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

[Marion Morrison]

ThisIsMe nails it in post #5. If enough states enter into an agreement to have their electors cast votes for the winner of the national popular vote, there is nothing in the constitution nor the nation's law that prevents it. Thus no Constitutional amendment is required for such a change.

United States Constitution: Article I, Section 10

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Doesn't matter what's in the compact. Any political compact is automatically null and void, regardless of content. The only recognized compacts are border compacts and commercial compacts.

Whoever is behind that compact is guilty of sedition.

 

[Indeependent]

Let’s ask Rachel Madcow...

 

[ThisIsMe]

Interestingly, have all of our vice presidents been unconstitutional?

In A2S1, it says:

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.

And then it says:

In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President.

So, it says the electors are supposed to vote for 2 people. After the president is chosen, the next candidate with the most votes is to be vice president. Am I understanding this incorrectly?

 

[candycorn]

ThisIsMe nails it in post #5. If enough states enter into an agreement to have their electors cast votes for the winner of the national popular vote, there is nothing in the constitution nor the nation's law that prevents it. Thus no Constitutional amendment is required for such a change.

United States Constitution: Article I, Section 10

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Doesn't matter what's in the compact. Any political compact is automatically null and void, regardless of content. The only recognized compacts are border compacts and commercial compacts.

So as long as they don't sign a contract with another state, they can do it?

 

[Aponi]

Article V, USC:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

God Bless our Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom. Even to this very day they watch over us, protecting us from the modern horrors of big centralized government.

How exactly do Democrats propose to compel the smaller states into submission to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Notice I said "compel," because the majority of the States will not surrender the Electoral College willingly. It would take a full scale military invasion of the small States to force through such an amendment.

They were wise in requiring a lagre percentage to change the constitution.
I think the one we have is great its fair to all

 

[Marion Morrison]

Go here and use your browser search to find "shall not be denied or abridged".

Changing who a state voted for to the national majority is abridging their vote.

This crap is unConstitutional AF

U. S. Electoral College: Presidential Election Laws

 

[The Original Tree]

I will personally sue The State Of Ohio for $1 Billion Dollars in damages if they do this!

Go here and use your browser search to find "shall not be denied or abridged".

Changing who a state voted for to the national majority is abridging their vote.

This crap is unConstitutional AF

U. S. Electoral College: Presidential Election Laws

 

[my2¢]

In a presidential election year the national elections for President and Vice President tales place in December after each state selects its electors in November.

Here in Arizona our state law is that:

the presidential electors of this state shall cast their electoral college votes for the candidate for president and the candidate for vice president who jointly received the highest number of votes in this state
​

It would only take a change from "state" to "nation" to change the basis of selecting our state's electors. It's not an idea I favor, but those in favor of the Elector College should at least know how it works.

2016 Electoral College votes: U. S. Electoral College 2016 Election
Washington state is interesting.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Go here and use your browser search to find "shall not be denied or abridged".

Changing who a state voted for to the national majority is abridging their vote.

This crap is unConstitutional AF

U. S. Electoral College: Presidential Election Laws

Well, I did search that document, and it basically says a person's right to vote cannot be abridged by reason of failure to pay taxes, age, race, etc...

It doesnt really say anything about what is going on currently. I've always been under the understanding that a state can choose how its electors vote, as strange as that sounds...

 

[BluesLegend]

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

You assume liberals will obey the law and Constitution, you are wrong.

 

[BULLDOG]

Article V, USC:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

God Bless our Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom. Even to this very day they watch over us, protecting us from the modern horrors of big centralized government.

How exactly do Democrats propose to compel the smaller states into submission to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Notice I said "compel," because the majority of the States will not surrender the Electoral College willingly. It would take a full scale military invasion of the small States to force through such an amendment.

I wouldn't say its "safe". Isnt it something like 16 states have passed laws to assign all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote? They have basically found a way around the electoral college.

What you are seeing in the news about abolishing the electoral college is simply a "look at this hand over here", while the other hand is circumventing the process.

Hold on now, that's only been proposed in 16 states. It hasn't passed anywhere yet that I know of. This is a crackpot idea.

Here's the question: How can they assign their electoral vote to the winner of the national popular vote when their vote has not been counted yet? See?

It's a good way for states that pass that crap to get their citizens' votes annulled completely. It's also the antithesis of representing their constituents.

