Interesting factoid about EC winners who lost the popular vote....

[Ray From Cleveland]

Only way Republicans can win today

True, my friend,................but in a few years when the old, racist farts in Texas die out AND the hispanic /Latino population gains the majority......
Without TX the repubs will only see the oval office as tourists.....maybe......LOL

Which is the Democrat plan: to wipe out the white race. After they do that, we will be a single-party government followed by Socialism and quickly Communism. What we are witnessing is the end of the Great Experiment.

Yeah, I'm not sure if the Democrats actually want to wipe out the white race. If they do, they'll have to find some other boogeyman to blame everything on and demonize to keep power.

Not at all. Once we are the minority in this country, they will have unchallenged power. Republicans may still run, but it will be fruitless. Every other group outside of whites vote Democrat.

Yes but those other groups vote Democrat BECAUSE the Democrats vilify white people as the eevil, oppressive enemy from which they need protection. If white people were no longer around for leftists to beat their gums about, how are they going to distract people from how noxious they are?

Well yes, that's part of it. The Democrats need to continuously create victims in order to survive. But without us, they would just give them things like they have with other minority groups. Give them work, give them social programs, give them a free pass when discovered they don't belong here, give them sanctuary cities and so on.

They will run out of money. It would only be a matter of time, but for the current group, they would have power and that's all they care about. Let the fallout be somebody else's problem.

 

[progressive hunter]

if that were true you can provide where in the constitution that is stated...

Because logic doesn't work for you? That's what all elected officeholders do: they represent the people who elected them and their interests. That's WHY they're elected.

There's also the fact that Article 2, by investing him with the power to make treaties (subject to concurrence by the Senate) and to meet with ambassadors and other public ministers, perforce makes him the chief diplomat of the United States. He is, essentially, the face of America, ie. representing us.

he represents the country not the people,,,thats why we have a house of representatives

I could argue that the people ARE the country. The purpose of Representatives in the House is to represent the people of their district and what they want to the rest of the people in the country. The purpose of the President - in the role of diplomat - is to represent the people of his country and what they want to the rest of the world.

The two are not exclusionary.

you can argue all you want but if thats true you should be able to point to that in the constitution,,,

its very specific what his job is, if its not there then according to the 10th amendment it falls elsewhere

besides which people is he representing,,,liberals, conservatives or americans

I just did. You can say, "Fuck your logic! If those EXACT WORDS don't appear, it's not true! Stop interpreting English and thinking!" until your face turns blue; won't change reality.

As for your vain attempt at cleverness, the President represents every legal resident of the United States. Would that more of them actually remembered that and did it well.

according o the 10th amendment, if the words arent there then its not his job

 

[nat4900]

Yes but those other groups vote Democrat BECAUSE the Democrats vilify white people as the eevil, oppressive enemy from which they need protection.

Don't be a moron and looks at the facts.....Most in the democrat side of the aisle ARE white. We're much more accepting of diversity as compared to many ignorant and easily frightened republicans. Read below and learn something.....


The 2018 exit polls indicate that a considerable share of Democratic gains came from shifts in white voting patterns, even as Democrats retained strong support from racial minorities. Moreover, in key Midwest statewide elections, Democrats lost fewer white working-class male votes while retaining support among white female college graduate voters.

2018 exit polls show greater white Democratic support

Democrats Racially Diverse; Republicans Mostly White - Gallup News

 

[NightFox]

What makes you think that ? The U.S. Constitution states that Electors shall be appointed "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" , it doesn't put any restrictions on how they're appointed beyond the number that each State receives and that among electors "no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector".

From looking at the U.S. Constitution it would appear that the States are free to devise whatever system of appointment that they desire subject to the restrictions (if any) placed on the process by each State Constitution.

Take it to court, you'll lose, a current state legislature has no more right to bind the future votes of their citizens, than they do the future decisions of subsequent legislatures. If my State ever passed such a ridiculous law, I'd damn sure challenge it in court.

.

