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

[BlindBoo]

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.

How a state choose it electors is up to the State legislators to decide.

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.

It's our Constitutional Government. The people of the states elect their respective legislators. The legislators can then decide on how they choose their electors for the President and VP.

 

[martybegan]

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.

How a state choose it electors is up to the State legislators to decide.

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.

It's our Constitutional Government. The people of the states elect their respective legislators. The legislators can then decide on how they choose their electors for the President and VP.

But they still need to maintain a "republican form of government" and assigning electors based on say a dart board throw wouldn't be republican in nature (as an exaggeration)

To me allowing people outside your own State determine your electors violates the concept of a republican form of government as well,

 

[Valerie]

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!

how else do you propose leading otherwise innocent people out of the shadows toward a legitimate legal status, one way or another?


US: Devastating Impact of Trump’s Immigration Policy

 

[BlindBoo]

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 ?

It was one of the great compromises that made the Union possible.

But compromise is a dirty word today isn't it?

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

How a state choose it electors is up to the State legislators to decide.

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.

It's our Constitutional Government. The people of the states elect their respective legislators. The legislators can then decide on how they choose their electors for the President and VP.

But they still need to maintain a "republican form of government" and assigning electors based on say a dart board throw wouldn't be republican in nature (as an exaggeration)

To me allowing people outside your own State determine your electors violates the concept of a republican form of government as well,

They did not give the power to select electors to a republican form of government. They gave it to the legislative branch of each state. The legislative branch is part of the republican form of government, not the process by which that body decide the electors.

 

[DrLove]

Excellent news and only a few more states to go before we permanently shitcan the last vestige of slavery!

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I don't think any of that is the case.

I'm far from being an expert on the sometimes-Byzantine and arcane laws regarding the Electoral College, particularly since every state has its own laws regarding it. I don't think any of them currently allow for simply doing away with holding an election, and I think if they tried to change the law to do away with holding the election in their state, you'd be able to hear the explosion from outer space.

I don't think for a second that rank-and-file voters are going to buy the idea that "this is what everyone's doing, so we're gonna follow them, and THAT'S your vote counting". Pretty much anything other than actually casting an individual ballot and feeling like it's reflected somewhere is not gonna fly.

If THIS bullshit stands, it's only going to be a testament to how much work the left has put into brainwashing people into believing a crapload of lies about what our system is, how it works, and what it's supposed to be and how it's supposed to work. Just the frenzy about " national popular vote", as if that's a real, meaningful thing tells us that.

Once again, the left might be able to snow people into believing "this makes your vote REALLY count" for maybe an election or two, but the first time their state's Electoral votes go to someone who did NOT win the most votes IN THEIR STATE, the shit is going to hit the fan.

 

[regent]

If it's the difference between American votes being equal or small states having more clout I'll pick equality. The Constitution has been ratified and most Americans will now accept the idea of voting equality. One American; one vote.

 

[martybegan]

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.

How a state choose it electors is up to the State legislators to decide.

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.

It's our Constitutional Government. The people of the states elect their respective legislators. The legislators can then decide on how they choose their electors for the President and VP.

But they still need to maintain a "republican form of government" and assigning electors based on say a dart board throw wouldn't be republican in nature (as an exaggeration)

To me allowing people outside your own State determine your electors violates the concept of a republican form of government as well,

They did not give the power to select electors to a republican form of government. They gave it to the legislative branch of each state. The legislative branch is part of the republican form of government, not the process by which that body decide the electors.

Actually they did, if they want the elector process decided by the State legislature.

A legislature can't shut itself down and give power to the executive without breaking Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1, why can they do something similar by giving away their own voters ability to determine their own electors?

 

[DrLove]

The problem wh the electoral system is that we have evolved to a point where a handful of states get all the attention.

That's one of several detriments --- voters in Arkansas and Massachusetts and Mississippi and California will never see a major party candidate, because their states are already taken for granted. And on the other side of that coin, those in the so-called 'battleground' states, an artificial term which would not exist without the EC-WTA, not only get all the attention but become dependent on polls to determine whether or not it's even worth getting out of bed on "Election" Day.

Other detriments of the same system are that it perpetuates the Duopoly and shuts out any competition to it, it depresses voter turnout in the extreme, and it disenfranchises millions even if they do bother to "vote".

Yep, as an Idaho progressive it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference who I vote for in either US Senate or Presidential races.

DUMP THE EC

 

[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?

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

Yes, but leftists don't believe those rubes and hicks DESERVE a voice in Presidential elections. If they mattered, they'd live in urban areas and be "dynamic" or "hip", or whatever the fuck they call themselves these days.

“I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward." - Hillary Clinton

 

[TNHarley]

If it's the difference between American votes being equal or small states having more clout I'll pick equality. The Constitution has been ratified and most Americans will now accept the idea of voting equality. One American; one vote.

My problem with that is only about 3 or 4 local cultures will decide the elections. There is almost 2 times more people in NYC alone, than in my entire state.
Of course, i probably wouldnt give a shit if our mostly unconstitutional federal govt was so damn unconstitutional. Then, it wouldnt matter as much.
Presidents and the people that have ignored their abuses of power, have given them so much power.
The OP was half right. Leftists dont give 2 shits about the Constitution. 4/5 of their platform(dems green party) is unconstitutional.
But the right is almost as bad. Look at the way most of them praise reagan and lincolns actions..

 

[DrLove]

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.

