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

[NoNukes]

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?

About time for a step in the right direction. Your vote should mean something.

 

[Rustic]

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

Lol
Without The electoral college rural areas have no say in the direction of the country... that is a fact.
So urban areas would have total control over the Executive branch, that is what you want? I figured as much control freak.

Hey ClownPants - YOU actually DO have a voice.

 

[Rustic]

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?

About time for a step in the right direction. Your vote should mean something.

Without the electoral college rural state votes are pointless...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Looks like your system may not be EC anymore, allowing a perpetual government based on the whims of California and New York I suppose.

Insane how one loss to an Outsider and some want to change what has worked for you since forever...

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

Connecticut is joining a growing alliance of liberal states in a "pact" that would supposedly allow them to change the way presidents are picked -- by allocating each state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

The uphill campaign, which if ever brought to fruition would almost certainly face a court challenge, has gained renewed attention amid Democratic grumbling about the Electoral College in the wake of President Trump's 2016 win. While he defeated Hillary Clinton in the electoral vote, he lost the popular vote by 2.9 million ballots.

Enter the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which blue states are joining to commit to allocating their electoral votes to the national popular-vote winner -- regardless of their own state results.

The pact is meant to be a work-around to the constitutional requirements that created the Electoral College system, which awards each state's electors to the winner of that state.

In theory, the game-changing compact would take effect once it signs on states representing at least 270 electoral votes, the threshold to win the presidency. With the expected addition of Connecticut's seven electoral votes, the group now has 172.

Dude, the American left has wanted to change the Electoral College, not to mention virtually everything else about our system of government, for a whole lot longer than just Trump's win.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Insane how one loss to an Outsider and some want to change what has worked for you since forever...

Don’t forget Dubya. That’s 2 of the last 3 Presidents installed thanks to a broken electoral system against the will of the people. Slavery ended over 150 years ago, meaning the EC has been obsolete for over a century and a half.

The fact that YOU don't like the results of the election doesn't make the Electoral System "broken". And the EC has nothing to do with slavery. Geez, buy a history book or something.

 

[Rustic]

Looks like your system may not be EC anymore, allowing a perpetual government based on the whims of California and New York I suppose.

Insane how one loss to an Outsider and some want to change what has worked for you since forever...

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

Connecticut is joining a growing alliance of liberal states in a "pact" that would supposedly allow them to change the way presidents are picked -- by allocating each state's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

The uphill campaign, which if ever brought to fruition would almost certainly face a court challenge, has gained renewed attention amid Democratic grumbling about the Electoral College in the wake of President Trump's 2016 win. While he defeated Hillary Clinton in the electoral vote, he lost the popular vote by 2.9 million ballots.

Enter the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which blue states are joining to commit to allocating their electoral votes to the national popular-vote winner -- regardless of their own state results.

The pact is meant to be a work-around to the constitutional requirements that created the Electoral College system, which awards each state's electors to the winner of that state.

In theory, the game-changing compact would take effect once it signs on states representing at least 270 electoral votes, the threshold to win the presidency. With the expected addition of Connecticut's seven electoral votes, the group now has 172.

Dude, the American left has wanted to change the Electoral College, not to mention virtually everything else about our system of government, for a whole lot longer than just Trump's win.

Yep, It’s all about control.
Healthcare is not about health care it’s all about control, because insurance is not healthcare.
Gun control has nothing to do with guns, it’s all about control.
And without the electoral college rural states have zero say on anything, because it’s all about control.
Just like political correctness has destroyed politics, comedy, sports and And now even the Boy Scouts...

 

[BlackFlag]

Insane how one loss to an Outsider and some want to change what has worked for you since forever...

Don’t forget Dubya. That’s 2 of the last 3 Presidents installed thanks to a broken electoral system against the will of the people. Slavery ended over 150 years ago, meaning the EC has been obsolete for over a century and a half.

The fact that YOU don't like the results of the election doesn't make the Electoral System "broken". And the EC has nothing to do with slavery. Geez, buy a history book or something.

In 2000, Dubya became President thanks to the totally botched vote count of a state that was run by, you guessed it, HIS OWN FUCKING BROTHER (still not enough to win him the majority vote). Which led to 8 absolutely disastrous years. So yes, the EC was absolutely proven broken and obsolete in that election.

THEN Trump wins despite having millions and millions less votes, with aid from a campaign launched by the Russians meant to take advantage of, you guessed it again, our COMPLETELY BROKEN ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

As to slavery having nothing to do with it... oh you poor snowflake; I bet you think the demand that slaves be worth 3/5 of a person had nothing to do with the vote either

"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections." - James Madison

 

[Rustic]

Insane how one loss to an Outsider and some want to change what has worked for you since forever...

Don’t forget Dubya. That’s 2 of the last 3 Presidents installed thanks to a broken electoral system against the will of the people. Slavery ended over 150 years ago, meaning the EC has been obsolete for over a century and a half.

The fact that YOU don't like the results of the election doesn't make the Electoral System "broken". And the EC has nothing to do with slavery. Geez, buy a history book or something.

In 2000, Dubya became President thanks to the totally botched vote count of a state that was run by, you guessed it, HIS OWN FUCKING BROTHER (still not enough to win him the majority vote). Which led to 8 absolutely disastrous years. So yes, the EC was absolutely proven broken and obsolete in that election.

