Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Exactly, the States passed laws on how they allocate electors and now they are changing themExactlyCan you show me he words that are being circumvented?Republicans never had a chance to win California, now they do
They should be thrilled
Thrilled because people found a way to circumvent the Constitution? While Republicans winning California and the accompanying angst among liberals would be very entertaining, I think the cost would be very high. Short term thinking and all that.
The whole "electoral college" part. Ya know, the 12th amendment.
Back when the 12th amendment was ratified, they had no way of knowing the popular vote per state that quickly so of course when they say that the one with the most votes shall be president the one with the most votes in that state shall get the electoral college votes of that state.
There have been many elections when the ultimate winner of the popular vote wasn't the winner of the election because of the skewed nature of the population of the country. But making it to where the two coasts determine the president for the rest of the nation is not legal and is not how the constitution was set up.
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[a]"
Nowhere in there tells a state the criteria they shall use to assign their votes
Doesn’t even mention the states people voting....just the electors
Wrong. A majority of states have passed laws requiring their electors vote according to how they pledged in that state. It doesn't HAVE to be federal law, it can be state law. Only two states differ. Maine and Nebraska.
You're opening up a can of worms to go by popular vote. What if a candidate lost by 1000 votes nationwide? He could easily demand a recount of every vote in every state. It could take months to figure out who actually won in a close election. There are votes that come in from overseas that are not counted for weeks after the general. We couldn't determine our president for months after all litigation had taken place.
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 requires congressional consent before the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact can be enforced. Less than that would go to the Court.
Keep in mind that should a state's voters choose one candidate, and the state gives the votes to the opponent, the lives of those state officials would likely be worth less than spit.
Can you show me he words that are being circumvented?Republicans never had a chance to win California, now they doSounds to me like a perverted form of voter suppression....no matter how the state votes its legislature gives its electoral votes to the person who at the end of voting wins the popular vote throughout the entire country....also sounds like a strong SCOTUS issue!
Maine's lawmakers passed a bill that would give the state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who won the national popular vote, taking a step toward becoming the 15th state to enact such a law. The Maine Senate voted 19-16 Tuesday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would give all committed states' electoral votes to the winning popular vote candidate should the group accrue the 270 votes necessary for a majority.
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia have all committed to the pact. The most recent addition, New Mexico, put the total at 189 electoral votes....I believe those listed states are all DeathRAT controlled states!
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
It's probably constitutional for states to do that, but I await the reaction of liberal CA residents the first time they see their electors go to a Republican even though they voted overwhelmingly for a democrat.
They should be thrilled
Thrilled because people found a way to circumvent the Constitution? While Republicans winning California and the accompanying angst among liberals would be very entertaining, I think the cost would be very high. Short term thinking and all that.
ExactlyCan you show me he words that are being circumvented?Republicans never had a chance to win California, now they doIt's probably constitutional for states to do that, but I await the reaction of liberal CA residents the first time they see their electors go to a Republican even though they voted overwhelmingly for a democrat.
They should be thrilled
Thrilled because people found a way to circumvent the Constitution? While Republicans winning California and the accompanying angst among liberals would be very entertaining, I think the cost would be very high. Short term thinking and all that.
The whole "electoral college" part. Ya know, the 12th amendment.
Back when the 12th amendment was ratified, they had no way of knowing the popular vote per state that quickly so of course when they say that the one with the most votes shall be president the one with the most votes in that state shall get the electoral college votes of that state.
There have been many elections when the ultimate winner of the popular vote wasn't the winner of the election because of the skewed nature of the population of the country. But making it to where the two coasts determine the president for the rest of the nation is not legal and is not how the constitution was set up.
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[a]"
Nowhere in there tells a state the criteria they shall use to assign their votes
Doesn’t even mention the states people voting....just the electors
ExactlyCan you show me he words that are being circumvented?Republicans never had a chance to win California, now they do
They should be thrilled
Thrilled because people found a way to circumvent the Constitution? While Republicans winning California and the accompanying angst among liberals would be very entertaining, I think the cost would be very high. Short term thinking and all that.