As opposed to giving too much influence to rural areas

Let THE PEOPLE elect the President, one man, one vote

The Senate is proportioned to protect the interests of unpopulated states

Exactly - Amazing right? California with 33 million residents has two Senators and so do all these states with less than 3/4 of a million.

That makes things PLENTY fair

Alaska 735,132
North Dakota 723,393
Vermont 626,630
Wyoming 582,658

 

[Siete]

more of the left just ignoring it

they have no respect for the constitution, which makes it funny when they act like they care.

Blue states rally to upend Electoral College, with addition of Connecticut

why on earth would any RW'r in their right mind want an election that voices the majority of the peoples vote, and honors their wishes/

yeah, good call traitor.

 

[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.

As opposed to giving too much influence to rural areas

Let THE PEOPLE elect the President, one man, one vote

The Senate is proportioned to protect the interests of unpopulated states

Frankly, everything you say seems ass-backwards!

You call yourself "rightwinger," yet everything you say is far to the left.

You call yourself award-winging, but I've yet to see one post of yours I'd give 2¢ for.

You say, LET THE PEOPLE elect the president, well, they DO! The population of each state has a race and the majority of each is supposed to win that states electoral votes, the number of which is proportional to the population. But I only hear you arguing for straight democracy (mob rule) because you think it would favor your candidate. If your Hillary pulled in a largely rural vote, you would be all against it.

The tiny city of DC gets as many EC votes as the vast state of Montana. The tiny islands of Hawaii get more.

You see, the Democrats have worked HARD for many years to swing the population of key states in their favor. They went after the easiest to reach, those all packed into a small area like cattle. They've swung those area's politics to the left, the media to the left, now, all they need is the popular vote! Arrgh! If not for those damn Founding Fathers who saw ahead to the dangers of mob rule and devised a system from preventing a few local areas like LA and NYC from wresting domination and control over the entire country.

Ain't never gonna happen, Chum.

The United States is a republic of STATES, not people. Fifty states get to decide, not two or three. A person's voice ends at the state level which represents them, they do not have a national voice. It always amazes me that for everything democrats always SAY they are for, their actions always achieve the exact opposite end.

If I had to be biased in one direction or another, I'd favor the rural state, you see, when it comes to one person living in an apartment dwelling in NYC, maybe apartment 4J with maybe 500 square feet, a refrigerator, TV, table and bed plugged into CNN 24/7 working at the CO-GOs vs. a ranger in Montana who owns 2000 acres raising thousands of head of cattle contributing to the industry of this country, I realize that "one man, one vote" is perhaps a very short-sighted thing--- --- while there are fewer people in Montana than New York, most all of them own a lot more LAND each. And as a LANDOWNER, a person has a lot more invested in this country than some schmuck in a 4th floor little cubical in the Bronx.

But that probably wouldn't be fair either, so again, the Founders have struck the perfect balance in a state by state electoral college that is weighted according to a states size and population, and within your state you have a voice, the same as everyone else's to win the popular vote there---- one person, one vote. Deal with it.

 

[BlackFlag]

more of the left just ignoring it

they have no respect for the constitution, which makes it funny when they act like they care.

Blue states rally to upend Electoral College, with addition of Connecticut

The electoral college was created as a compromise because southern states wanted representation without having to give their slaves representation. The EC became obsolete on April 9, 1865.

 

[DrLove]

Hillary won the "popular vote" because of California and New York, two very large states with a large population. She didn't do so well in MANY other states.

Oh NOES .. Hillary didn't win any states with less than 3/4 of a million people?



Alaska 47 735,132
North Dakota 48 723,393
Vermont 50 626,630
Wyoming 51 582,658

 

[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.

As opposed to giving too much influence to rural areas

Let THE PEOPLE elect the President, one man, one vote

The Senate is proportioned to protect the interests of unpopulated states

Exactly - Amazing right? California with 33 million residents has two Senators and so do all these states with less than 3/4 of a million.

That makes things PLENTY fair

Alaska 735,132
North Dakota 723,393
Vermont 626,630
Wyoming 582,658

Again, Moron, the Senators do not REPRESENT YOU. They represent the state. One state, two senators. The population doesn't mean JACK (except to you whining baby snowflakes). If you want REPRESENTATION, go to the fucking HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. God, did you ever graduate from high school? And if so, HOW?

 

[DrLove]

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

Yup - That ain't Bill Clinton

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

How a state choose it electors is up to the State legislators to decide.

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.

It's our Constitutional Government. The people of the states elect their respective legislators. The legislators can then decide on how they choose their electors for the President and VP.

But they still need to maintain a "republican form of government" and assigning electors based on say a dart board throw wouldn't be republican in nature (as an exaggeration)

To me allowing people outside your own State determine your electors violates the concept of a republican form of government as well,

They did not give the power to select electors to a republican form of government. They gave it to the legislative branch of each state. The legislative branch is part of the republican form of government, not the process by which that body decide the electors.

Actually they did, if they want the elector process decided by the State legislature.

A legislature can't shut itself down and give power to the executive without breaking Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1, why can they do something similar by giving away their own voters ability to determine their own electors?

The same reason I can go out and buy an arsenal of deadly weapons. Because that's what it says in the Constitution. They can't cancel the next election an continue to hold office either. But I bet they can choose to join this pact that will bind the electors to the party that wins the total national vote. If the citizens don't like it, they can elect people to change it.