Are you aware of any precedent that supports your "you'll lose" conclusion? Because it doesn't appear there is any U.S. Constitutional language that supports your assertion.

As far as "bind the future votes of their citizens" doesn't every allocation system currently in place already do that? Not to mention the citizens of each State can change the practice(s) of their States by voting to change the State Constitution.

No State has so far allocated their electors base on the votes of another State/s. A State has the authority to determine how to allocate electors based on the votes within their State, not the votes of other States.

What language in the U.S. Constitution are you basing that supposition on ? I haven't found anything in the U.S. Constitution that imposes such restrictions on how the States allocate their electors, what am I missing that supports your original assertion that it's "Unconstitutional"?

But even though the courts haven't ruled on this particular situation, they have ruled that no current legislature can bind the actions of a future legislature,

.

How is altering the allocation of electors "binding the actions of a future legislature" ? The individual States already have laws on the books that specify the procedure for how electors get allocated, right? So you're saying they can't change those laws and use some other method?

You delete a portion of my quote and think you're cute. The scheme to impose a tyranny of the majority will never withstand a constitutional challenge, period. Test it, you'll see. We're done.

.

I'm just trying to ascertain the basis for your argument that States enacting laws to award their EC's to the winner of the National Popular vote is Unconstitutional, so far you haven't provided either a single peice of evidence to support it or offered up a reason based foundation.

Don't worry, it's okay to be wrong, happens to everyone from time to time.

 

[OKTexas]

Take it to court, you'll lose, a current state legislature has no more right to bind the future votes of their citizens, than they do the future decisions of subsequent legislatures. If my State ever passed such a ridiculous law, I'd damn sure challenge it in court.

.

Are you aware of any precedent that supports your "you'll lose" conclusion? Because it doesn't appear there is any U.S. Constitutional language that supports your assertion.

As far as "bind the future votes of their citizens" doesn't every allocation system currently in place already do that? Not to mention the citizens of each State can change the practice(s) of their States by voting to change the State Constitution.

No State has so far allocated their electors base on the votes of another State/s. A State has the authority to determine how to allocate electors based on the votes within their State, not the votes of other States.

What language in the U.S. Constitution are you basing that supposition on ? I haven't found anything in the U.S. Constitution that imposes such restrictions on how the States allocate their electors, what am I missing that supports your original assertion that it's "Unconstitutional"?

But even though the courts haven't ruled on this particular situation, they have ruled that no current legislature can bind the actions of a future legislature,

.

How is altering the allocation of electors "binding the actions of a future legislature" ? The individual States already have laws on the books that specify the procedure for how electors get allocated, right? So you're saying they can't change those laws and use some other method?

You delete a portion of my quote and think you're cute. The scheme to impose a tyranny of the majority will never withstand a constitutional challenge, period. Test it, you'll see. We're done.

.

I'm just trying to ascertain the basis for your argument that States enacting laws to award their EC's to the winner of the National Popular vote is Unconstitutional, so far you haven't provided either a single peice of evidence to support it or offered up a reason based foundation.

Don't worry, it's okay to be wrong, happens to everyone from time to time.

It's a very simple concept, a State legislature can only allocate electors base on the votes in their State. They have no constitutional authority to obligate their electors to vote for the winner in another State/s. If you have a problem understanding the concept, get an adult to explain it to ya.

.

 

[NightFox]

Are you aware of any precedent that supports your "you'll lose" conclusion? Because it doesn't appear there is any U.S. Constitutional language that supports your assertion.

As far as "bind the future votes of their citizens" doesn't every allocation system currently in place already do that? Not to mention the citizens of each State can change the practice(s) of their States by voting to change the State Constitution.

No State has so far allocated their electors base on the votes of another State/s. A State has the authority to determine how to allocate electors based on the votes within their State, not the votes of other States.

What language in the U.S. Constitution are you basing that supposition on ? I haven't found anything in the U.S. Constitution that imposes such restrictions on how the States allocate their electors, what am I missing that supports your original assertion that it's "Unconstitutional"?

