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.
Those who got the popular vote, EC needs to be abolished it is outdated and undemocratic.You avoided the question:Matter of time it will happen.
Majority rule?
If that's the test, who should have won the 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2016 Presidential elections?
If majority rules, how can someone who does not win a majority of the popular vote - like in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2016 - win the election?Those who got the popular vote,You avoided the question:Matter of time it will happen.
Majority rule?
If that's the test, who should have won the 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2016 Presidential elections?
Let us know when you amend the constitution.EC needs to be abolished it is outdated and undemocratic.
Then it wouldn't be a constitutional REPUBLIC now would it?Every vote should count the same, it sure does in Congress, even 1 vote.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4"
"It is sometimes claimed that the Founders wanted American governments to be "republics rather than democracies," but this claim is not quite accurate. In their linguistic usage, the Founders employed the terms "democracy" and "republic" with overlapping or even interchangeable meanings. Only one species of democracy was deemed inconsistent with republicanism. This was "pure democracy" or "simple and perfect democracy," a theoretical constitution identified by Aristotle and mentioned by John Adams and James Madison, among others. A pure democracy had no magistrates, because the "mob" made all decisions, including all executive and judicial decisions. The Founders saw this kind of democracy as inconsistent with republicanism, because it did not honor the rule of law. The Guarantee Clause's protection against domestic violence assures orderly government and the rule of law, and protects the states' legitimate magistracy against mob rule."
Guide to the Constitution
Of course if the people wish to change the Constitution they can.
Even tho there's nothing about getting rid of the EC in the OP....why would it no longer be a Republican Form of Government?
Then it wouldn't be a constitutional REPUBLIC now would it?Every vote should count the same, it sure does in Congress, even 1 vote.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4"
"It is sometimes claimed that the Founders wanted American governments to be "republics rather than democracies," but this claim is not quite accurate. In their linguistic usage, the Founders employed the terms "democracy" and "republic" with overlapping or even interchangeable meanings. Only one species of democracy was deemed inconsistent with republicanism. This was "pure democracy" or "simple and perfect democracy," a theoretical constitution identified by Aristotle and mentioned by John Adams and James Madison, among others. A pure democracy had no magistrates, because the "mob" made all decisions, including all executive and judicial decisions. The Founders saw this kind of democracy as inconsistent with republicanism, because it did not honor the rule of law. The Guarantee Clause's protection against domestic violence assures orderly government and the rule of law, and protects the states' legitimate magistracy against mob rule."
Guide to the Constitution
Of course if the people wish to change the Constitution they can.
Even tho there's nothing about getting rid of the EC in the OP....why would it no longer be a Republican Form of Government?
Mob rule is pure democracy with no voice for the minority.
Great no disagreement...but they MUST choose electors. The argument is abolition of the electoral college via non complaince by states. THAT is unconstitutional.The Constitution specifically says it's up to each state to choose its own electors however it wants.
It can hold election or not hold an election. It can throw darts at a wall or consult a Ouija board.
Let us know when you have the guts to form an opinion and an argument, instead of deferring.If majority rules, how can someone who does not win a majority of the popular vote - like in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2016 - win the election?Those who got the popular vote,You avoided the question:Matter of time it will happen.
Majority rule?
If that's the test, who should have won the 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2016 Presidential elections?
Let us know when you amend the constitution.EC needs to be abolished it is outdated and undemocratic.
No argument from me on that.It is also far from being deemed unconstitutional by precedent.
Great no disagreement...but they MUST choose electors. The argument is abolition of the electoral college via non complaince by states. THAT is unconstitutional.The Constitution specifically says it's up to each state to choose its own electors however it wants.
It can hold election or not hold an election. It can throw darts at a wall or consult a Ouija board.
No...you dumb paddy...they cannot
14th Amendment
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
14th Amendment
Neither. I wanna see if people actually understand what it is they want to tear down./——/ You’re joking, right? New to the discussion? Rhetorical question?What is the purpose of the EC?How is it that the left sets it’s hair on fire claiming voter suppression when it comes to voter ID laws...but praises a law that will ignore what it’s state constituents vote for in favor of what the rest of the country voted for. Let’s say it’s trump v Biden, Nevada votes Biden but the nation votes trump...ALL THE EC VOTES GO TO TRUMP???? Does that seem right to you? How the fuck is that not voter suppression?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.
Except that most people want a national popular vote, so why are you so interested in suppressing that?
Polls Show more than 70% Support for a Nationwide Vote for President
The fuck we are. This whole thing is a direct result of fucking Californian poison. Their state is unlivable due to high living expenses, so white middle class liberals have been moving to Clark County in droves. Cedeing votes to Cali is fine for them because they still are Californians wearing that fucking California bear on their clothes and putting stickers of it on their cars. Despite the fact they moved to Nevada, they still ARE Californians. Clark County is being annexed by California through mass migration.How so?/——/ Nevada relegates itself to fly over country status.Nevada is getting better and better. Now it also has a majority of women in its state legislature.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.
They still have two senators and four congressmen
they are ready to cede their presidential votes to Cal and NY.
And with Democrat gerrymandering with the 4th congressional district, the poison has spread beyond Clark County into Mineral, Esmeralda, Nye, Lincoln, and White Pines county, thanks SOLELY to North Las Vegas.The people's republic of Clark county was bought and sold by Harry Reid, and as the plantation master demands clark county will do as their told.
