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

[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

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?

My Senators don't represent me or my interests as well as state issues?

MMMMKay

 

[Timmy]

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

And DC has no reps despite being just as big .

 

[Montrovant]

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.

I don't know if this will actually happen or not. I was just pointing out that legally, Constitutionally, a state's legislature can appoint electors in almost any way it wants to. Disenfranchising voters can be gotten around by not even holding elections. It's been done that way in the past. I don't think that would be accepted today, but a legislature could, if they wanted to.

I'd much rather see proportional allotment of electors rather than this strange hybrid of popular vote and EC, especially when it's only some states that would be using it.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Constitution gives the State Legislatures the responsibility to determine how their state will choose it's electors. How they make that determination is up to the States. Not the Congress, the President, or the Judiciary.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 just can't imagine that "Our Electoral votes will go to whoever wins in other states" over "Our Electoral votes will go to whoever wins in OUR state" is gonna fly. However good it might sound to short-sighted leftists in those states right now, because all they can see is "Woo hoo, we can stick it to Trump", it's eventually going to dawn on them that they've completely invalidated their own state's elections for all practical purposes.

Ultimately, though, it might have a positive effect by way of waking people up to WHY states are supposed to be sovereign and not merely provincial subjects to an imperial national government.

 

[bendog]

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

You might want to read Art II Sec 1

 

[bendog]

The Constitution gives the State Legislatures the responsibility to determine how their state will choose it's electors. How they make that determination is up to the States. Not the Congress, the President, or the Judiciary.

Why should STATES be allowed to do this when clearly the founders foresaw national elections!? An outrage, Sir.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Without the Electoral College we have MOB RULE.

I can't stop California from having more influence than my state does, but I will be fucked if I'm just going to roll over and hand those fruitcakes supreme control over my country and my life.

It may take longer for other people in this country to catch up to the same page, but they WILL get there eventually.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Constitution gives the State Legislatures the responsibility to determine how their state will choose it's electors. How they make that determination is up to the States. Not the Congress, the President, or the Judiciary.

Why should STATES be allowed to do this when clearly the founders foresaw national elections!? An outrage, Sir.

The founders were all in a daze following the afternoosn bloodletting secession with the Surgeon. I don't think any of them quite remember why they did it. Morning after regrets.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Slavery, in some ways, is an example of why we are supposed to have a federal government, not a national one, and sovereign states.

Slavery started out as legal throughout the colonies/states, and each state decided for itself whether or not they wanted it. Had they not been sovereign states, with the ability to decide that for themselves, irrespective of the desires and priorities of other states, the Northern states would very likely have had legal slavery forced on them against their will to accommodate the Southern states. For all that the antebellum legal process in regard to slavery was complicated and torturous in its negotiations, compromises, and maneuverings, I think it was still preferable to simply having slavery declared the law of the land for everyone. And the historical outcome would likely have been very, very different.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

They've had it drilled into them for so long that the "national popular vote" is actually a thing, and is "the only fair way", and thus takes precedence over any other consideration, that they're falling over themselves to try to serve the "just, noble cause" of that without knowing enough about the REAL election system to understand what they're actually doing to themselves.

Exactly as the left has always intended for their dumbing-down-America efforts.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Well, that would certainly disabuse them of this crackpot idea in a hurry.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yup. The Electoral College exists to give each state the EXACT same sort of representation and power in the Presidential election that they have in the House of Representatives. So if one thinks the Electoral College is "unfair and undemocratic", then one obviously believes the House is also.

 

[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?

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?

The aliens from the next solar system over will send scouts to find out what all the noise is about, and to ask us to keep it down.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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

You don't think how a branch of their state government operates has an effect on their state government?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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.

Last time I checked, the goal of a republican form of government is to provide representation of the people governed.

So I'm going to say that choosing a slate of Electors for the state based on what people OUTSIDE that state want is not representing the people of that state, except perhaps by coincidence.

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

My Senators don't represent me or my interests as well as state issues?

MMMMKay

One of my Senators dad's helped kill JFK. President "CT" Trumpybear said so.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

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.

Last time I checked, the goal of a republican form of government is to provide representation of the people governed.

So I'm going to say that choosing a slate of Electors for the state based on what people OUTSIDE that state want is not representing the people of that state, except perhaps by coincidence.

Please quote the Constitution where it describes process the state legislators must go through when choosing the method of selection for their EC electors.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The Left is gonna keep picking at wounds and treading on US until it gets the Civil War it's begging for.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

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

You don't think how a branch of their state government operates has an effect on their state government?

I don't think it has an effect on whether that state government is republican or not. The state government will still be made up of elected representatives, with a head of state, all of whom are bound by state law. Choosing electors is one of the powers granted to certain representatives in state government, namely the legislatures.

It's possible that the SCOTUS might decide that electors being chosen in a manner other than election violates Article 4 Section 4, but I wouldn't bet on it. That's particularly true because some states have chosen electors without any vote in the past, and because electors are not bound to cast their votes based on the results from their state.