But even though the courts haven't ruled on this particular situation, they have ruled that no current legislature can bind the actions of a future legislature,

.

How is altering the allocation of electors "binding the actions of a future legislature" ? The individual States already have laws on the books that specify the procedure for how electors get allocated, right? So you're saying they can't change those laws and use some other method?

You delete a portion of my quote and think you're cute. The scheme to impose a tyranny of the majority will never withstand a constitutional challenge, period. Test it, you'll see. We're done.

.

I'm just trying to ascertain the basis for your argument that States enacting laws to award their EC's to the winner of the National Popular vote is Unconstitutional, so far you haven't provided either a single peice of evidence to support it or offered up a reason based foundation.

Don't worry, it's okay to be wrong, happens to everyone from time to time.

It's a very simple concept, a State legislature can only allocate electors base on the votes in their State.

They have no constitutional authority to obligate their electors to vote for the winner in another State/s. If you have a problem understanding the concept, get an adult to explain it to ya.

.

As I've already pointed out on numerous occasions in this thread, the U.S. Constitution doesn't say that and no matter how many times you repeat your reason and evidence free mantra it never will.

" Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Now feel free to continue to follow the guidance of your ad hominem navigation system if it provides you with some comfort in avoiding the admission that you were mistaken.



"When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser" -- Socrates

 

[Avatar4321]

There have been only FOUR presidents who LOST the popular vote but managed to WIN based on the Electoral College decision.......Bear in mind that we are the ONLY representative republic/democracy who utilize the decision of the EC.

Want to guess which party the FOUR electoral college presidents belonged in?

Benjamin Harrison
Rutherford Hayes
George W. Bush
The Donald......

So what’s your point?

 

[nat4900]

o what’s your point?

Nothing.....nothing....don't overwork your half brain....Go back to bed.

 

[Ame®icano]

 

[Avatar4321]

o what’s your point?

Nothing.....nothing....don't overwork your half brain....Go back to bed.

Translation: “im a little child incapable of articulating a point and just wet myself when faced with answering this simple question.”

 

[OKTexas]

No State has so far allocated their electors base on the votes of another State/s. A State has the authority to determine how to allocate electors based on the votes within their State, not the votes of other States.

What language in the U.S. Constitution are you basing that supposition on ? I haven't found anything in the U.S. Constitution that imposes such restrictions on how the States allocate their electors, what am I missing that supports your original assertion that it's "Unconstitutional"?

But even though the courts haven't ruled on this particular situation, they have ruled that no current legislature can bind the actions of a future legislature,

.

How is altering the allocation of electors "binding the actions of a future legislature" ? The individual States already have laws on the books that specify the procedure for how electors get allocated, right? So you're saying they can't change those laws and use some other method?

You delete a portion of my quote and think you're cute. The scheme to impose a tyranny of the majority will never withstand a constitutional challenge, period. Test it, you'll see. We're done.

.

I'm just trying to ascertain the basis for your argument that States enacting laws to award their EC's to the winner of the National Popular vote is Unconstitutional, so far you haven't provided either a single peice of evidence to support it or offered up a reason based foundation.

Don't worry, it's okay to be wrong, happens to everyone from time to time.

It's a very simple concept, a State legislature can only allocate electors base on the votes in their State.

They have no constitutional authority to obligate their electors to vote for the winner in another State/s. If you have a problem understanding the concept, get an adult to explain it to ya.

.

As I've already pointed out on numerous occasions in this thread, the U.S. Constitution doesn't say that and no matter how many times you repeat your reason and evidence free mantra it never will.

" Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Now feel free to continue to follow the guidance of your ad hominem navigation system if it provides you with some comfort in avoiding the admission that you were mistaken.



"When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser" -- Socrates

So where does this say a legislature can give weight to voters of another State. Precedent says the State legislature can appoint electors or they can allow their voter to select them. No where does it give the State authority to consider the votes in other States.