Nevada is getting better and better. Now it also has a majority of women in its state legislature.
Wow. TEO reasons not to visit Nevada... the NPV bill and finding out they have a majority women in the legislature.
Thought the second fact makes me less surprised that they made the terrible decision to join the NPV Compact.
Its as relevant now as its ever been. The moment the EC goes away, is the exact moment that most states will secede from our union.Those who got the popular vote, EC needs to be abolished it is outdated and undemocratic.You avoided the question:Matter of time it will happen.
Majority rule?
If that's the test, who should have won the 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2016 Presidential elections?
Great no disagreement...but they MUST choose electors. The argument is abolition of the electoral college via non complaince by states. THAT is unconstitutional.The Constitution specifically says it's up to each state to choose its own electors however it wants.
It can hold election or not hold an election. It can throw darts at a wall or consult a Ouija board.
No...you dumb paddy...they cannot
14th Amendment
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
14th Amendment
Uh YES Dippy, they can.
Article II. Roll it.
>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<
You'll note that your Fourteenth Amendment excluding women does not stipulate that an election must be held, or that there IS a "right to vote" for POTUS. It simply addresses what happens to those male voters over 21 IN THE EVENT their assumed vote is denied ----- not that that right exists in the first place.
Lurn two reed. And when you do, find us anywhere the COTUS requires the states to hold a POTUS vote at all.
Great no disagreement...but they MUST choose electors. The argument is abolition of the electoral college via non complaince by states. THAT is unconstitutional.The Constitution specifically says it's up to each state to choose its own electors however it wants.
It can hold election or not hold an election. It can throw darts at a wall or consult a Ouija board.
No...you dumb paddy...they cannot
14th Amendment
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
14th Amendment
Uh YES Dippy, they can.
Article II. Roll it.
>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<
You'll note that your Fourteenth Amendment excluding women does not stipulate that an election must be held, or that there IS a "right to vote" for POTUS. It simply addresses what happens to those male voters over 21 IN THE EVENT their assumed vote is denied ----- not that that right exists in the first place.
Lurn two reed. And when you do, find us anywhere the COTUS requires the states to hold a POTUS vote at all.
I have a hypothetical;
I vote for the president. My state chooses not to engage in the electoral college. Has my right to vote be [sic] prevented?
Further, I realize that your fenian monkey genes prevent you from providing links. However, to back your argument, can you provide me with a citation which supports your assertion that the states are not required to participate in the electoral college?
The first excerpt makes COMMON sense. I can see your angle even if I don't agree with it technically (provided).Great no disagreement...but they MUST choose electors. The argument is abolition of the electoral college via non complaince by states. THAT is unconstitutional.The Constitution specifically says it's up to each state to choose its own electors however it wants.
It can hold election or not hold an election. It can throw darts at a wall or consult a Ouija board.
No...you dumb paddy...they cannot
14th Amendment
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
14th Amendment
Uh YES Dippy, they can.
Article II. Roll it.
>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<
You'll note that your Fourteenth Amendment excluding women does not stipulate that an election must be held, or that there IS a "right to vote" for POTUS. It simply addresses what happens to those male voters over 21 IN THE EVENT their assumed vote is denied ----- not that that right exists in the first place.
Lurn two reed. And when you do, find us anywhere the COTUS requires the states to hold a POTUS vote at all.
I have a hypothetical;
I vote for the president. My state chooses not to engage in the electoral college. Has my right to vote be [sic] prevented?
You don't have a right to vote for President. Nor do I Your STATE does. If it chooses not to engage in the EC, then it's preventing itself, but it in no way has to consult you or any other citizen.
Your state need not offer you a vote for POTUS, but if it does offer it, and you exercise it, then that offer has been taken. If it doesn't, then it chooses its Electors in some other manner, full stop. However if you do get a vote and you didn't vote the way your state sees fit to instruct its Electors to vote, then your personal vote was tossed into the shredder, because the state is going to do what it wants and you or any other citizen can go sit on a tack for all it cares.
That's been going on a long time, which is why our turnout rate is abysmal. Because for most people, what's the point. One can vote with one's state's trend, one can vote against it, or one can stay home and watch Jerry Lewis reruns. In every case one personally has accomplished the same thing --- Zero. So why bother.
Further, I realize that your fenian monkey genes prevent you from providing links. However, to back your argument, can you provide me with a citation which supports your assertion that the states are not required to participate in the electoral college?
Thought I cited my source and it was fairly well known. You need it linked too? Very well then.
Constitution of the United States --- see Article II, Section 1, paragraph 2.
You'll note that neither this document nor any other anywhere is required to prove a negative. On the contrary you the ass-erter are required to prove the positive. That means you can use my link to show us anywhere the COTUS says that POTUS elections are required.
Happy hunting.
Every vote should count the same, it sure does in Congress, even 1 vote.
Several States passed laws to give their Electoral votes to whomever wins the National popularity vote. This is going to royally backfire if Trump gets the popularity vote.Quick OP fix: there is no movement to abolish the electoral college. That would require an amendment. The EC will continue to exist in its current form.States Move to Abolish Electoral College!
On this Wednesday transmission of The Alex Jones Show, we’ll cover the growing movement to eliminate the Electoral College, the crisis at America’s southern border, the Democrat movement to impeach and much more.
Oh this is goig to be the biggest take down of this country if these democratic ****s do this better wake up ppl your country is going bye bye you stupid mother fkrs!!
