Colorado oks joining national popular vote compact to cast all electoral votes for popular winner in

[toomuchtime_]

The clear intent of the Constitution is that the President should not be elected by the people but by the states. Conspiring to undermine the Constitution without amending it weakens the Constitution.

The clear intent of the Constitution is that the President should not be elected by the people but by the states. Conspiring to undermine the Constitution without amending it weakens the Constitution.

Do you believe the Constitution specifically requires winner-take-all elections?

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• "The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.
• The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (all of which abandoned it by 1800). The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became the predominant method of awarding electoral votes.
• Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district—a reminder that the method of awarding electoral votes is a state decision."

The Constitution clearly intends for the states, not the people, to elect the president, and this bizarre compact says, that even if the voters in Colorado overwhelmingly vote for the candidate with fewer total votes the state will award its votes to the candidate the people of Colorado did not want. This is certainly not democracy and it is not what the Constitution intended. It is simply a temper tantrum by Democrats.

The Constitution clearly intends for the states, not the people, to elect the president, and this bizarre compact says, that even if the voters in Colorado overwhelmingly vote for the candidate with fewer total votes the state will award its votes to the candidate the people of Colorado did not want. This is certainly not democracy and it is not what the Constitution intended. It is simply a temper tantrum by Democrats.

Why do you think electing a POTUS who won the national popular vote represents a threat to voters who cast their ballots for a different candidate regardless of which state they reside in?

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit, require, encourage, or discourage the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes. The wording 'as the Legislature … may direct' permits the states to exercise their power to choose the manner of appointing their presidential electors in any way they see fit—subject only to the implicit limitation on all grants of power in the Constitution, namely that the states not violate any specific restriction on state action contained elsewhere in the Constitution."

As you point out, the Constitution clearly intends that the President be elected by the states and not by popular vote, and this conspiracy to undermine the clear intent of the Constitution is technically legal, but it effectively disenfranchises the voters in the state in the case where they chose the candidate with the lower national popular vote score. Again, this is just about Democrats kicking and screaming and bawling about losing elections when they nominate people who are clearly not competent to run a campaign let alone the country, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

As you point out, the Constitution clearly intends that the President be elected by the states and not by popular vote, and this conspiracy to undermine the clear intent of the Constitution is technically legal, but it effectively disenfranchises the voters in the state in the case where they chose the candidate with the lower national popular vote score. Again, this is just about Democrats kicking and screaming and bawling about losing elections when they nominate people who are clearly not competent to run a campaign let alone the country, Al Gore and Hillary

Are you implying Trump is competent to run this country?


"JANET YELLEN: TRUMP IS AN EVEN BIGGER IDIOT THAN HE LOOKS..."

Janet Yellen: Trump Is an Even Bigger Idiot Than He Looks

"In an interview with Marketplace’s Kai Ryssdal, Yellen was asked, point blank: 'Do you think the president has a grasp of macroeconomic policy?”

"And instead of dancing around the issue or offering some kind of 'I don’t know what’s in his heart answer, she responded, 'No, I do not.' That most of us had a hunch this was the case does not change the fact that it’s shocking Yellen would just come out and say it!

"And, apparently, macroeconomics is just one of several things she thinks President Buy and Sell knows nothing about, the others being international trade, business, and the entire purpose of the Federal Reserve."

Perhaps Yellen should wonder why he is having so much more success running the economy than Obama and ask herself if she should take lessons from him, but that would just not fly right back at Berkeley.

 

[22lcidw]

States are supposed to vote for who they choose. Not who California or New York chooses.

More votes = win. It's not hard, bro. More than 2 states are voting. Too fucking stupid.

The globalists have infected many Americans. We are closing in on war on our territory. What happens if those states you hate vote on tariffs to move to all the products you city folks get? Will you have a problem with that? They will. For you will impoverish them otherwise.

 

[grainbely]

Colorado OKs joining National Popular Vote compact to cast all electoral votes for popular winner in presidential elections
Under a bill passed Thursday by the Colorado House, Colorado has agreed to join 12 other states in a compact system that aims to cast all its electoral votes for the winner of the national popular presidential vote.