The Bush v. Gore majority found that states could allow voters to choose electors and if they did so, the process needed to be fair with “equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.”

Electoral College a rare topic of discussion at Supreme Court - National Constitution Center

.

 

[NightFox]

What language in the U.S. Constitution are you basing that supposition on ? I haven't found anything in the U.S. Constitution that imposes such restrictions on how the States allocate their electors, what am I missing that supports your original assertion that it's "Unconstitutional"?


How is altering the allocation of electors "binding the actions of a future legislature" ? The individual States already have laws on the books that specify the procedure for how electors get allocated, right? So you're saying they can't change those laws and use some other method?

You delete a portion of my quote and think you're cute. The scheme to impose a tyranny of the majority will never withstand a constitutional challenge, period. Test it, you'll see. We're done.

.

I'm just trying to ascertain the basis for your argument that States enacting laws to award their EC's to the winner of the National Popular vote is Unconstitutional, so far you haven't provided either a single peice of evidence to support it or offered up a reason based foundation.

Don't worry, it's okay to be wrong, happens to everyone from time to time.

It's a very simple concept, a State legislature can only allocate electors base on the votes in their State.

They have no constitutional authority to obligate their electors to vote for the winner in another State/s. If you have a problem understanding the concept, get an adult to explain it to ya.

.

As I've already pointed out on numerous occasions in this thread, the U.S. Constitution doesn't say that and no matter how many times you repeat your reason and evidence free mantra it never will.

" Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Now feel free to continue to follow the guidance of your ad hominem navigation system if it provides you with some comfort in avoiding the admission that you were mistaken.



"When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser" -- Socrates

So where does this say a legislature can give weight to voters of another State. Precedent says the State legislature can appoint electors or they can allow their voter to select them. No where does it give the State authority to consider the votes in other States.

It doesn't have to state any of that, the Constitution explicitly grants authority to the Federal Government from the States, that which isn't explicitly granted is withheld by the States and the States are the sovereign entities that elect the President.

Thus they can award their EC's based on NHL scores if they want as long as their State Constitutions don't restrict them from doing so and the citizens of the State are willing to tolerate it.

The Bush v. Gore majority found that states could allow voters to choose electors and if they did so, the process needed to be fair with “equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.”

Electoral College a rare topic of discussion at Supreme Court - National Constitution Center

.

If you're going to cite precedent you should probably read it carefully before citing it...

Allow me to assist you.

"The Bush v. Gore majority found that states could allow voters to choose electors and if they did so, the process needed to be fair with “equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.” The court also said that states retained the ability to “take back the power to appoint electors” from voters and return it to the legislatures, as happened in the early days of our republic.

In other words, if the States want to put their EC's up to a vote, they can , they just can't discriminate against one set(s) of voters over others, it DOESN'T say that using the results of the National Popular Vote is discriminatory or "unfair", and it doesn't support that earlier nonsense you offered up about "State Legislators not being able to restrict future legislatures"

I'll give you credit for one thing though

You've shown remarkable courage in staking out a position to the left of Ruth "The Constitution Doesn't Really Mean What It Says" Ginsberg and doggedly sticking to it even after it's been clearly demonstrated that your assertion was incorrect.

Don't worry though, this whole "movement" to award EC's based on the National Popular Vote isn't likely to ever be enacted and if by some miracle it is, the Sore Loser Squad from Team Dingbat-D will scream bloody murder to bring the old system back the first time a Republican wins the popular vote and flips enough EC's to beat a Democrat that would have otherwise won under the old system.

They just want a system where a Democrat ALWAYS wins the White House, no matter what happens in the election and they won't stop crying until they get it.

 

[OKTexas]

You delete a portion of my quote and think you're cute. The scheme to impose a tyranny of the majority will never withstand a constitutional challenge, period. Test it, you'll see. We're done.

.

I'm just trying to ascertain the basis for your argument that States enacting laws to award their EC's to the winner of the National Popular vote is Unconstitutional, so far you haven't provided either a single peice of evidence to support it or offered up a reason based foundation.