States can allot their electoral votes any way they see fit. Maine and Nebraska have their own method for allotting electoral votes now.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

In a presidential election year the national elections for President and Vice President tales place in December after each state selects its electors in November.

Here in Arizona our state law is that:

the presidential electors of this state shall cast their electoral college votes for the candidate for president and the candidate for vice president who jointly received the highest number of votes in this state
​

It would only take a change from "state" to "nation" to change the basis of selecting our state's electors. It's not an idea I favor, but those in favor of the Elector College should at least know how it works.

2016 Electoral College votes: U. S. Electoral College 2016 Election
Washington state is interesting.

States cannot legislate outside their jurisdictions anymore then they can make treaties or alliances or declare war with/on foreign countries.

That's it. Period.

You lgbtq liberals are going to shit your pants when you actually try to enforce this seditious pact. Straight up 2nd Amendment remedies at your front door. Mass unrest, secession, civil war, populations of certain states fighting their own neighbors downtown.

What if Ohio votes Republican, but their "Compact" votes majority Democrat. Ohio becomes the only state to decide the vote. Ohio BREAKS the compact and votes Republican...what now?

Is New York going to declare war on Ohio?

Don't you see the HORRORS of what you bedwetting infantcidal drag queens story hour loving perverts are setting up?

Worse, I think the elite of the far left actually knows that it would result in mass unrest, a perfect catalyst for communist (socialist?) revolution and the complete overthrow of our Constitution.

How's this:
FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.

FOLLOW THE LAW.

WIN ELECTION WITH IDEAS

NOT WITH SEDITION (Brennan/Comey) , TREASON (aiding and abetting a border invasion) and INSURRECTION (the only way you can enforce the illegal compact if a state like Ohio, in the above hypothetical example, were to BREAK the compact).

Step back. Think. Read the Federalist Papers. Read literature on the drafting of the Constitution. Discover, Learn and Live the Constitution.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Article V, USC:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

God Bless our Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom. Even to this very day they watch over us, protecting us from the modern horrors of big centralized government.

How exactly do Democrats propose to compel the smaller states into submission to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Notice I said "compel," because the majority of the States will not surrender the Electoral College willingly. It would take a full scale military invasion of the small States to force through such an amendment.

I wouldn't say its "safe". Isnt it something like 16 states have passed laws to assign all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote? They have basically found a way around the electoral college.

What you are seeing in the news about abolishing the electoral college is simply a "look at this hand over here", while the other hand is circumventing the process.

Hold on now, that's only been proposed in 16 states. It hasn't passed anywhere yet that I know of. This is a crackpot idea.

Here's the question: How can they assign their electoral vote to the winner of the national popular vote when their vote has not been counted yet? See?

It's a good way for states that pass that crap to get their citizens' votes annulled completely. It's also the antithesis of representing their constituents.

States can allot their electoral votes any way they see fit. Maine and Nebraska have their own method for allotting electoral votes now.

Think about it: If the majority of a state votes for 1 candidate, then the electors turn around and pick the other guy because he won the national popular vote, how is the government of that state representing its citizens? It's not.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Article V, USC:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

God Bless our Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom. Even to this very day they watch over us, protecting us from the modern horrors of big centralized government.

How exactly do Democrats propose to compel the smaller states into submission to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Notice I said "compel," because the majority of the States will not surrender the Electoral College willingly. It would take a full scale military invasion of the small States to force through such an amendment.

I wouldn't say its "safe". Isnt it something like 16 states have passed laws to assign all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote? They have basically found a way around the electoral college.

What you are seeing in the news about abolishing the electoral college is simply a "look at this hand over here", while the other hand is circumventing the process.


*edit*

If the wiki page is correct, it appears 13 have already passed legislation, and there are 15 more with legislation pending.

If that all passes, it will be 28 states who will do this. At 13 states, that is 184 electoral votes which is 68% of the 270 needed. If the others pass it as well, that should be pretty close to bypassing the EC altogether.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

/——/ What happens if Trump wins the most popular votes? Then what?

 

[BULLDOG]

Article V, USC:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

God Bless our Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom. Even to this very day they watch over us, protecting us from the modern horrors of big centralized government.

How exactly do Democrats propose to compel the smaller states into submission to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Notice I said "compel," because the majority of the States will not surrender the Electoral College willingly. It would take a full scale military invasion of the small States to force through such an amendment.

I wouldn't say its "safe". Isnt it something like 16 states have passed laws to assign all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote? They have basically found a way around the electoral college.

