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

[Pogo]

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.

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.

A state's government is not the same thing as a state's Electors, now is it.

Show us anywhere the Constitution prescribes how a state chooses Electors.




Yeah, exactly.

What I am saying that choosing electors whilly nilly probably does not equate to a republican form of government.

Correct. Because choosing electors ISN'T "government'.

 

[ChrisL]

The Electoral College is the only place where illegals are counted as votes

I don't understand what you mean with this statement.

Electoral votes are assigned to states by population. Not by citizenship. Hauling in a huge number of foreigners is a tactic California has used to raise its influence in national elections. For every so many illegals who the census counts the state gets an extra electoral vote even though those illegals cant actually vote (in theory).
California is never going to give up that edge.

Hmm. That is a good point. Explains a lot. I remember in the past some certain people pushing how extra important it is to fill out the census forms even if you are an ILLEGAL, and that there would be no legal ramifications for doing so. Imagine that!

 

[martybegan]

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.

Who is proposing a dart board?

What is the difference between a dart board and saying people outside the State can decide an election in the State?

 

[ChrisL]

Sneaky shady ass politicians. This is why term limits are SO important. These guys understand the system and how to play the game SO well. Too well.

 

[martybegan]

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.

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.

Who is proposing a dart board?

I mentioned that a state could if it wanted to use a dart board to assign its Electors and it would be Constitutional.

Marty can't handle that point so he wants to change it to a state using a dart board to select its government.

Electors are functionaries of government(s), both the federal and State.

 

[ChrisL]

I am SO glad that Hillary lost the election. Thank you electoral college!

 

[Pogo]

I don't think that how electors are chosen has an effect on whether a state has a republican government.

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

How about if the legislators make a law saying all electors, no matter what happens in the State-wide vote, always go to Party X?

Again, there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents them from doing just that.

And Again from my angle, electors as a bridge function between the State and Federal governments, still have to be republican in nature.

Then that bridge was already blown up a long long time ago wasn't it.

James Madison thought so, and he's one of the main creators of the Electrical College.

 

[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

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.

Your contention was that the system as designed, prevents a candidate who didn't have "broad appeal". And I showed you an election where the winning candy not only didn't have said broad appeal --- he didn't even run for the office in an entire region of the country.

Or for another example, if enough candidates with not-at-all-broad appeal run, they can deny any of the candidates from garnering enough EVs to throw the election to the House, as for example Thurmond tried to do in 1948, Wallace in 1968 and really, every third party candidate who doesn't stand a realistic chance against the Duopoly that the EC-WTA system preserves, protects and defends because under the Constitution that's the only way they could ever win.

Or for a third example consider the last election. Does a candidate who can't win anything in the urban centers or on the coasts---- where the vast majority of Americans live --- represent a "broad appeal"?

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.

That would be unfortunate as the Tappan Zee is my gateway to New England, but I'd just go take the Saw Mill Parkway and save the toll

It represents a broader appeal then just hanging out in NY, Chicago and LA.

 

[martybegan]

A government that gives away its right to select electors to people outside the State doesn't seem very republican to me.

The government (specifically, the legislature) can select electors however it chooses to, according to the Constitution. However it is done, why does that make the state government no longer a republican form of government? The legislators are the representatives, and in choosing electors, they are using the power granted to them as representatives. The legislators are still elected to represent the people of the state.

I just don't think arguing that choosing electors based on the national vote prevents a state from being a republican form of government would be compelling enough to prevent it.

How about if the legislators make a law saying all electors, no matter what happens in the State-wide vote, always go to Party X?

Again, there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents them from doing just that.

And Again from my angle, electors as a bridge function between the State and Federal governments, still have to be republican in nature.

Then that bridge was already blown up a long long time ago wasn't it.

James Madison thought so, and he's one of the main creators of the Electrical College.

Actually it's only now people are trying to blow it up, with this nutty popular vote end run.

 

[GHook93]

You know what will be hilarious. When Trump wins the popular vote in the next election and takes all these Blue states that votes against him!

I am going to lose my shit

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Pogo]

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.

Who is proposing a dart board?

I mentioned that a state could if it wanted to use a dart board to assign its Electors and it would be Constitutional.

Marty can't handle that point so he wants to change it to a state using a dart board to select its government.

Electors are functionaries of government(s), both the federal and State.

Not according to the United States Constitution they ain't. They're whatever the whim of the state is. Hold an election? Constitutional. Use somebody else's election? Constitutional. Take a random telephone poll and write down the first response you get? Constitutional. Pour out a bowl of Alpha Bits and move the letters around until you see a candidate's name? Constitutional.

 

[Montrovant]

Maybe. But there's no reason to suspect more (or fewer) would do that unless you can think of one.

Certainly the campaigning would have been different, but it would have been the same "different" for everybody. That cancels each other out. If the infield is wet, it's wet for both teams. You may lose control of my ground ball, but I may lose control of yours.