Don't worry, it's okay to be wrong, happens to everyone from time to time.

It's a very simple concept, a State legislature can only allocate electors base on the votes in their State.

They have no constitutional authority to obligate their electors to vote for the winner in another State/s. If you have a problem understanding the concept, get an adult to explain it to ya.

.

As I've already pointed out on numerous occasions in this thread, the U.S. Constitution doesn't say that and no matter how many times you repeat your reason and evidence free mantra it never will.

" Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Now feel free to continue to follow the guidance of your ad hominem navigation system if it provides you with some comfort in avoiding the admission that you were mistaken.



"When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser" -- Socrates

So where does this say a legislature can give weight to voters of another State. Precedent says the State legislature can appoint electors or they can allow their voter to select them. No where does it give the State authority to consider the votes in other States.

It doesn't have to state any of that, the Constitution explicitly grants authority to the Federal Government from the States, that which isn't explicitly granted is withheld by the States and the States are the sovereign entities that elect the President.

Thus they can award their EC's based on NHL scores if they want as long as their State Constitutions don't restrict them from doing so and the citizens of the State are willing to tolerate it.

The Bush v. Gore majority found that states could allow voters to choose electors and if they did so, the process needed to be fair with “equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.”

Electoral College a rare topic of discussion at Supreme Court - National Constitution Center

.

If you're going to cite precedent you should probably read it carefully before citing it...

Allow me to assist you.

"The Bush v. Gore majority found that states could allow voters to choose electors and if they did so, the process needed to be fair with “equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.” The court also said that states retained the ability to “take back the power to appoint electors” from voters and return it to the legislatures, as happened in the early days of our republic.

In other words, if the States want to put their EC's up to a vote, they can , they just can't discriminate against one set(s) of voters over others, it DOESN'T say that using the results of the National Popular Vote is discriminatory or "unfair", and it doesn't support that earlier nonsense you offered up about "State Legislators not being able to restrict future legislatures"

I'll give you credit for one thing though

You've shown remarkable courage in staking out a position to the left of Ruth "The Constitution Doesn't Really Mean What It Says" Ginsberg and doggedly sticking to it even after it's been clearly demonstrated that your assertion was incorrect.

Don't worry though, this whole "movement" to award EC's based on the National Popular Vote isn't likely to ever be enacted and if by some miracle it is, the Sore Loser Squad from Team Dingbat-D will scream bloody murder to bring the old system back the first time a Republican wins the popular vote and flips enough EC's to beat a Democrat that would have otherwise won under the old system.

They just want a system where a Democrat ALWAYS wins the White House, no matter what happens in the election and they won't stop crying until they get it.

Yeah, you run on that and take it to court. Personally, given what the court said, I would question the validity or the winner takes all schemes in most States. Equal wight is not given to every vote, they only consider the majority, seems to me if the voters chose electors they should be proportional or by congressional district. Of course that would lean more toward the republicans.

.

 

[NightFox]

I'm just trying to ascertain the basis for your argument that States enacting laws to award their EC's to the winner of the National Popular vote is Unconstitutional, so far you haven't provided either a single peice of evidence to support it or offered up a reason based foundation.

Don't worry, it's okay to be wrong, happens to everyone from time to time.

It's a very simple concept, a State legislature can only allocate electors base on the votes in their State.

They have no constitutional authority to obligate their electors to vote for the winner in another State/s. If you have a problem understanding the concept, get an adult to explain it to ya.

.

As I've already pointed out on numerous occasions in this thread, the U.S. Constitution doesn't say that and no matter how many times you repeat your reason and evidence free mantra it never will.

" Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Now feel free to continue to follow the guidance of your ad hominem navigation system if it provides you with some comfort in avoiding the admission that you were mistaken.



"When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser" -- Socrates

So where does this say a legislature can give weight to voters of another State. Precedent says the State legislature can appoint electors or they can allow their voter to select them. No where does it give the State authority to consider the votes in other States.