THEN Trump wins despite having millions and millions less votes, with aid from a campaign launched by the Russians meant to take advantage of, you guessed it again, our COMPLETELY BROKEN ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

As to slavery having nothing to do with it... oh you poor snowflake; I bet you think the demand that slaves be worth 3/5 of a person had nothing to do with the vote either

"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections." - James Madison

Quit being a bitch, you ever get tired of being hung up on the election?

 

[BlackFlag]

Quit being a bitch, you ever get tired of being hung up on the election?

Yes, "shut up and take it." What an American value.

 

[Rustic]

Quit being a bitch, you ever get tired of being hung up on the election?

Yes, "shut up and take it." What an American value.

 

[evenflow1969]

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 certainly is not going to help the dems any. Right wingers should pretty happy. It will make more republicans win. Pretty stupid if it is actually what they are planning.

 

[Kondor3]

Perhaps it's time to take the power of Federal elections out of the hands of the States and place it with the Federal government itself.

One set of standards for how Popular Votes are translated into Electoral College Votes.

Even if it means amending the Constitution to do it.

Very progressive idea, give the Feds even more power


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

When the individual States screw it up, time after time? Yeah... you bet'cha.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Insane how one loss to an Outsider and some want to change what has worked for you since forever...

Don’t forget Dubya. That’s 2 of the last 3 Presidents installed thanks to a broken electoral system against the will of the people. Slavery ended over 150 years ago, meaning the EC has been obsolete for over a century and a half.

The fact that YOU don't like the results of the election doesn't make the Electoral System "broken". And the EC has nothing to do with slavery. Geez, buy a history book or something.

In 2000, Dubya became President thanks to the totally botched vote count of a state that was run by, you guessed it, HIS OWN FUCKING BROTHER (still not enough to win him the majority vote). Which led to 8 absolutely disastrous years. So yes, the EC was absolutely proven broken and obsolete in that election.

THEN Trump wins despite having millions and millions less votes, with aid from a campaign launched by the Russians meant to take advantage of, you guessed it again, our COMPLETELY BROKEN ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

As to slavery having nothing to do with it... oh you poor snowflake; I bet you think the demand that slaves be worth 3/5 of a person had nothing to do with the vote either

"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections." - James Madison

With out the EC their would be no United States..

 

[BluesLegend]

The SCOTUS will dish out a beating to these uppity blue states and they will run home to their momma's crying.

 

[Timmy]

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

I am speaking of electoral votes. Democrat states get extra votes in the EC for the illegals they bring in.

Might want to recount those illegal filled states. Lots of red ones .

 

[Pogo]

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.

The EC's racist origins are another factoid we haven't even mentioned (in this thread anyway) but it's telling that:

(a) four of the first five POTUSes (and all of the first seven who got two terms) were slaveholders from the South, where EC numbers were inflated by being apportioned on the basis of 3/5 of slaves who had 0/5 of a vote;

(b) that the last election held before that country temporarily broke apart was won by a candidate who carried no Electoral Votes in the South and wasn't even on ballots there, triggering the aforesaid split. Once that split was resolved of course, that infamous Three-Fifths Compromise and its representation without franchise, was obliterated;

and (c) that the same lame biased-representation the Old South wangled its way into via the Electrical College is the same scheme the latter-day EC apologists are going for when they trot out these ludicrous fantasies of "Noo Yawk and California determining elections" and "mob rule".

 

[Pogo]

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

Apparently Boobfreek hasn't been informed of the Seventeenth Amendment yet.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Again, nothing --- absolutely nothing --- in the Constitution in any way requires an election (by the people) for President. Such does not exist. The POTUS of course is elected by the EC, and again nothing in the Constitution prescribes how Electors are chosen. States hold elections out of the same momentum that they use the WTA system --- "because everybody else is doing it". But they're not in any way Constitutionally required to hold anything. And many an Elector went and cast a state's vote for POTUS with no election having happened at all.

And by the same token once those Electors meet, they can vote for whoever they want, election or no election. This isn't a "left" or "right" thing; it's how the Constitution is set up.

 

[Pogo]

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.

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.

This movement was started way before Rump. It was triggered not by a contemporary demagogue but by the ridicularity of the WTA system, which has been criticized for its flaws for literally centuries. As noted already, James Madison himself, one of the primary architects of the EC, advocated for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban the practice of WTA -- even though his own state of Virginia, the largest Electoral pot at the time, would have suffered.

The present story is simply about another state, Connecticut in this case, joining the movement. But we've posted about it on this site in the past, and elsewhere.

I know the butthurt Rumpbots on this site, of which I'm pleased to note you are not one, love to try to pretend it's about Rump, but speaking of the orange fizz:

 

[eagle7_31]

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.

This movement was started way before Rump. It was triggered not by a contemporary demagogue but by the ridicularity of the WTA system, which has been criticized for its flaws for literally centuries. As noted already, James Madison himself, one of the primary architects of the EC, advocated for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban the practice of WTA -- even though his own state of Virginia, the largest Electoral pot at the time, would have suffered.

The present story is simply about another state, Connecticut in this case, joining the movement. But we've posted about it on this site in the past, and elsewhere.

If the 2016 results were in reverse, Trump winning the popular vote the Hildebeast winning the EC the sore loser demrats would not be having their meltdown,