The whole "electoral college" part. Ya know, the 12th amendment.
Back when the 12th amendment was ratified, they had no way of knowing the popular vote per state that quickly so of course when they say that the one with the most votes shall be president the one with the most votes in that state shall get the electoral college votes of that state.
There have been many elections when the ultimate winner of the popular vote wasn't the winner of the election because of the skewed nature of the population of the country. But making it to where the two coasts determine the president for the rest of the nation is not legal and is not how the constitution was set up.
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[a]"
Nowhere in there tells a state the criteria they shall use to assign their votes
Doesn’t even mention the states people voting....just the electors
Wrong. A majority of states have passed laws requiring their electors vote according to how they pledged in that state. It doesn't HAVE to be federal law, it can be state law. Only two states differ. Maine and Nebraska.
You're opening up a can of worms to go by popular vote. What if a candidate lost by 1000 votes nationwide? He could easily demand a recount of every vote in every state. It could take months to figure out who actually won in a close election. There are votes that come in from overseas that are not counted for weeks after the general. We couldn't determine our president for months after all litigation had taken place.
yet it was Repubs in North Carolina that tried to pull the biggest election scam in history.ExactlyCan you show me he words that are being circumvented?Thrilled because people found a way to circumvent the Constitution? While Republicans winning California and the accompanying angst among liberals would be very entertaining, I think the cost would be very high. Short term thinking and all that.
The whole "electoral college" part. Ya know, the 12th amendment.
Back when the 12th amendment was ratified, they had no way of knowing the popular vote per state that quickly so of course when they say that the one with the most votes shall be president the one with the most votes in that state shall get the electoral college votes of that state.
There have been many elections when the ultimate winner of the popular vote wasn't the winner of the election because of the skewed nature of the population of the country. But making it to where the two coasts determine the president for the rest of the nation is not legal and is not how the constitution was set up.
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[a]"
Nowhere in there tells a state the criteria they shall use to assign their votes
Doesn’t even mention the states people voting....just the electors
Wrong. A majority of states have passed laws requiring their electors vote according to how they pledged in that state. It doesn't HAVE to be federal law, it can be state law. Only two states differ. Maine and Nebraska.
You're opening up a can of worms to go by popular vote. What if a candidate lost by 1000 votes nationwide? He could easily demand a recount of every vote in every state. It could take months to figure out who actually won in a close election. There are votes that come in from overseas that are not counted for weeks after the general. We couldn't determine our president for months after all litigation had taken place.
And the democrat votes magically appearing after how was lost would be epidemic.
States can decide on whether they want a louder voice or notCan you show me he words that are being circumvented?Republicans never had a chance to win California, now they doSounds to me like a perverted form of voter suppression....no matter how the state votes its legislature gives its electoral votes to the person who at the end of voting wins the popular vote throughout the entire country....also sounds like a strong SCOTUS issue!
Maine's lawmakers passed a bill that would give the state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who won the national popular vote, taking a step toward becoming the 15th state to enact such a law. The Maine Senate voted 19-16 Tuesday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would give all committed states' electoral votes to the winning popular vote candidate should the group accrue the 270 votes necessary for a majority.
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia have all committed to the pact. The most recent addition, New Mexico, put the total at 189 electoral votes....I believe those listed states are all DeathRAT controlled states!
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
It's probably constitutional for states to do that, but I await the reaction of liberal CA residents the first time they see their electors go to a Republican even though they voted overwhelmingly for a democrat.
They should be thrilled
Thrilled because people found a way to circumvent the Constitution? While Republicans winning California and the accompanying angst among liberals would be very entertaining, I think the cost would be very high. Short term thinking and all that.
It is the intent that is being circumvented. Clearly, the states were to elect the president, and the electoral college was designed to give smaller states a louder voice in the process. If the intent was the popular vote, the electoral college would not have been created.