It doesn't have to state any of that, the Constitution explicitly grants authority to the Federal Government from the States, that which isn't explicitly granted is withheld by the States and the States are the sovereign entities that elect the President.

Thus they can award their EC's based on NHL scores if they want as long as their State Constitutions don't restrict them from doing so and the citizens of the State are willing to tolerate it.

The Bush v. Gore majority found that states could allow voters to choose electors and if they did so, the process needed to be fair with “equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.”

Electoral College a rare topic of discussion at Supreme Court - National Constitution Center

.

If you're going to cite precedent you should probably read it carefully before citing it...

Allow me to assist you.

"The Bush v. Gore majority found that states could allow voters to choose electors and if they did so, the process needed to be fair with “equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.” The court also said that states retained the ability to “take back the power to appoint electors” from voters and return it to the legislatures, as happened in the early days of our republic.

In other words, if the States want to put their EC's up to a vote, they can , they just can't discriminate against one set(s) of voters over others, it DOESN'T say that using the results of the National Popular Vote is discriminatory or "unfair", and it doesn't support that earlier nonsense you offered up about "State Legislators not being able to restrict future legislatures"

I'll give you credit for one thing though

You've shown remarkable courage in staking out a position to the left of Ruth "The Constitution Doesn't Really Mean What It Says" Ginsberg and doggedly sticking to it even after it's been clearly demonstrated that your assertion was incorrect.

Don't worry though, this whole "movement" to award EC's based on the National Popular Vote isn't likely to ever be enacted and if by some miracle it is, the Sore Loser Squad from Team Dingbat-D will scream bloody murder to bring the old system back the first time a Republican wins the popular vote and flips enough EC's to beat a Democrat that would have otherwise won under the old system.

They just want a system where a Democrat ALWAYS wins the White House, no matter what happens in the election and they won't stop crying until they get it.

Yeah, you run on that and take it to court.

Your appeals to judicial activism aside, I don't have to "run on" anything, I'm perfectly fine with the EC system just the way it is; follow the Constitution and let each State decide how they want to allocate its electors.

Personally, given what the court said, I would question the validity or the winner takes all schemes in most States. Equal wight is not given to every vote, they only consider the majority, seems to me if the voters chose electors they should be proportional or by congressional district. Of course that would lean more toward the republicans.

.

You're joking right? You're taking the same position of those challenging Statewide winner take all EC awards pursuant to the very national popular vote system YOU'RE ARGUING AGAINST and then proposing to replace it with one that's subject to discriminatory manipulation via Gerrymandering.

And for your edification, there is already two States (Nebraska and Maine) that use a proportional system, whether it's more "fair" than winner take all is a matter of opinion.

 

[OKTexas]

It's a very simple concept, a State legislature can only allocate electors base on the votes in their State.

They have no constitutional authority to obligate their electors to vote for the winner in another State/s. If you have a problem understanding the concept, get an adult to explain it to ya.

.

As I've already pointed out on numerous occasions in this thread, the U.S. Constitution doesn't say that and no matter how many times you repeat your reason and evidence free mantra it never will.

" Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Now feel free to continue to follow the guidance of your ad hominem navigation system if it provides you with some comfort in avoiding the admission that you were mistaken.



"When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser" -- Socrates

So where does this say a legislature can give weight to voters of another State. Precedent says the State legislature can appoint electors or they can allow their voter to select them. No where does it give the State authority to consider the votes in other States.

It doesn't have to state any of that, the Constitution explicitly grants authority to the Federal Government from the States, that which isn't explicitly granted is withheld by the States and the States are the sovereign entities that elect the President.

Thus they can award their EC's based on NHL scores if they want as long as their State Constitutions don't restrict them from doing so and the citizens of the State are willing to tolerate it.

The Bush v. Gore majority found that states could allow voters to choose electors and if they did so, the process needed to be fair with “equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.”

