It takes 3/4 of the States to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution: The Electoral College is safe

[Harpy Eagle]

It is unconstitutional if a State awards its Electoral College votes to popular vote winner if the State voted against the popular vote. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of Government to the States. Disenfranchising the states voters would violate that protection.

It isnt.
It might piss the citizens off though.
Hopefully they will ask what they want.
I will add, i completely support the EC.

Keep the EC but get rid of the winner take all and I will go along with you.

 

[bendog]

It is unconstitutional if a State awards its Electoral College votes to popular vote winner if the State voted against the popular vote. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of Government to the States. Disenfranchising the states voters would violate that protection.

Actually, it's not unconstitutional, as the Constitution says that a state legislature can choose to award its electoral college votes as they choose. But, I wonder how the population of the State will react if their votes are ignored as is being suggested.

Well W and Jeb were prepared to do that in Fla in 2000 if the recount went bad but …….

Seriously, wouldn't individual states have to choose by holding an up or down vote on the decision to allocate their EV's in a specific manner?

It's up to the legislature in that state. "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..." Article 2 Section 1 Clause 2

Exactly. But practically speaking, individual states aren't going to vary from election to election. The states that have already signed on to do this if a total of 270 ev's is reached have said it would be standard, and I think Neb and Maine allocate EV's proportionally on a measure that was voter approved.

But sure, state legislatures can name electors who have pledged to vote a certain way.

 

[bendog]

It is unconstitutional if a State awards its Electoral College votes to popular vote winner if the State voted against the popular vote. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of Government to the States. Disenfranchising the states voters would violate that protection.

It isnt.
It might piss the citizens off though.
Hopefully they will ask what they want.
I will add, i completely support the EC.

Keep the EC but get rid of the winner take all and I will go along with you.

That's my preference - award EV in each state proportionally, and that would keep the protection for small states. But Jesusland will never do it. So and interstate agreement of states with a total of 270 to award ev's winner take all based on natl popular vote is the only way it'll ever change.

 

[TNHarley]

It is unconstitutional if a State awards its Electoral College votes to popular vote winner if the State voted against the popular vote. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of Government to the States. Disenfranchising the states voters would violate that protection.

It isnt.
It might piss the citizens off though.
Hopefully they will ask what they want.
I will add, i completely support the EC.

Keep the EC but get rid of the winner take all and I will go along with you.

Personally, i like the winner take all.
But we could probably sit down and work out a deal

 

[Pogo]

It is unconstitutional if a State awards its Electoral College votes to popular vote winner if the State voted against the popular vote. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of Government to the States. Disenfranchising the states voters would violate that protection.

YET ANOTHER thread on the same old shit. Oh happy day.

The Constitution leaves it entirely up to the state how it chooses to allot its EVs. Article Two. It can flip a coin. It can break out a ouija board. Doesn't matter. It doesn't even have to hold an election AT ALL.

Nothing you can do about that.

 

[bendog]

It is unconstitutional if a State awards its Electoral College votes to popular vote winner if the State voted against the popular vote. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of Government to the States. Disenfranchising the states voters would violate that protection.

YET ANOTHER thread on the same old shit. Oh happy day.

The Constitution leaves it entirely up to the state how it chooses to allot its EVs. Article Two. It can flip a coin. It can break out a ouija board. Doesn't matter. It doesn't even have to hold an election AT ALL.

Nothing you can do about that.

I thought of pointing it out initially, but then decided …. why would it fucking matter to the powers of the board.

 

[Pogo]

The Constitution guarantees a republican form of Government to the States. Disenfranchising the states voters would violate that protection.

Well guess what Princess, that disenfranchisement has already been going on for two centuries.

DUH.
.
This project is one of the latest attempts to FIX that. If you're in, say, California, you're in a locked-"blue" state. That means you can vote red, you can vote blue, you can vote 3P or you can not vote at all. Doesn't make any difference, your state's vote is PREDETERMINED. And that goes for every "locked red" or "locked blue" state. So you're already disenfranchised.

With this plan that Californian (that Texan, that Vermonter, that Alabaman) finally has a vote that counts, because even if his/her state votes against the way he/she wants, his/her vote still gets counted in the total. And that means literally millions more, who don't bother to vote now because what's the point, now have an actual reason to leave the house on election day.

 

[Andylusion]

It is unconstitutional if a State awards its Electoral College votes to popular vote winner if the State voted against the popular vote. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of Government to the States. Disenfranchising the states voters would violate that protection.

No, it doesn't. And it isn't disenfranchised anyway. The people of that state, elected the state representatives, and they as representatives cast their respective votes on behalf of the people.

That is by definition, a Representative Republican form of government.

 

[imawhosure]

It is unconstitutional if a State awards its Electoral College votes to popular vote winner if the State voted against the popular vote. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of Government to the States. Disenfranchising the states voters would violate that protection.

Actually, it's not unconstitutional, as the Constitution says that a state legislature can choose to award its electoral college votes as they choose. But, I wonder how the population of the State will react if their votes are ignored as is being suggested.

Well W and Jeb were prepared to do that in Fla in 2000 if the recount went bad but …….

Seriously, wouldn't individual states have to choose by holding an up or down vote on the decision to allocate their EV's in a specific manner?

In this instance, I think Bendog has a point. You would think that the voters in the state would have a say in how their EC votes are given out if there was to be a change.

On the other hand, I am sure the courts would say there is such a method, and it is called local/state elections. The problem with that is--------->it could effect a national election before it was put back in kilter if the citizens disagreed with it.