This is what you try to do when your retard who doesn't understand the system, is told ffalse information by democratic ****s who only have their best interest at hand not yours assholes theirs.

You need to take a few days off or have your posts edited. It's getting sloppy.

 

[georgephillip]

Perhaps Yellen should wonder why he is having so much more success running the economy than Obama and ask herself if she should take lessons from him, but that would just not fly right back at Berkeley.

omuchtime_, post: 21886301, member: 17069"]

Do you believe the Constitution specifically requires winner-take-all elections?

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• "The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.
• The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (all of which abandoned it by 1800). The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became the predominant method of awarding electoral votes.
• Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district—a reminder that the method of awarding electoral votes is a state decision."

The Constitution clearly intends for the states, not the people, to elect the president, and this bizarre compact says, that even if the voters in Colorado overwhelmingly vote for the candidate with fewer total votes the state will award its votes to the candidate the people of Colorado did not want. This is certainly not democracy and it is not what the Constitution intended. It is simply a temper tantrum by Democrats.

The Constitution clearly intends for the states, not the people, to elect the president, and this bizarre compact says, that even if the voters in Colorado overwhelmingly vote for the candidate with fewer total votes the state will award its votes to the candidate the people of Colorado did not want. This is certainly not democracy and it is not what the Constitution intended. It is simply a temper tantrum by Democrats.

Why do you think electing a POTUS who won the national popular vote represents a threat to voters who cast their ballots for a different candidate regardless of which state they reside in?

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• Section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit, require, encourage, or discourage the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes. The wording 'as the Legislature … may direct' permits the states to exercise their power to choose the manner of appointing their presidential electors in any way they see fit—subject only to the implicit limitation on all grants of power in the Constitution, namely that the states not violate any specific restriction on state action contained elsewhere in the Constitution."

As you point out, the Constitution clearly intends that the President be elected by the states and not by popular vote, and this conspiracy to undermine the clear intent of the Constitution is technically legal, but it effectively disenfranchises the voters in the state in the case where they chose the candidate with the lower national popular vote score. Again, this is just about Democrats kicking and screaming and bawling about losing elections when they nominate people who are clearly not competent to run a campaign let alone the country, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.

As you point out, the Constitution clearly intends that the President be elected by the states and not by popular vote, and this conspiracy to undermine the clear intent of the Constitution is technically legal, but it effectively disenfranchises the voters in the state in the case where they chose the candidate with the lower national popular vote score. Again, this is just about Democrats kicking and screaming and bawling about losing elections when they nominate people who are clearly not competent to run a campaign let alone the country, Al Gore and Hillary

Are you implying Trump is competent to run this country?


"JANET YELLEN: TRUMP IS AN EVEN BIGGER IDIOT THAN HE LOOKS..."

Janet Yellen: Trump Is an Even Bigger Idiot Than He Looks

"In an interview with Marketplace’s Kai Ryssdal, Yellen was asked, point blank: 'Do you think the president has a grasp of macroeconomic policy?”

"And instead of dancing around the issue or offering some kind of 'I don’t know what’s in his heart answer, she responded, 'No, I do not.' That most of us had a hunch this was the case does not change the fact that it’s shocking Yellen would just come out and say it!

"And, apparently, macroeconomics is just one of several things she thinks President Buy and Sell knows nothing about, the others being international trade, business, and the entire purpose of the Federal Reserve."

Perhaps Yellen should wonder why he is having so much more success running the economy than Obama and ask herself if she should take lessons from him, but that would just not fly right back at Berkeley.[/QUOTE]
Trump took office midway through the second longest economic recovery in US history, and his tax cuts spurred growth in 2018. All of which won't count for much in November of 2020 unless the economy continues to "improve" for working Americans.

The recovery from the Great Recession is now the second-longest ever

"The slow but steady recovery from the Great Recession just hit a milestone: It's tied for the second-longest economic expansion in American history.
The recession ended in June 2009, which means the recovery is 106 months old through April of this year. That matches the expansion from 1961 to 1969, an era of big government spending under President John F. Kennedy and then President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society."