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

[Sun Devil 92]

Do you call yourself Oreo because your head is sandwiched between the two cheeks of your ass ?

 

[jillian]

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?

More of your bullshit.

When are you ever going to stop.

Lawyer my ass.

What wasn’t true about that nutbar? Other than you drooling and foaming any trbmith and needing to spew?

As for the rest, Lyon hacks wish.

Suck it up little trumptard.

 

[PredFan]

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

Personally, I don't think Trump is going to make it to the next election. Go to this link on this board, and scroll down to post # 56. There you can read one article, watch 2 FOX NEWS video's and another video with Trump admitting to Obstruction of Justice on National T.V.
It’s Russia, Russia, Russia

Then a good book to read:

Very well written, easy to follow & hard to put down.
Top seller on Amazon today.

Lol, you morons have been saying that since November 2016. Grow up.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

As I said, you make a very fine progressive. Power taken from the states and given to the Feds.

 

[rightwinger]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

Based on this move, Democrats clearly believe in a raw, up or down vote. What happens if a concentration of conservatives in a state or local region have a popular vote that says prayers must be said before school starts? Majority rules!!! ...... and Democrats will tell you day and night that they are for the "little guy".

It will have to clear the courts in either case

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

More of your bullshit.

When are you ever going to stop.

Lawyer my ass.

What wasn’t true about that nutbar? Other than you drooling and foaming any trbmith and needing to spew?

As for the rest, Lyon hacks wish.

Suck it up little trumptard.

When We The People wrote the constitution, they set it up this way for a purpose. That a pretend lawyer does not know that isn't surprizing.

But, you feel free to continue to post your butthurt for losing in 2016 all over the board.

I enjoy the continual laughs you bring.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Personally, I don't think Trump is going to make it to the next election. Go to this link on this board, and scroll down to post # 56. There you can read one article, watch 2 FOX NEWS video's and another video with Trump admitting to Obstruction of Justice on National T.V.
It’s Russia, Russia, Russia

Then a good book to read:

Very well written, easy to follow & hard to put down.
Top seller on Amazon today.

Personally, I don't think Hillary is going to make it to the next election.

 

[BlindBoo]

When We The People wrote the constitution, they set it up this way for a purpose

They set the choosing of Electors this way.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct....."

Now show me where in the Constitution it says the states are forbidden to base the selection of their electors on the total vote of all the states!

 

[Cecilie1200]

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".

Horse feathers.

1) I realize that leftists think yelling, "Slave owners!" somehow automatically makes a killing point about the Founding Fathers, without the messy details of actually showing a relationship, but . . .

2) Far from being a benefit to the slaveholding states, the "infamous 3/5 Compromise" was intended to LIMIT their power. And far from showing that the EC was all about benefiting slavery, pointing out that a candidate won without carrying any Electoral votes in the South shows that it DIDN'T benefit them, and that it pretty clearly works to protect our nation from the worst evils and excesses that might infect our populace.

3) The arguments when the Electoral College was debated were all about an equitable division of power between populous states and small states, not about slave versus non-slave.

4) If you think the arguments about "New York and California determining elections" are "ludicrous", then you must consider simple arithmetic to be "ludicrous". Personally, I think THAT is "ludicrous".

It's also interesting that, from the Founding Fathers on through history, the debate about the EC has ALWAYS been about clearly-articulated concerns about populous states dominating the government, and yet you somehow think you can just breeze past all of that and dismiss those arguments with a half-assed insult, and that settles it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Again, no one - absolutely no one - has suggested that the Constitution mandates a vote. Thank you for continuing to argue so effectively against a point that has not been made. Would that you could address ACTUAL points as well.

This is very much a left and right thing, because it's a move wholly on the left to twist the letter of the law to undermine the intent of the law.

The real reason the Constitution doesn't directly mandate a vote is because the Founding Fathers overestimated their descendants. They expected us to value the sovereignty of states far more than we do, and so they left the power to control elections to that level of government.

 

[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.

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.

That's pretty much my take on it.

 

[PredFan]

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.

That's pretty much my take on it.

Yeah the Democrats keep pretending we live in a mob-rule Democracy.

 

[Papageorgio]

This will make visiting these states a waste of time on the campaign trail since their votes won’t count in winning electoral votes because of it being tied to a general election national count. Also, looking back on history this law would not have the Electoral College results in the last five Presidential elections except in 2004 where Bush would have won by a larger electoral count.

Good law for liberal states to adopt.

 

[jillian]

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.

That's pretty much my take on it.

Yeah the Democrats keep pretending we live in a mob-rule Democracy.

You don’t want democracy. You want some wacko trumptard’s vote to be worth 700 of normal people’s

If you want to talk about mib rule, you might want to talk about Cohen and lushness strong-arming foreign countries and foreign and domestic corporations for pay offs.

 

[jillian]

This will make visiting these states a waste of time on the campaign trail since their votes won’t count in winning electoral votes because of it being tied to a general election national count. Also, looking back on history this law would not have the Electoral College results in the last five Presidential elections except in 2004 where Bush would have won by a larger electoral count.

