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

[JoeB131]

And yet it seems as if every presidential election is touted as a 'mandate by the people'.

Because every other presidential election, except for 2000 and 2016, the guy the people wanted won.

 

[Wyatt earp]

And yet it seems as if every presidential election is touted as a 'mandate by the people'.

Because every other presidential election, except for 2000 and 2016, the guy the people wanted won.

Once again you are trying to make your own rules meth head joe.

 

[JoeB131]

Once again you are trying to make your own rules meth head joe.

Do try to follow, Drunken Bear...

Other presidents have claimed a mandate because a majority voted for them, or at least more than voted for anyone else.

That's what a mandate is. I know you think it's what you get in a men's room with a wide stance.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Once again you are trying to make your own rules meth head joe.

Do try to follow, Drunken Bear...

Other presidents have claimed a mandate because a majority voted for them, or at least more than voted for anyone else.

That's what a mandate is. I know you think it's what you get in a men's room with a wide stance.

Meth head joe, mandates are your fairy tale..


Once again..

 

[JoeB131]

Once again you are trying to make your own rules meth head joe.

Do try to follow, Drunken Bear...

Other presidents have claimed a mandate because a majority voted for them, or at least more than voted for anyone else.

That's what a mandate is. I know you think it's what you get in a men's room with a wide stance.

Meth head joe, mandates are your fairy tale..


Once again..View attachment 195266

Guy, they've already boxed Trump in... sorry. they are only waiting until they have enough to impeach his ass.

 

[Pogo]

Except---- again- Hillary won the popular vote.

Why the fuck do you keep pretending you have a mandate when you won on a technicality?

Because the presidential race was only one of many that were decided that year, and the Republicans decisively won most of those races.

You miss my point entirely. The whole purpose of the EC, according to the Founding Slave Rapists, was that the people generally couldn't be trusted, therefore, they needed an electoral college to protect them from guy like Trump.

Then the modern usage of the EC, in which the electors vote the way the people want them to, is flawed and we should do away with the popular vote altogether? You do know that the electors of the states voted the way the voters in their states wanted them to. In fact, it was one of Hillary's doomed hopes to get the electors to VIOLATE the popular vote. So it looks like you want the popular vote to count when it gives Hillary the win, and not count when it doesn't.

Except- again- the people got it right. They saw Trump for what he was and voted against him. Some of them decided to be hipsters and vote for the "Libertarian" who was shilling to get federal funds (no, really, you can't make this shit up.) But the people said no, in a very loud and clear voice.

Actually, the voters also said "NO" to Hillary in a very loud and clear voice, as she failed to win a majority. Thus, the system worked as it was designed to work. You just don't like the outcome. You know, had some of those extra votes in CA moved to other states and kept their allegiance to the corrupt party, Hillary might have actually won.

She got three million more votes than anybody else, so no, the voters didn't "say no in a loud and clear voice" at all.

That was a plurality. Nobody got a "majority". Nor did Bush or (Bill) Clinton, either time. Nor did 14 other elections settle that way including Lincoln.

And those who voted were far from all the people, so many more did NOT vote for Hillary than voted for her.

Matter of fact 45 percent of all eligible voters didn't bother to vote at all. They looked at the ballot and figured 'what's the point?'

And ZINGO, we're back on topic. Hope you enjoyed the rest stop.

I would say that is only half true to be honest. There are millions out there who are disenfranchised but I am willing to bet that the majority of those that did not vote simply did not care to and would not have cared to no matter who was on the ballot. At the end of the day we are victims of our own success. In general, no matter who wins the election, peoples daily lives are unaffected or at least effected in a manner that they really do not notice.

It is the bane of any democratic process - people tend not to notice until the shit really hits the fan. By then, it is FAR to late to do anything.

Sure that's true anywhere but having a participation rate of 55%, which is typical for us, would be considered abysmal in most of the world. It has to be because this system ensures we get, and this complaint has been around since before we were born, a choice between "No" and "Hell No". And that's because we drive down a multilane highway that inevitably narrows down to two lanes, and those two lanes are dominated by these two big slow plodding garbage trucks that make it impossible for anything to get in around them. And the same system makes sure that whatever quality goes in to the multilane part, by the time the lanes narrow only the garbage is left standing.

