Nevada to join National Popular Vote compact

[HappyJoy]

The states not in the compact still cast votes which determine who will get the compact states vote

Nothing says the compact can’t go Republican

It's still shitting on the Constitution.

If it's to be changed, it has to happen via the amendment process. If you condone things like this, you condone destroying the document.

Nope, still using the EC the only part that changes is how states select them and its within their right to do what they want.

No, as I stated before at least 3 parts of the constitution have an issue with it.

You just choose to ignore it because you are a controlling progressive hack.

You couldn't name the parts correctly and when shown you were wrong you kind just walked away from it.

I did. I explained them. you ignored them because it ruins your narrative.

Your arguments were countered by more than one poster and you never came back with much of anything.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Those all involve the voters IN THE STATE deciding how the EV's are divided.

No, it doesn't. It directly contradicts the 49% in the state who voted for the loser.

 

[martybegan]

The compelling argument is the only people in favor of this think it will win them every election from now on, forever.

No, that's not the argument. Waste someone else's time, whiner.

That is the argument, you smarmy little cuck, despite your protests to the contrary.

No, it isn't ya crybaby.

Yes it is. And if this manages to backfire on progressive States, and the Dem wins the EV and loses the popular vote, you will see States like California and NY try ANYTHING to weasel their way out of it, because their citizens will demand it.

They see it as taking other people's EV's not giving up their own.

 

[Rustic]

Then who decides what the final national vote tally is?

Huh? Not sure i understand your question. The electoral votes would still be tallied.

Lol
Like I said, with a pure popular vote rural America has no reason to participate in presidential elections. They will lose every time… The numbers just are not there

Why can't they convince the rest of America to their side of things?

Lol
Rural And urban America will never have the same interests, wants and needs. That is why we need the electoral college...
A pure popular vote is mob rule...

 

[Dekster]

The Nevada Senate approved Tuesday a National Popular Vote bill on a party-line vote, sending the legislation aimed at upending the Electoral College to the governor.

Assembly Bill 186, which passed the Senateon a 12-8 vote, would bring Nevada into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement between participating states to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote.

If signed as expected by Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak, Nevada would become the 16th jurisdiction to join the compact, along with 14 states and the District of Columbia. The compact would take effect after states totaling 270 electoral votes, and with Nevada, the total would reach 195.

Nevada Senate passes National Popular Vote bill on party-line vote

That’s 2 new states in less than 2 months. The NPV keeps chugging along.

I doubt it would survive the SCOTUS. The very first time a state has to cast its electors in contravention to the actual election results in the state, the entire population of the state is disenfranchised. States are not required to have elections, but to the extent that they do, there are a myriad of laws at play. What if a violet stay like Virginia entered a compact to always cast its electors the way Kentucky does when KY is the reddest of the red states? It would be the same thing.

 

[bodecea]

There is no mechanism, no agency, no certification method for a national vote for president.

This is true - the "popular vote" is an aggregate of 51 separate elections; no governmental body certifies this total.
Thus, the total is unofficial.

So....you are saying that the government is incapable of adding 51 certified election results.

 

[martybegan]

Those all involve the voters IN THE STATE deciding how the EV's are divided.

No, it doesn't. It directly contradicts the 49% in the state who voted for the loser.

Still inside the State, not by outside voters. You can have a theoretical situation where a candidate can lose 0% to 100% and still take the State's EV's if they win the national vote. That doesn't actually exist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The compelling argument is the only people in favor of this think it will win them every election from now on, forever.

No, that's not the argument. Waste someone else's time, whiner.

That is the argument, you smarmy little cuck, despite your protests to the contrary.

No, it isn't ya crybaby.

Yes it is. And if this manages to backfire on progressive States, and the Dem wins the EV and loses the popular vote, you will see States like California and NY try ANYTHING to weasel their way out of it, because their citizens will demand it.

They see it as taking other people's EV's not giving up their own.

