?

If you are going to post a fake picture, at least post one that looks like Bill Clinton

 

[Pogo]

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.

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

 

[toobfreak]

One more time, the reason for the electoral college is so that every state in the union gets equal representation when it comes to federal elections.

Then it's a failure. An Electoral Vote from Wyoming represents 143,000 people, while one from Florida represents more than three times that.

You continuously fail to see the need for the EC because you keep trying to swing it back to being about PEOPLE. PEOPLE decide the outcome at the state level and the EC gives each STATE then a proportional voice so that all of them are represented fairly. Otherwise, every election would be decided not only by a handful of states like CA and NY, but by a handful of CITIES in those states, and none of the rest of the states would have any voice at all.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Once AGAIN, the Constitution only requires that each state send X number of electors, and how that state selects its electors, whether it's based on its own vote, the country's vote, a blindfolded random citizen throwing darts or a panel of astrologers reading tea leaves, the Constitution doesn't care. So Constitutionally there's no difference. Throw in the fact that a given state's electors can ignore a vote from inside or outside and vote for Douglas Spotted Eagle, and then tell us how much "impact" you ever had.

Have you read Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1?

Each State is guaranteed a republican form of government, and using a dart board to select electors hardly seems republican.