And again anyone whose state outcome can be predicted has no reason to vote at all since it will be ignored, and anyone who's not only has a single choice of "No", just to prevent the "Hell No" and contain the damage. That ain't any kind of a choice, and everybody knows it.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Just to make sure I understand...

If the John Doe gets the most popular votes in CT and Jane Doe gets the most popular votes nationwide, CT's electors will vote for Jane Doe?

Once enough states join the pact to ensure it has an impact, yes.
So obviously it can't "give permanent control" to any party. OP has his head up his ass.

 

[candycorn]

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?

Just to make sure I understand...

If the John Doe gets the most popular votes in CT and Jane Doe gets the most popular votes nationwide, CT's electors will vote for Jane Doe?

Once enough states join the pact to ensure it has an impact, yes.
So obviously it can't "give permanent control" to any party. OP has his head up his ass.

How many states would it take?

 

[dblack]

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?

Just to make sure I understand...

If the John Doe gets the most popular votes in CT and Jane Doe gets the most popular votes nationwide, CT's electors will vote for Jane Doe?

That's the plan, yeah. Sure seems like recipe for blowback to me. Instead of denying the majority will at the federal level, these states will be denying the majority will at the state level, effectively disenfranchising their own voters. The opposition will make hay come election time.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Just to make sure I understand...

If the John Doe gets the most popular votes in CT and Jane Doe gets the most popular votes nationwide, CT's electors will vote for Jane Doe?

Once enough states join the pact to ensure it has an impact, yes.
So obviously it can't "give permanent control" to any party. OP has his head up his ass.

How many states would it take?

Depends on who signs on. Enough to total 270 so it would guarantee the PV winner gets the EV.

Of course, they're also assuming all their Electors vote the way they're told to. That's a potential wrinkle but only in a razor-close election.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Just to make sure I understand...

If the John Doe gets the most popular votes in CT and Jane Doe gets the most popular votes nationwide, CT's electors will vote for Jane Doe?

That's the plan, yeah. Sure seems like recipe for blowback to me. Instead of denying the majority will at the federal level, these states will be denying the majority will at the state level, effectively disenfranchising their own voters. The opposition will make hay come election time.

--- and once AGAIN the various states *ALREADY* disenfranchise their own voters, every single POTUS election, and have been doing so since way before our grandparents were born. They do that every time they waltz into Congress the following Deember and lie through their teeth that "wow, it's amazing, for the umpteenth election in a row literally everybody in our state voted for ______". So if you're in a so-called "red" or so-called "blue" state your vote is both predetermined and utterly meaningless so you may as well stay home. And if you're in a so-called "battleground" state and don't happen to vote the way most of your state did, congratulations, you spent that time going and waiting in line to vote for nothing. It's over there in the trash can, what are you gonna do about it.

That part wouldn't change. The plan actually uses that part to counter the aberrations it produces on the collective level. Think of it as the capacitor that smooths out the voltage spikes.

But it's a wee bit late to suddenly start worrying about EV disenfranchisement when it's been going on all our lives and way before doncha think? If you're going to have your vote tossed in the trash, is there any difference whether it's done by your own state or by somebody else's? On the menu tonight is goat turd or sheep turd, which one would you like?

This is why James Madison wanted to ban the WTA practice. He said it would cause factionalism and division. Well guess what. "Red" states, "blue" states and "battleground" states, as well as the title of this thread, are the waste products thereof and would not even EXIST without the mindless WTA going on.

 

[dblack]

But it's a wee bit late to suddenly start worrying about EV disenfranchisement when it's been going on all our lives and way before doncha think?

I'm not worried about it. I was simply speaking to the political repercussions. If most of the voters in a state vote one way, and their state leaders pitch their votes the other, there will be backlash. As these leaders are politicians, with careers to consider, I don't see such a coalition holding together.

This is why James Madison wanted to ban the WTA practice. He said it would cause factionalism and division. Well guess what. "Red" states, "blue" states and "battleground" states, as well as the title of this thread, are the waste products thereof and would not even EXIST without the mindless WTA going on.

Getting rid of WTA is a great idea. But this proposal doesn't address WTA. If these states were changing their laws to award electors proportionally, that would be an actual improvement to the process.

 

[Pogo]

But it's a wee bit late to suddenly start worrying about EV disenfranchisement when it's been going on all our lives and way before doncha think?

I'm not worried about it. I was simply speaking to the political repercussions. If most of the voters in a state vote one way, and their state leaders pitch their votes the other, there will be backlash. As these leaders are politicians, with careers to consider, I don't see such a coalition holding together.