Nope, sorry, its not the argument. You say it is in order to create low hanging fruit for your lazy self. People are quite aware that a republican may benefit.

 

[bodecea]

The Nevada Senate approved Tuesday a National Popular Vote bill on a party-line vote, sending the legislation aimed at upending the Electoral College to the governor.

Assembly Bill 186, which passed the Senateon a 12-8 vote, would bring Nevada into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement between participating states to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote.

If signed as expected by Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak, Nevada would become the 16th jurisdiction to join the compact, along with 14 states and the District of Columbia. The compact would take effect after states totaling 270 electoral votes, and with Nevada, the total would reach 195.

Nevada Senate passes National Popular Vote bill on party-line vote

That’s 2 new states in less than 2 months. The NPV keeps chugging along.

I doubt it would survive the SCOTUS. The very first time a state has to cast its electors in contravention to the actual election results in the state, the entire population of the state is disenfranchised. States are not required to have elections, but to the extent that they do, there are a myriad of laws at play. What if a violet stay like Virginia entered a compact to always cast its electors the way Kentucky does when KY is the reddest of the red states? It would be the same thing.

What is unConstitutional about it?

 

[martybegan]

Polls like that ask the question to get the positive answer. If asked HOW to do it, the results wouldn't be as clear cut.

You're obviously confused about how they do it, that's for sure.

I know the how would be a clusterfuck. If you want to destroy our country, this is a damn good way to do it.

Bush and Trump are the clusterfucks, it's time for the grownups to get their proper representation.

You have it at the State level, and in the House and the Senate.

The state level? Which state? Which laws?

The Constitution by design made the President represent the will of the States, with population weight taken into play. To change the concept you need to change the Constitution.

Anything else, is quite frankly treason.

No, the Constitution merely left the power to the states to decide their own electors. There is nothing in the Constitution that says otherwise.

Treason? Oh, Ok. something else you don't understand the meaning of.

Do you elect a governor? State reps?

The other things I brought up can override how states decide electors. Do you think them deciding that 20 people in the State get to pick who's the electors?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Still inside the State, not by outside voters.

And still in direct contradiction to up to 49% of the voters in the state. You aren't going to get around that.

 

[HappyJoy]

The compelling argument is the only people in favor of this think it will win them every election from now on, forever.

No, that's not the argument. Waste someone else's time, whiner.

That is the argument, you smarmy little cuck, despite your protests to the contrary.

No, it isn't ya crybaby.

Yes it is. And if this manages to backfire on progressive States, and the Dem wins the EV and loses the popular vote, you will see States like California and NY try ANYTHING to weasel their way out of it, because their citizens will demand it.

They see it as taking other people's EV's not giving up their own.

That's an opinion, but not everyone is as partisan as you.

 

[martybegan]

It's still shitting on the Constitution.

If it's to be changed, it has to happen via the amendment process. If you condone things like this, you condone destroying the document.

Nope, still using the EC the only part that changes is how states select them and its within their right to do what they want.

No, as I stated before at least 3 parts of the constitution have an issue with it.

You just choose to ignore it because you are a controlling progressive hack.

You couldn't name the parts correctly and when shown you were wrong you kind just walked away from it.

I did. I explained them. you ignored them because it ruins your narrative.

Your arguments were countered by more than one poster and you never came back with much of anything.

They weren't countered, you just went with "fuh fuh fuh, states can choose the method of electors, fuh fuh fuh"

Would choosing electors by a random lottery be constitutional?

 

[Issa]

Why do have a problem of the majority rule ?

Majority rule?
If that's the test, who should have won the 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2016 Presidential elections?

The EC is outdated and not compatible with our time.

Ok... Amend the constitution.

Matter of time it will happen.

 

[martybegan]

The compelling argument is the only people in favor of this think it will win them every election from now on, forever.

No, that's not the argument. Waste someone else's time, whiner.

That is the argument, you smarmy little cuck, despite your protests to the contrary.

No, it isn't ya crybaby.