I think that the third party possibility is included in why I wouldn't expect the same results with a popular vote. I don't mean to say I'd necessarily expect different results, just that I don't know either way.

However, to speak specifically as to why the results might change with a popular vote without taking third party candidates into account, different groups of people might have different opinions about how a popular vote changes things. It doesn't have to be groups based on political affiliation: maybe younger voters are more likely to vote in a popular vote election than the usual EC election, say, and younger voters more often vote Democrat than Republican, so that could increase things for Clinton. Or maybe older voters would come out to vote in greater numbers for the same reason, but they more often vote Republican than Democrat.

When it comes to campaigning, who knows what might have changed if the so-called "battleground states" weren't the focus of attention? Would Trump have been able to appeal to more California voters if he felt compelled to put forth a stronger effort there? Would Clinton have gotten more votes in Texas? On the flip side, would the candidates have put more effort into states they assume they will win, rather than lose, and gain greater votes there? Hell, does campaigning even have that big an effect on voters?

It's all about how much is unknown to me. I just think it's hard to have reasonable expectations for what switching to a different system would do when the country has never used that system before. I wasn't trying to say I don't think the results would end up the same, just that I don't think it can be easily predicted.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Who is proposing a dart board?

I mentioned that a state could if it wanted to use a dart board to assign its Electors and it would be Constitutional.

Marty can't handle that point so he wants to change it to a state using a dart board to select its government.

Electors are functionaries of government(s), both the federal and State.

Not according to the United States Constitution they ain't. They're whatever the whim of the state is. Hold an election? Constitutional. Use somebody else's election? Constitutional. Take a random telephone poll and write down the first response you get? Constitutional. Pour out a bowl of Alpha Bits and move the letters around until you see a candidate's name? Constitutional.

Again, how does that provide the people of the State a "Republican" form of government?

Any government like that isn't Republican to me.

 

[Timmy]

The Electoral College is the only place where illegals are counted as votes

I don't understand what you mean with this statement.

Electoral votes are assigned to states by population. Not by citizenship. Hauling in a huge number of foreigners is a tactic California has used to raise its influence in national elections. For every so many illegals who the census counts the state gets an extra electoral vote even though those illegals cant actually vote (in theory).
California is never going to give up that edge.

Hmm. That is a good point. Explains a lot. I remember in the past some certain people pushing how extra important it is to fill out the census forms even if you are an ILLEGAL, and that there would be no legal ramifications for doing so. Imagine that!

Slaves were counted to boost south state #s .

 

[Montrovant]

The Electoral College is the only place where illegals are counted as votes

I don't understand what you mean with this statement.

Electoral votes are assigned to states by population. Not by citizenship. Hauling in a huge number of foreigners is a tactic California has used to raise its influence in national elections. For every so many illegals who the census counts the state gets an extra electoral vote even though those illegals cant actually vote (in theory).
California is never going to give up that edge.

Oh, I see. You're talking about apportionment; I thought you were saying something about illegals voting. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[ChrisL]

The Electoral College is the only place where illegals are counted as votes

I don't understand what you mean with this statement.

Electoral votes are assigned to states by population. Not by citizenship. Hauling in a huge number of foreigners is a tactic California has used to raise its influence in national elections. For every so many illegals who the census counts the state gets an extra electoral vote even though those illegals cant actually vote (in theory).
California is never going to give up that edge.

Hmm. That is a good point. Explains a lot. I remember in the past some certain people pushing how extra important it is to fill out the census forms even if you are an ILLEGAL, and that there would be no legal ramifications for doing so. Imagine that!

Slaves were counted to boost south state #s .

What? Slaves??? Yeah, in some countries people can't vote at all. What in the hell does that have to do with anything going on here and now?

 

[ChrisL]

I cannot BELIEVE that people would bring slaves into this discussion. Are there no lengths you will not go to? Goodness!

 

[ChrisL]

I can't. even. believe it. I have to log off and go shopping before I say something I might regret later. Lol. Bye now, you crazy sons of bitches!

 

[Timmy]

The Electoral College is the only place where illegals are counted as votes

I don't understand what you mean with this statement.

Electoral votes are assigned to states by population. Not by citizenship. Hauling in a huge number of foreigners is a tactic California has used to raise its influence in national elections. For every so many illegals who the census counts the state gets an extra electoral vote even though those illegals cant actually vote (in theory).
California is never going to give up that edge.

Hmm. That is a good point. Explains a lot. I remember in the past some certain people pushing how extra important it is to fill out the census forms even if you are an ILLEGAL, and that there would be no legal ramifications for doing so. Imagine that!

Slaves were counted to boost south state #s .

What? Slaves??? Yeah, in some countries people can't vote at all. What in the hell does that have to do with anything going on here and now?

Meaning “population” is not defined by the # of legal voters . That goes back to day one .

 

[Timmy]

I cannot BELIEVE that people would bring slaves into this discussion. Are there no lengths you will not go to? Goodness!

It’s part of our history . And the history of the census .

What’s your problem ?