This is why James Madison wanted to ban the WTA practice. He said it would cause factionalism and division. Well guess what. "Red" states, "blue" states and "battleground" states, as well as the title of this thread, are the waste products thereof and would not even EXIST without the mindless WTA going on.

Getting rid of WTA is a great idea. But this proposal doesn't address WTA. If these states were changing their laws to award electors proportionally, that would be an actual improvement to the process.

It would, but that requires each individual state to voluntarily change the way it does things. Two states sort-of do that but it leaves 49 (DC being one) that go WTA and since that came about from hive mentality it's virtually impossible to un-hive. So this gets around the deleterious effect of the output by manipulating the input.

Proportional EVs would be far more democratic but (a) you'd have to get 51 states to each do it and lock it in, and (b) it would render the whole Electoral College proxy system meaningless -- which it is anyway but dumping the EC would require a Constitutional Amendment --- which would be easier to do than herding 51 cats.

This would also have to be done after all the votes are counted and certified for all 51 states, which takes quite a while after the election.

But the protest of disenfranchising an individual's vote is a non-starter, since that's already going on and has been for two centuries. That's a main issue this initiative tries to get around. If it came together and worked, it would be impossible for a candy to be elected without the collective (national) will of the voters.

 

[dblack]

But the protest of disenfranchising an individual's vote is a non-starter, since that's already going on and has been for two centuries. That's a main issue this initiative tries to get around.

But it doesn't get around it. It just rearranges it. It disenfranchises voters in a different way.

If it came together and worked, it would be impossible for a candy to be elected without the collective (national) will of the voters.

So what? Do you see majority rule as inherently moral or just? I don't.

 

[Montrovant]

Because the presidential race was only one of many that were decided that year, and the Republicans decisively won most of those races.

Actually, they lost ground in the House and Senate.. but do keep babbling about how you guys can barely win rigged elections.

I'm pretty sure any failures regarding the EC from the way it was originally set up fall more towards the way it has gravitated to the popular vote. In Federalist 68, Hamilton praises the people choosing not the president, but the electors, who would then decide on the president: "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations."

I'm sorry you wasted so much time proving my point.

Yes. Exactly. The electors SHOULD have realized, "Shit, Trump is nuts. We can't make him president!" This is exactly what the Founding Slave Rapists intended. By the time the electors met, it was not only clear that Trump was nuts, but that he probably colluded with the Russians.

and the electors all voted for him anyway.

The people got this right, the EC got this wrong.

What you seem to be missing is that the EC does not function today (or for many years now) the way it was originally set up. It isn't the EC that failed so much as the states which changed the way the EC works.

If electors were expected to vote for the candidate they thought best, rather than who the people voted for, maybe Trump would not have been elected. Of course, maybe he still would have; the EC never guaranteed any particular type or quality of president.

 

[danielpalos]

An Electoral College should never stereotype; but, always deliberate in a collegial manner and collegial fashion.

 

[Pogo]

An Electoral College should never stereotype; but, always deliberate in a collegial manner and collegial fashion.

That sounds like it means lots of kegs.

And hangovers.

 

[hadit]

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?

Just to make sure I understand...

If the John Doe gets the most popular votes in CT and Jane Doe gets the most popular votes nationwide, CT's electors will vote for Jane Doe?

Once enough states join the pact to ensure it has an impact, yes.
So obviously it can't "give permanent control" to any party. OP has his head up his ass.

How many states would it take?

Depends on who signs on. Enough to total 270 so it would guarantee the PV winner gets the EV.

Of course, they're also assuming all their Electors vote the way they're told to. That's a potential wrinkle but only in a razor-close election.

It would be a hoot watching CA electors voting for a Republican, then continually reminding CA voters that's what they wanted.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You know that if this is ever implemented a Republican will win the popular vote and Dems would have won the EC

 

[Pogo]

It would be a hoot watching CA electors voting for a Republican, then continually reminding CA voters that's what they wanted.

You know that if this is ever implemented a Republican will win the popular vote and Dems would have won the EC

Um yeah whatever.

The point being, it would mean that whoever did win the pop vote would also win the election. As is the case right now in every country except the United States and Pakistan. And that's the whole point here.

Anyway thanks for backing me up that the OP title is full of shit.