What you are seeing in the news about abolishing the electoral college is simply a "look at this hand over here", while the other hand is circumventing the process.

Hold on now, that's only been proposed in 16 states. It hasn't passed anywhere yet that I know of. This is a crackpot idea.

Here's the question: How can they assign their electoral vote to the winner of the national popular vote when their vote has not been counted yet? See?

It's a good way for states that pass that crap to get their citizens' votes annulled completely. It's also the antithesis of representing their constituents.

States can allot their electoral votes any way they see fit. Maine and Nebraska have their own method for allotting electoral votes now.

Think about it: If the majority of a state votes for 1 candidate, then the electors turn around and pick the other guy because he won the national popular vote, how is the government of that state representing its citizens? It's not.

So? There is no federal law requiring electoral voters to vote with the majority of their state. Some states do require it, but that is a state by state choice, and the states are free to change their mind any time they want.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Article V, USC:
God Bless our Founding Fathers in their infinite wisdom. Even to this very day they watch over us, protecting us from the modern horrors of big centralized government.

How exactly do Democrats propose to compel the smaller states into submission to ratify an amendment abolishing the electoral college.

Notice I said "compel," because the majority of the States will not surrender the Electoral College willingly. It would take a full scale military invasion of the small States to force through such an amendment.

I wouldn't say its "safe". Isnt it something like 16 states have passed laws to assign all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote? They have basically found a way around the electoral college.

What you are seeing in the news about abolishing the electoral college is simply a "look at this hand over here", while the other hand is circumventing the process.

Hold on now, that's only been proposed in 16 states. It hasn't passed anywhere yet that I know of. This is a crackpot idea.

Here's the question: How can they assign their electoral vote to the winner of the national popular vote when their vote has not been counted yet? See?

It's a good way for states that pass that crap to get their citizens' votes annulled completely. It's also the antithesis of representing their constituents.

States can allot their electoral votes any way they see fit. Maine and Nebraska have their own method for allotting electoral votes now.

Think about it: If the majority of a state votes for 1 candidate, then the electors turn around and pick the other guy because he won the national popular vote, how is the government of that state representing its citizens? It's not.

So? There is no federal law requiring electoral voters to vote with the majority of their state. Some states do require it, but that is a state by state choice, and the states are free to change their mind any time they want.

In b4 the arrests.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I wouldn't say its "safe". Isnt it something like 16 states have passed laws to assign all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote? They have basically found a way around the electoral college.

What you are seeing in the news about abolishing the electoral college is simply a "look at this hand over here", while the other hand is circumventing the process.

Hold on now, that's only been proposed in 16 states. It hasn't passed anywhere yet that I know of. This is a crackpot idea.

Here's the question: How can they assign their electoral vote to the winner of the national popular vote when their vote has not been counted yet? See?

It's a good way for states that pass that crap to get their citizens' votes annulled completely. It's also the antithesis of representing their constituents.

States can allot their electoral votes any way they see fit. Maine and Nebraska have their own method for allotting electoral votes now.

Think about it: If the majority of a state votes for 1 candidate, then the electors turn around and pick the other guy because he won the national popular vote, how is the government of that state representing its citizens? It's not.

So? There is no federal law requiring electoral voters to vote with the majority of their state. Some states do require it, but that is a state by state choice, and the states are free to change their mind any time they want.

In b4 the arrests.

The number one thing these liberals don't think about is WHAT IF A STATE BREAKS THE COMPACT.

What if Ohio decides the Electoral Vote. The Compact majority was Democrat but Ohio itself voted Republican. Ohio decides to abjure the Compact and vote Republican.

What then? Does New York declare war on Ohio? Come there with the NYS National Guard and seize the Ohio State Legislature and hold them accountable? In what court would they be held accountable?


No, really, what fucking Court would even have jurisdiction over this? Any federal court will strike the entire Compact down, and the fucking liberals would never let it go to a federal court to begin with, and actually claim "states's right" for a change (but for abusive reasons) and start invading their neighbors to force compliance.

Fucking lgbtq drag queen story time millenials man. Holy shit.

 

[BULLDOG]

Hold on now, that's only been proposed in 16 states. It hasn't passed anywhere yet that I know of. This is a crackpot idea.

Here's the question: How can they assign their electoral vote to the winner of the national popular vote when their vote has not been counted yet? See?