Electoral College a rare topic of discussion at Supreme Court - National Constitution Center

.

If you're going to cite precedent you should probably read it carefully before citing it...

Allow me to assist you.

"The Bush v. Gore majority found that states could allow voters to choose electors and if they did so, the process needed to be fair with “equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.” The court also said that states retained the ability to “take back the power to appoint electors” from voters and return it to the legislatures, as happened in the early days of our republic.

In other words, if the States want to put their EC's up to a vote, they can , they just can't discriminate against one set(s) of voters over others, it DOESN'T say that using the results of the National Popular Vote is discriminatory or "unfair", and it doesn't support that earlier nonsense you offered up about "State Legislators not being able to restrict future legislatures"

I'll give you credit for one thing though

You've shown remarkable courage in staking out a position to the left of Ruth "The Constitution Doesn't Really Mean What It Says" Ginsberg and doggedly sticking to it even after it's been clearly demonstrated that your assertion was incorrect.

Don't worry though, this whole "movement" to award EC's based on the National Popular Vote isn't likely to ever be enacted and if by some miracle it is, the Sore Loser Squad from Team Dingbat-D will scream bloody murder to bring the old system back the first time a Republican wins the popular vote and flips enough EC's to beat a Democrat that would have otherwise won under the old system.

They just want a system where a Democrat ALWAYS wins the White House, no matter what happens in the election and they won't stop crying until they get it.

Yeah, you run on that and take it to court.

Your appeals to judicial activism aside, I don't have to "run on" anything, I'm perfectly fine with the EC system just the way it is; follow the Constitution and let each State decide how they want to allocate its electors.

Personally, given what the court said, I would question the validity or the winner takes all schemes in most States. Equal wight is not given to every vote, they only consider the majority, seems to me if the voters chose electors they should be proportional or by congressional district. Of course that would lean more toward the republicans.

.

You're joking right? You're taking the same position of those challenging Statewide winner take all EC awards pursuant to the very national popular vote system YOU'RE ARGUING AGAINST and then proposing to replace it with one that's subject to discriminatory manipulation via Gerrymandering.

And for your edification, there is already two States (Nebraska and Maine) that use a proportional system, whether it's more "fair" than winner take all is a matter of opinion.

Well I guess we should agree to disagree.

.

 

[NightFox]

As I've already pointed out on numerous occasions in this thread, the U.S. Constitution doesn't say that and no matter how many times you repeat your reason and evidence free mantra it never will.

" Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Now feel free to continue to follow the guidance of your ad hominem navigation system if it provides you with some comfort in avoiding the admission that you were mistaken.



"When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser" -- Socrates

So where does this say a legislature can give weight to voters of another State. Precedent says the State legislature can appoint electors or they can allow their voter to select them. No where does it give the State authority to consider the votes in other States.

It doesn't have to state any of that, the Constitution explicitly grants authority to the Federal Government from the States, that which isn't explicitly granted is withheld by the States and the States are the sovereign entities that elect the President.

Thus they can award their EC's based on NHL scores if they want as long as their State Constitutions don't restrict them from doing so and the citizens of the State are willing to tolerate it.

The Bush v. Gore majority found that states could allow voters to choose electors and if they did so, the process needed to be fair with “equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.”

Electoral College a rare topic of discussion at Supreme Court - National Constitution Center

.

If you're going to cite precedent you should probably read it carefully before citing it...

Allow me to assist you.

"The Bush v. Gore majority found that states could allow voters to choose electors and if they did so, the process needed to be fair with “equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.” The court also said that states retained the ability to “take back the power to appoint electors” from voters and return it to the legislatures, as happened in the early days of our republic.

In other words, if the States want to put their EC's up to a vote, they can , they just can't discriminate against one set(s) of voters over others, it DOESN'T say that using the results of the National Popular Vote is discriminatory or "unfair", and it doesn't support that earlier nonsense you offered up about "State Legislators not being able to restrict future legislatures"

I'll give you credit for one thing though

You've shown remarkable courage in staking out a position to the left of Ruth "The Constitution Doesn't Really Mean What It Says" Ginsberg and doggedly sticking to it even after it's been clearly demonstrated that your assertion was incorrect.