On that note----------->I am 100% positive that there are groups who will sue to stop the implementation before the next general election, and they will get a stay until the states population can affirm the change at the ballot box by who/whom they elect/re-elect.

 

[Pogo]

It is unconstitutional if a State awards its Electoral College votes to popular vote winner if the State voted against the popular vote. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of Government to the States. Disenfranchising the states voters would violate that protection.

Actually, it's not unconstitutional, as the Constitution says that a state legislature can choose to award its electoral college votes as they choose. But, I wonder how the population of the State will react if their votes are ignored as is being suggested.

Well W and Jeb were prepared to do that in Fla in 2000 if the recount went bad but …….

Seriously, wouldn't individual states have to choose by holding an up or down vote on the decision to allocate their EV's in a specific manner?

In this instance, I think Bendog has a point. You would think that the voters in the state would have a say in how their EC votes are given out if there was to be a change.

And they do. How the state sets up its vote is determined by the state legislature. Several have already passed it. And the polls show it has broad and definite support, on the order of 70%.

 

[imawhosure]

It is unconstitutional if a State awards its Electoral College votes to popular vote winner if the State voted against the popular vote. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of Government to the States. Disenfranchising the states voters would violate that protection.

YET ANOTHER thread on the same old shit. Oh happy day.

The Constitution leaves it entirely up to the state how it chooses to allot its EVs. Article Two. It can flip a coin. It can break out a ouija board. Doesn't matter. It doesn't even have to hold an election AT ALL.

Nothing you can do about that.

It is unconstitutional if a State awards its Electoral College votes to popular vote winner if the State voted against the popular vote. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of Government to the States. Disenfranchising the states voters would violate that protection.

YET ANOTHER thread on the same old shit. Oh happy day.

The Constitution leaves it entirely up to the state how it chooses to allot its EVs. Article Two. It can flip a coin. It can break out a ouija board. Doesn't matter. It doesn't even have to hold an election AT ALL.

Nothing you can do about that.

I thought of pointing it out initially, but then decided …. why would it fucking matter to the powers of the board.

It is unconstitutional if a State awards its Electoral College votes to popular vote winner if the State voted against the popular vote. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of Government to the States. Disenfranchising the states voters would violate that protection.

No, it doesn't. And it isn't disenfranchised anyway. The people of that state, elected the state representatives, and they as representatives cast their respective votes on behalf of the people.

That is by definition, a Representative Republican form of government.

I would like to say to POGO and others------------> I can NOT confirm, nor deny POGOS accuracy in this matter, he/she may be 100% correct.

But, on that note, if POGO is 100% correct in this matter, then it is more than obvious to anyone that-------------> without having to ASK the voters of the states to verify this, and with an obvious circumvention of the constitution to not have to go through a convention, that there is now only one thing to do!

And what is that?

Since POGO has suggested that state legislatures can do whatever they wish, and since Republicans control the vast majority of state legislatures, they can now insist that their EC votes go towards who they choose for them to go towards! We can use a deck of cards, and why not, we will just insist all the cards are red in the deck-) Same damn thing, isn't it!

Notice, many current states would NOT have joined the union were it not for the current system. In fact, just like back then, the larger states wanted to control elections, which is exactly why the EC was devised.

In closing let me say-----------> If you wonder why the LEFT is so hell bent on this now, it is really simple--------------> in 2020, we have a new census. Which states are growing like crazy in population, and which are shrinking? And IF the Republicans get it through that illegals can NOT be counted for district size as far as representatives in congress, all the power will shift.......or much of it, out of California, New York, and Illinois. It has been speculated that California alone would lose 7 to 10 seats in the House of Representatives! That also means EC votes!

So for the Republican/Conservatives/Libertarians-------------> pull off 2020, and equilibrium has a very high chance of being restored in Washington DC, not because the shift in House seats will mean they will automatically turn to Republicans, but rather because the jungle primary in California will mean much less, and moderates from the Democratic party will have to run where the seats move to. (Think of Senator Joe Mansion) Sanity will return, as the largest states will lose a bunch of their power, and Leftists know it; which is exactly why they are in a panic!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It is unconstitutional if a State awards its Electoral College votes to popular vote winner if the State voted against the popular vote. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of Government to the States. Disenfranchising the states voters would violate that protection.

It isnt.
It might piss the citizens off though.
Hopefully they will ask what they want.
I will add, i completely support the EC.

Keep the EC but get rid of the winner take all and I will go along with you.

Personally, i like the winner take all.
But we could probably sit down and work out a deal

winner takes all does two things, it ensures the survival of the duopoly and it ensures status quo is maintained

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It is unconstitutional if a State awards its Electoral College votes to popular vote winner if the State voted against the popular vote. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of Government to the States. Disenfranchising the states voters would violate that protection.

We don’t need another thread on this discussion. There are plenty of existing ones out there

 

[jwoodie]

Lincoln, Wilson and Clinton would never have been elected President.

Maybe it's not such a great idea after all...

 

[Montrovant]

How do you know they wouldn't have been elected?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lincoln, Wilson and Clinton would never have been elected President.

Maybe it's not such a great idea after all...

Lincoln, Wilson and Clinton would never have been elected President.

Why do you say that?
They all won the popular vote too.

 

[blackhawk]

The EC was and still is a very good idea.

 

[Hossfly]

The EC was and still is a very good idea.

Hillary doesn't think so. She put too much faith in illegals voting.

 

[The Republicans]

The EC was and still is a very good idea.

Hillary doesn't think so. She put too much faith in illegals voting.

She didn’t do anything much


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Claudette]

The EC was and still is a very good idea.

Yup and that's why the FF's put it in the Constitution. They were very wise, far seeing men.