Nope. We have a US Constitution. This bill isn't going anywhere. It's nothing but leftist masturbation. Have fun.States can decide on whether they want a louder voice or notCan you show me he words that are being circumvented?Republicans never had a chance to win California, now they doIt's probably constitutional for states to do that, but I await the reaction of liberal CA residents the first time they see their electors go to a Republican even though they voted overwhelmingly for a democrat.
They should be thrilled
Thrilled because people found a way to circumvent the Constitution? While Republicans winning California and the accompanying angst among liberals would be very entertaining, I think the cost would be very high. Short term thinking and all that.
It is the intent that is being circumvented. Clearly, the states were to elect the president, and the electoral college was designed to give smaller states a louder voice in the process. If the intent was the popular vote, the electoral college would not have been created.
An increase in voter turnout is not a good idea in the minds of the GOP.Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 requires congressional consent before the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact can be enforced. Less than that would go to the Court.
Keep in mind that should a state's voters choose one candidate, and the state gives the votes to the opponent, the lives of those state officials would likely be worth less than spit.
States enter into agreements that do not infringe on federal authority all the time without consent. The States already have the right to decide how they choose their electors. No consent is needed for the pact, however they do intend to ask for it if or when they get enough states.
It would likely increase voter turnout.
Is that a good idea or not?
So...show us in the Constitution where this isn't allowed.Nope. We have a US Constitution. This bill isn't going anywhere. It's nothing but leftist masturbation. Have fun.States can decide on whether they want a louder voice or notCan you show me he words that are being circumvented?Republicans never had a chance to win California, now they do
They should be thrilled
Thrilled because people found a way to circumvent the Constitution? While Republicans winning California and the accompanying angst among liberals would be very entertaining, I think the cost would be very high. Short term thinking and all that.
It is the intent that is being circumvented. Clearly, the states were to elect the president, and the electoral college was designed to give smaller states a louder voice in the process. If the intent was the popular vote, the electoral college would not have been created.
ExactlyCan you show me he words that are being circumvented?Republicans never had a chance to win California, now they do
They should be thrilled
Thrilled because people found a way to circumvent the Constitution? While Republicans winning California and the accompanying angst among liberals would be very entertaining, I think the cost would be very high. Short term thinking and all that.
The whole "electoral college" part. Ya know, the 12th amendment.
Back when the 12th amendment was ratified, they had no way of knowing the popular vote per state that quickly so of course when they say that the one with the most votes shall be president the one with the most votes in that state shall get the electoral college votes of that state.
There have been many elections when the ultimate winner of the popular vote wasn't the winner of the election because of the skewed nature of the population of the country. But making it to where the two coasts determine the president for the rest of the nation is not legal and is not how the constitution was set up.
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[a]"
Nowhere in there tells a state the criteria they shall use to assign their votes
Doesn’t even mention the states people voting....just the electors
Of course. It would be perfectly legal, therefore, for states to announce that they will no longer be holding a popular vote at all, but are going to appoint electors with no concern for what the voters want. Kind of like assigning the state's electoral votes based on how other states voted.
How long do you think this really will stand when a governor or senator overwhelmingly carries his home state but loses it because he didn't carry the national vote? Or, consider Algore's ill fated attempt when he didn't even win his home state. How do you think the voters would have reacted had their negative vote on him been overruled because other states voted for him?
This is just a bad idea.
An increase in voter turnout is not a good idea in the minds of the GOP.Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 requires congressional consent before the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact can be enforced. Less than that would go to the Court.
Keep in mind that should a state's voters choose one candidate, and the state gives the votes to the opponent, the lives of those state officials would likely be worth less than spit.
States enter into agreements that do not infringe on federal authority all the time without consent. The States already have the right to decide how they choose their electors. No consent is needed for the pact, however they do intend to ask for it if or when they get enough states.
It would likely increase voter turnout.
Is that a good idea or not?
How so? The Constitution clearly leaves it up to the states as to how they count and distribute Electoral Votes. Read Article II sometime.Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.