Don't worry though, this whole "movement" to award EC's based on the National Popular Vote isn't likely to ever be enacted and if by some miracle it is, the Sore Loser Squad from Team Dingbat-D will scream bloody murder to bring the old system back the first time a Republican wins the popular vote and flips enough EC's to beat a Democrat that would have otherwise won under the old system.

They just want a system where a Democrat ALWAYS wins the White House, no matter what happens in the election and they won't stop crying until they get it.

Yeah, you run on that and take it to court.

Your appeals to judicial activism aside, I don't have to "run on" anything, I'm perfectly fine with the EC system just the way it is; follow the Constitution and let each State decide how they want to allocate its electors.

Personally, given what the court said, I would question the validity or the winner takes all schemes in most States. Equal wight is not given to every vote, they only consider the majority, seems to me if the voters chose electors they should be proportional or by congressional district. Of course that would lean more toward the republicans.

.

You're joking right? You're taking the same position of those challenging Statewide winner take all EC awards pursuant to the very national popular vote system YOU'RE ARGUING AGAINST and then proposing to replace it with one that's subject to discriminatory manipulation via Gerrymandering.

And for your edification, there is already two States (Nebraska and Maine) that use a proportional system, whether it's more "fair" than winner take all is a matter of opinion.

Well I guess we should agree to disagree.

.

Yep, good point, we sure can.

Happy New Year

 

[mvymvy]

No state uses a proportional system.

Maine and Nebraska do not apportion their electoral votes to reflect the breakdown of each state's popular vote.

Maine (only since enacting a state law in 1969) and Nebraska (only since enacting a state law in 1992) have awarded one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.

When Nebraska in 2008 gave one electoral vote to the candidate who did not win the state, it was the first split electoral vote of any state in the past century.


2016 is the first time one electoral vote in Maine was given to the candidate who did not win the state.

 

[mvymvy]

The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

Since 2006, the bill has passed 36 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9), and New Mexico (5).

When enacted by states with 270 electors, the bill would change their state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes, to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

 

[mvymvy]

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.


There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Because logic doesn't work for you? That's what all elected officeholders do: they represent the people who elected them and their interests. That's WHY they're elected.

There's also the fact that Article 2, by investing him with the power to make treaties (subject to concurrence by the Senate) and to meet with ambassadors and other public ministers, perforce makes him the chief diplomat of the United States. He is, essentially, the face of America, ie. representing us.

he represents the country not the people,,,thats why we have a house of representatives

I could argue that the people ARE the country. The purpose of Representatives in the House is to represent the people of their district and what they want to the rest of the people in the country. The purpose of the President - in the role of diplomat - is to represent the people of his country and what they want to the rest of the world.

The two are not exclusionary.

you can argue all you want but if thats true you should be able to point to that in the constitution,,,

its very specific what his job is, if its not there then according to the 10th amendment it falls elsewhere

besides which people is he representing,,,liberals, conservatives or americans

I just did. You can say, "Fuck your logic! If those EXACT WORDS don't appear, it's not true! Stop interpreting English and thinking!" until your face turns blue; won't change reality.

As for your vain attempt at cleverness, the President represents every legal resident of the United States. Would that more of them actually remembered that and did it well.

according o the 10th amendment, if the words arent there then its not his job

Nice try, but since the description IS there, it doesn't matter if the specific label isn't. The Constitution specifically gives the President the powers of the chief diplomat of the United States; ergo, being the chief diplomat of the United States is part of his job, whether the Constitution actually calls it that or not.

I have no idea what your stake is in trying to pretend the President doesn't represent anyone, btw. It's like saying the CEO of a company doesn't represent the shareholders unless the corporate charter specifically says "represent shareholders". Obviously, that's his job.