It's a good way for states that pass that crap to get their citizens' votes annulled completely. It's also the antithesis of representing their constituents.

States can allot their electoral votes any way they see fit. Maine and Nebraska have their own method for allotting electoral votes now.

Think about it: If the majority of a state votes for 1 candidate, then the electors turn around and pick the other guy because he won the national popular vote, how is the government of that state representing its citizens? It's not.

So? There is no federal law requiring electoral voters to vote with the majority of their state. Some states do require it, but that is a state by state choice, and the states are free to change their mind any time they want.

In b4 the arrests.

The number one thing these liberals don't think about is WHAT IF A STATE BREAKS THE COMPACT.

What if Ohio decides the Electoral Vote. The Compact majority was Democrat but Ohio itself voted Republican. Ohio decides to abjure the Compact and vote Republican.

What then? Does New York declare war on Ohio? Come there with the NYS National Guard and seize the Ohio State Legislature and hold them accountable? In what court would they be held accountable?


No, really, what fucking Court would even have jurisdiction over this? Any federal court will strike the entire Compact down, and the fucking liberals would never let it go to a federal court to begin with, and actually claim "states's right" for a change (but for abusive reasons) and start invading their neighbors to force compliance.

Fucking lgbtq drag queen story time millenials man. Holy shit.

Each state has the legal right to allot electoral college votes by any method they want.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Hold on now, that's only been proposed in 16 states. It hasn't passed anywhere yet that I know of. This is a crackpot idea.

Here's the question: How can they assign their electoral vote to the winner of the national popular vote when their vote has not been counted yet? See?

It's a good way for states that pass that crap to get their citizens' votes annulled completely. It's also the antithesis of representing their constituents.

States can allot their electoral votes any way they see fit. Maine and Nebraska have their own method for allotting electoral votes now.

Think about it: If the majority of a state votes for 1 candidate, then the electors turn around and pick the other guy because he won the national popular vote, how is the government of that state representing its citizens? It's not.

So? There is no federal law requiring electoral voters to vote with the majority of their state. Some states do require it, but that is a state by state choice, and the states are free to change their mind any time they want.

In b4 the arrests.

The number one thing these liberals don't think about is WHAT IF A STATE BREAKS THE COMPACT.

What if Ohio decides the Electoral Vote. The Compact majority was Democrat but Ohio itself voted Republican. Ohio decides to abjure the Compact and vote Republican.

What then? Does New York declare war on Ohio? Come there with the NYS National Guard and seize the Ohio State Legislature and hold them accountable? In what court would they be held accountable?


No, really, what fucking Court would even have jurisdiction over this? Any federal court will strike the entire Compact down, and the fucking liberals would never let it go to a federal court to begin with, and actually claim "states's right" for a change (but for abusive reasons) and start invading their neighbors to force compliance.

Fucking lgbtq drag queen story time millenials man. Holy shit.

/——/ Yahoo answers:” Some states require their electors to vote the way their state did.

But it really doesn't matter. The only people who become electors are the party faithful, and they aren't going to betray their party.”

 

[Cellblock2429]

States can allot their electoral votes any way they see fit. Maine and Nebraska have their own method for allotting electoral votes now.

Think about it: If the majority of a state votes for 1 candidate, then the electors turn around and pick the other guy because he won the national popular vote, how is the government of that state representing its citizens? It's not.

So? There is no federal law requiring electoral voters to vote with the majority of their state. Some states do require it, but that is a state by state choice, and the states are free to change their mind any time they want.

In b4 the arrests.

The number one thing these liberals don't think about is WHAT IF A STATE BREAKS THE COMPACT.

What if Ohio decides the Electoral Vote. The Compact majority was Democrat but Ohio itself voted Republican. Ohio decides to abjure the Compact and vote Republican.

What then? Does New York declare war on Ohio? Come there with the NYS National Guard and seize the Ohio State Legislature and hold them accountable? In what court would they be held accountable?


No, really, what fucking Court would even have jurisdiction over this? Any federal court will strike the entire Compact down, and the fucking liberals would never let it go to a federal court to begin with, and actually claim "states's right" for a change (but for abusive reasons) and start invading their neighbors to force compliance.

Fucking lgbtq drag queen story time millenials man. Holy shit.

Each state has the legal right to allot electoral college votes by any method they want.

/——/ Some states require their electors to vote the way their state did.

But it really doesn't matter. The only people who become electors are the party faithful, and they aren't going to betray their party.