They can split them in different directions
But they cannot change the result.
If Trump won by 60/ 40 in a state with ten electoral votes...he gets six in a split. That's as far as the Scotus will allow.
You cannot disenfranchise the State result.
Trust me that will be the SCOTUS decision.
Jo
The Electoral College in Article 2, Section 1, and the 12th Amendment. Now you show me where a state can give all their electoral votes to the winner of the National popular vote. You can't. Idiot.So...show us in the Constitution where this isn't allowed.Nope. We have a US Constitution. This bill isn't going anywhere. It's nothing but leftist masturbation. Have fun.States can decide on whether they want a louder voice or notCan you show me he words that are being circumvented?Thrilled because people found a way to circumvent the Constitution? While Republicans winning California and the accompanying angst among liberals would be very entertaining, I think the cost would be very high. Short term thinking and all that.
It is the intent that is being circumvented. Clearly, the states were to elect the president, and the electoral college was designed to give smaller states a louder voice in the process. If the intent was the popular vote, the electoral college would not have been created.
How so? The Constitution clearly leaves it up to the states as to how they count and distribute Electoral Votes. Read Article II sometime.Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.
They can split them in different directions
But they cannot change the result.
If Trump won by 60/ 40 in a state with ten electoral votes...he gets six in a split. That's as far as the Scotus will allow.
You cannot disenfranchise the State result.
Trust me that will be the SCOTUS decision.
Jo
It's not up to the SCOTUS. The Constitution already gave the sole power to the States to decide how they choose. The only thing the court will decide is if Congress must give it's consent or not. If legal precedent holds (not a certainty anymore) Congressional consent will not be required for those state to choose their elector in the exact same fashion.
How so? The Constitution clearly leaves it up to the states as to how they count and distribute Electoral Votes. Read Article II sometime.Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.
They can split them in different directions
But they cannot change the result.
If Trump won by 60/ 40 in a state with ten electoral votes...he gets six in a split. That's as far as the Scotus will allow.
You cannot disenfranchise the State result.
Trust me that will be the SCOTUS decision.
Jo
It's not up to the SCOTUS. The Constitution already gave the sole power to the States to decide how they choose. The only thing the court will decide is if Congress must give it's consent or not. If legal precedent holds (not a certainty anymore) Congressional consent will not be required for those state to choose their elector in the exact same fashion.
You are just plain wrong. The scotus will decide whether the votes will be entered into the federal record or rejected. Maine can offer 400 electoral votes if they choose to offer them. They won't be accepted however.
Jo
A state cannot give its electoral votes to the National popular vote winner. Unconstitutional. Ludicrous that anyone would give it serious attention.How so? The Constitution clearly leaves it up to the states as to how they count and distribute Electoral Votes. Read Article II sometime.Will end up in court. Definitely a Constitutional issue.
They can split them in different directions
But they cannot change the result.
If Trump won by 60/ 40 in a state with ten electoral votes...he gets six in a split. That's as far as the Scotus will allow.
You cannot disenfranchise the State result.
Trust me that will be the SCOTUS decision.
Jo
It's not up to the SCOTUS. The Constitution already gave the sole power to the States to decide how they choose. The only thing the court will decide is if Congress must give it's consent or not. If legal precedent holds (not a certainty anymore) Congressional consent will not be required for those state to choose their elector in the exact same fashion.
You are just plain wrong. The scotus will decide whether the votes will be entered into the federal record or rejected. Maine can offer 400 electoral votes if they choose to offer them. They won't be accepted however.
Jo
You think the SCOTUS will strike down the Constitution and tell the states they don't have the right to choose their own electors? I disagree. The number of elector is not determined by the State legislatures.
I'm not so sure the intent was to give smaller states a louder voice in the process, since the number of electoral votes was BASED ON THE POPULATION OF THE STATE. The reason for the electors was that they had no way of transmitting the votes quickly to a central counting authority. That is why the Electoral College does not meet until over a month after the election.Can you show me he words that are being circumvented?Republicans never had a chance to win California, now they doSounds to me like a perverted form of voter suppression....no matter how the state votes its legislature gives its electoral votes to the person who at the end of voting wins the popular vote throughout the entire country....also sounds like a strong SCOTUS issue!