Good law for liberal states to adopt.

They already only visit swing stares. Only Donald spends all of his time with the radical wingnut “base”

 

[Hum Dinger]

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Pure Democracy is MOB RULE. Do you want a few states to decide for the entire country? That is now what has made this county successful.

The Federal government exists due to the STATES which were supposed to be stronger than the Feds, and thus States elect Presidents, not people. Take some History, and Civics courses, and read the Constitution.

Have you ever heard of the American Civil War? The issue of whether we are 50 sovereign states in a federation, or one nation with 50 devolved states was definitely settled at that time.

The articles of Confederation failed and did the Confederacy.

Your argument is just a weak camouflage to justify domination of a minority.

Besides which, the worst sort of MOB rule we can have is the rule of the DUMB-ASS REDNECKS in the low population states. This has been proven by the election of a New York City/Wall St. con man. How stupid can the people in these low population states get?

 

[Hum Dinger]

You're not understanding what I'm asking.

I don't want it changed - at least, not to a national popular vote. I'm asking you to give me an argument for why what we have is a good system right now. I know the history already.

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

We don't live in a pure democracy, and for direct representation you have that at the State level.

The rules of our Republic were specifically designed to retard the power of the majority. It's a feature of our system, not a bug.

If you want it changed, amend the Constitution.

We don't live in a pure democracy because a pure democracy is not possible. That doesn't mean that we should not try to get as close to a pure Democracy as is possible.

So, you think that it's a good idea to 'retard' that power of the majority and have rule by the minority? That's called a 'dictatorship'.

We do have popular representation at the state level. The states are acting to make the electoral college obsolete.

No, it's called a Republic. A system where everything goes to the will of the majority is Mob rule.

They are doing it in a way that is probably Unconstitutional via Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1.

The court system is the mechanism for preventing a dictatorship of the majority. Not the electoral college.

The electoral college was created to prevent someone who was absolutely unfit to become President from becoming President. This past election the electoral college proved to be an absolute failure in that regard.

The electoral college was not created for the purpose of stopping majority rule.

So according to your idea of republicanism, the federal government has failed to adhere to Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 since they've allowed states to elect officails according to the popular majority. Is that correct?

Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 does not apply at all to federal elections.

 

[martybegan]

it's the same argument now as it was before. States with larger populations should not be able to bully States with smaller populations.

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

We don't live in a pure democracy, and for direct representation you have that at the State level.

The rules of our Republic were specifically designed to retard the power of the majority. It's a feature of our system, not a bug.

If you want it changed, amend the Constitution.

We don't live in a pure democracy because a pure democracy is not possible. That doesn't mean that we should not try to get as close to a pure Democracy as is possible.

So, you think that it's a good idea to 'retard' that power of the majority and have rule by the minority? That's called a 'dictatorship'.

We do have popular representation at the state level. The states are acting to make the electoral college obsolete.

No, it's called a Republic. A system where everything goes to the will of the majority is Mob rule.

They are doing it in a way that is probably Unconstitutional via Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1.

The court system is the mechanism for preventing a dictatorship of the majority. Not the electoral college.

The electoral college was created to prevent someone who was absolutely unfit to become President from becoming President. This past election the electoral college proved to be an absolute failure in that regard.

The electoral college was not created for the purpose of stopping majority rule.

So according to your idea of republicanism, the federal government has failed to adhere to Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 since they've allowed states to elect officails according to the popular majority. Is that correct?

Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1 does not apply at all to federal elections.

That article only applies to the States. The constitution itself sets up the Republican nature of the federal government.

The courts are usually the first thing to go in a dictatorship, so your point doesn't make sense.

Also, how many divisions do the courts have?

The EC was designed to create a method of doing the presidential election by State, weighted for population.

And if the EC decided not to elect Trump for purely political reasons, you would probably have had a revolution.

 

[Wyatt earp]

When We The People wrote the constitution, they set it up this way for a purpose

They set the choosing of Electors this way.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct....."

Now show me where in the Constitution it says the states are forbidden to base the selection of their electors on the total vote of all the states!

It's called " in the spirit of the law" typical liberal criminals always trying to find a loop hole

 

[Hum Dinger]

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

Democracy isn't about states, it's about individuals. Why should voters in low population states have more voting power than those in high population states?

We don't live in a pure democracy, and for direct representation you have that at the State level.

The rules of our Republic were specifically designed to retard the power of the majority. It's a feature of our system, not a bug.

If that's a virtue, why don't states elect governors that way? Why doesn't each of its counties (parishes, boroughs) have its own electors to pick the governor?

Or Senator? Or Representative? Or Mayor? Or sheriff?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You just make it up as you go along!

But as you said:

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.

If you really felt that candidates should appeal to the broader public instead of a select few, you would what the electoral college abolished and the President elected by the popular majority.

As of now, candidates only campaign in the 'battleground' states while the majority of states get ignored. Abolishing the electoral college would force the candidates to campaign every where.