Yes it is. And if this manages to backfire on progressive States, and the Dem wins the EV and loses the popular vote, you will see States like California and NY try ANYTHING to weasel their way out of it, because their citizens will demand it.

They see it as taking other people's EV's not giving up their own.

Nope, sorry, its not the argument. You say it is in order to create low hanging fruit for your lazy self. People are quite aware that a republican may benefit.

That is an argument. It will create anarchy, all because you are butthurt over losing elections by the existing process, and are too lazy to change the process by the approved method.

 

[HappyJoy]

You're obviously confused about how they do it, that's for sure.

I know the how would be a clusterfuck. If you want to destroy our country, this is a damn good way to do it.

Bush and Trump are the clusterfucks, it's time for the grownups to get their proper representation.

You have it at the State level, and in the House and the Senate.

The state level? Which state? Which laws?

The Constitution by design made the President represent the will of the States, with population weight taken into play. To change the concept you need to change the Constitution.

Anything else, is quite frankly treason.

No, the Constitution merely left the power to the states to decide their own electors. There is nothing in the Constitution that says otherwise.

Treason? Oh, Ok. something else you don't understand the meaning of.

Do you elect a governor? State reps?

The other things I brought up can override how states decide electors. Do you think them deciding that 20 people in the State get to pick who's the electors?

So, again, the electors are decided by the popular vote here. It's actually quite legal for the governor to select all the electors if that's the law of that state, not a sate I would want to live in though.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, that's not the argument. Waste someone else's time, whiner.

That is the argument, you smarmy little cuck, despite your protests to the contrary.

No, it isn't ya crybaby.

Yes it is. And if this manages to backfire on progressive States, and the Dem wins the EV and loses the popular vote, you will see States like California and NY try ANYTHING to weasel their way out of it, because their citizens will demand it.

They see it as taking other people's EV's not giving up their own.

Nope, sorry, its not the argument. You say it is in order to create low hanging fruit for your lazy self. People are quite aware that a republican may benefit.

That is an argument. It will create anarchy, all because you are butthurt over losing elections by the existing process, and are too lazy to change the process by the approved method.

Haha..."anarchy"....sure.

And this method may be perfectly "approved". You keep mistaking your own likes and dislikes for the law.

 

[martybegan]

Still inside the State, not by outside voters.

And still in direct contradiction to up to 49% of the voters in the state. You aren't going to get around that.

That's how a majority vote works. But you don't want to understand that there is a difference between IN State votes and OUT of state votes when it comes to governance and more particularly, republican forms of governance.

Would it be OK for a State to let their EV's be decided by the citizens of France in addition to their own votes?

 

[HappyJoy]

Nope, still using the EC the only part that changes is how states select them and its within their right to do what they want.

No, as I stated before at least 3 parts of the constitution have an issue with it.

You just choose to ignore it because you are a controlling progressive hack.

You couldn't name the parts correctly and when shown you were wrong you kind just walked away from it.

I did. I explained them. you ignored them because it ruins your narrative.

Your arguments were countered by more than one poster and you never came back with much of anything.

They weren't countered, you just went with "fuh fuh fuh, states can choose the method of electors, fuh fuh fuh"

Would choosing electors by a random lottery be constitutional?

Yes, because the Constitution doesn't dictate how they do it.

 

[martybegan]

The compelling argument is the only people in favor of this think it will win them every election from now on, forever.

No, that's not the argument. Waste someone else's time, whiner.

That is the argument, you smarmy little cuck, despite your protests to the contrary.

No, it isn't ya crybaby.

Yes it is. And if this manages to backfire on progressive States, and the Dem wins the EV and loses the popular vote, you will see States like California and NY try ANYTHING to weasel their way out of it, because their citizens will demand it.

They see it as taking other people's EV's not giving up their own.

That's an opinion, but not everyone is as partisan as you.

You are a partisan hack, and you KNOW this is true, but you want to win so bad, you don't care.

Be honest for once in your life.