Maine's lawmakers passed a bill that would give the state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who won the national popular vote, taking a step toward becoming the 15th state to enact such a law. The Maine Senate voted 19-16 Tuesday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would give all committed states' electoral votes to the winning popular vote candidate should the group accrue the 270 votes necessary for a majority.
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia have all committed to the pact. The most recent addition, New Mexico, put the total at 189 electoral votes....I believe those listed states are all DeathRAT controlled states!
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
It's probably constitutional for states to do that, but I await the reaction of liberal CA residents the first time they see their electors go to a Republican even though they voted overwhelmingly for a democrat.
They should be thrilled
Thrilled because people found a way to circumvent the Constitution? While Republicans winning California and the accompanying angst among liberals would be very entertaining, I think the cost would be very high. Short term thinking and all that.
It is the intent that is being circumvented. Clearly, the states were to elect the president, and the electoral college was designed to give smaller states a louder voice in the process. If the intent was the popular vote, the electoral college would not have been created.
yet it was Repubs in North Carolina that tried to pull the biggest election scam in history.ExactlyCan you show me he words that are being circumvented?
The whole "electoral college" part. Ya know, the 12th amendment.
Back when the 12th amendment was ratified, they had no way of knowing the popular vote per state that quickly so of course when they say that the one with the most votes shall be president the one with the most votes in that state shall get the electoral college votes of that state.
There have been many elections when the ultimate winner of the popular vote wasn't the winner of the election because of the skewed nature of the population of the country. But making it to where the two coasts determine the president for the rest of the nation is not legal and is not how the constitution was set up.
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[a]"
Nowhere in there tells a state the criteria they shall use to assign their votes
Doesn’t even mention the states people voting....just the electors
Wrong. A majority of states have passed laws requiring their electors vote according to how they pledged in that state. It doesn't HAVE to be federal law, it can be state law. Only two states differ. Maine and Nebraska.
You're opening up a can of worms to go by popular vote. What if a candidate lost by 1000 votes nationwide? He could easily demand a recount of every vote in every state. It could take months to figure out who actually won in a close election. There are votes that come in from overseas that are not counted for weeks after the general. We couldn't determine our president for months after all litigation had taken place.
And the democrat votes magically appearing after how was lost would be epidemic.
It would make more sense to just do away with the Electoral College all together.ExactlyCan you show me he words that are being circumvented?Republicans never had a chance to win California, now they do
They should be thrilled
Thrilled because people found a way to circumvent the Constitution? While Republicans winning California and the accompanying angst among liberals would be very entertaining, I think the cost would be very high. Short term thinking and all that.
The whole "electoral college" part. Ya know, the 12th amendment.
Back when the 12th amendment was ratified, they had no way of knowing the popular vote per state that quickly so of course when they say that the one with the most votes shall be president the one with the most votes in that state shall get the electoral college votes of that state.
There have been many elections when the ultimate winner of the popular vote wasn't the winner of the election because of the skewed nature of the population of the country. But making it to where the two coasts determine the president for the rest of the nation is not legal and is not how the constitution was set up.
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[a]"
Nowhere in there tells a state the criteria they shall use to assign their votes
Doesn’t even mention the states people voting....just the electors
Of course. It would be perfectly legal, therefore, for states to announce that they will no longer be holding a popular vote at all, but are going to appoint electors with no concern for what the voters want. Kind of like assigning the state's electoral votes based on how other states voted.
How long do you think this really will stand when a governor or senator overwhelmingly carries his home state but loses it because he didn't carry the national vote? Or, consider Algore's ill fated attempt when he didn't even win his home state. How do you think the voters would have reacted had their negative vote on him been overruled because other states voted for him?
This is just a bad idea.
