NO "Popular Vote" if states choose to have the Legislature Vote for Federal Offices

[The Sage of Main Street]

It is representative, by our elected state officials.

Representation Is a Re-Presentation of Perpetual Elitist Tyranny

 

[M14 Shooter]

So when a Governor vetoes legislation it is not Constitutional/

Read your source :

One unusual feature of the Elections Clause is that it does not confer the power to regulate congressional elections on states as a whole, but rather the “Legislature” of each state. The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures.

Nothing in here about the USSC holding that governors and courts are considered legislatures for the purpose of creating election law.
Let me know if you can find a state constitution where courts and governors are given the power to make laws.

Completely relevant. No one has.

As we're discussing a hypothetical, this is irrelevant to the issue.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Sure they get voted out. After being in office for 4 years, making all sorts of deals.

A Republic Is an Outside-Ownership Government

That's the problem with term limits, too. The ruling class's Parties have a rotating group of flunkies to take the place of anyone who gets term-limited.

 

[BlindBoo]

Read your source :

One unusual feature of the Elections Clause is that it does not confer the power to regulate congressional elections on states as a whole, but rather the “Legislature” of each state. The Supreme Court has construed the term “Legislature” extremely broadly to include any entity or procedure that a state’s constitution permits to exercise lawmaking power. Thus, laws regulating congressional elections may be enacted not only by a state’s actual legislature, but also directly by a state’s voters through the initiative process or public referendum, in states that allow such procedures.

Nothing in here about the USSC holding that governors and courts are considered legislatures for the purpose of creating election law.
Let me know if you can find a state constitution where courts and governors are given the power to make laws.


As we're discussing a hypothetical, this is irrelevant to the issue.

So what your trying to say is that Governors have no say and can't veto election laws the state legislature pass? I'm pretty sure a governors signature is part of the lawmaking process. But of course the governors and the courts are part of the lawmaking power structure in the states.

But it is. Who would vote for a representative who campaigns on taking their right to vote for President away?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So what your trying to say is....

...there is no factual or legal basis for the proposition that anyone other than those granted the power to make laws by a states's constitution - that is, legislatures, and sometimes, the people - have the power to create election law.
You can argue otherwise, but in doing so, you choose to be wrong.

But it is.

The fact something has not happened yet is irrelevant in a discussion regarding a hypothetical.
You can argue otherwise, but in doing so, you choose to be wrong.

 

[Care4all]

Its coming. As long as the dems have their migrant voters, mass mail-ins, and 3am ballot dump scams.

NONE of which happened!

 

[BlindBoo]

...there is no factual or legal basis for the proposition that anyone other than those granted the power to make laws by a states's constitution - that is, legislatures, and sometimes, the people - have the power to create election law.
You can argue otherwise, but in doing so, you choose to be wrong.

The fact something has not happened yet is irrelevant in a discussion regarding a hypothetical.
You can argue otherwise, but in doing so, you choose to be wrong.

You ignore the governors constitutional role is the lawmaking process. It will not become law if it is vetoed, if the legislature doesn't have a veto proof majority.

A state rep would not be stupid enough to admit to being part of a scheme to take right to vote for president away for the people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You ignore the...

You choose to be wrong.

A state rep would ...

Irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

1. Now we have a popular vote "by state" for presidents. Each state certifies who won the election in their state and those EC votes get tallied up and a president declared.

2. Instead of people voting directly for a president, the state legislators can vote for that state's Electoral College votes. It eliminates mail-in ballots, voter fraud, lawsuits, suspicion, 3am ballot dumps, annoying commercials, annoying phone calls, and $billion of "Zuckerbucks" being wasted on elections by pols selling their offices for campaign donations.
The state legislators get paid to vote. Let them earn their pay.

A Pick Is Not a Choice. They Offer Us, "Tweedledum or Tweedledee? Pick One."

The mind-control ruling class has channeled us into a multiple choice where all choices serve its self-interest and "None of the Above" is not allowed. The problem with the popular vote is that it's winner-take-all. All states should proportion their electoral votes by the percentages won by each candidate.

So, in 2000, Bush and Gore would have split Florida's electoral vote practically 50-50. Third-party candidates, because they would cause most elections to get thrown into the House, would be eliminated in an automatic runoff procedure. But many of the candidates of the two major parties would be eliminated that way, too; so Perot would have been elected over Clinton, with Bush, Sr., eliminated, since "A vote for Perot is a vote for Clinton" would become an obsolete slogan.

 

[White 6]

yeah what state has the state party making the choice? that literally makes zero sense

None yet, but some want it. Some have wanted if from the beginning, but they lost getting it into the Constitution. Some openly bring it back up wanting a rule by plutocracy. I am against it.

 

[notmyfault2020]

It would need to be a voice/recorded vote like in the Senate.
Every legislator's vote would be public.
No cheating, no voter fraud, no whining, no commercials.

and it would save a lot of campaign $$ (assuming I u/stand how the scenario works)

I would like to know the topic thoroughly b4 commenting further, will follow this thread

 

[notmyfault2020]

This is all just a plant to maintain Republican power despite being lacking public support. States have gerrymandered their districts to the point that a state like Wisconsin has majority Democratic voters but their legislatures nearly have a Republican supermajority.

I don't know anything about gerrymandering in WI

As to your other points, I cannot see where a system in which both parties have the same procedures to deal with is going to favor one party or another.. sounds like more emotive lib blathering so as to get some unthinking people to accept your views.. tiresome

 

[Marener]

I don't know anything about gerrymandering in WI

As to your other points, I cannot see where a system in which both parties have the same procedures to deal with is going to favor one party or another.. sounds like more emotive lib blathering so as to get some unthinking people to accept your views.. tiresome

You know about gerrymandering, though, don't you? A state can gerrymander their districts so that the population is 55% Democratic voting but the state legislature is 65% Republican. They aren't playing with the same procedures, because only one party gets to draw the district maps and they can draw them in a way to ensure they wield the majority power despite being a minority.

 

[kyzr]

Representation Is a Re-Presentation of Perpetual Elitist Tyranny

Translation: we want the oligarchs like "Zuckerbucks" to keep buying elections. The most money wins 90% of the time.

 

[kyzr]

You know about gerrymandering, though, don't you? A state can gerrymander their districts so that the population is 55% Democratic voting but the state legislature is 65% Republican. They aren't playing with the same procedures, because only one party gets to draw the district maps and they can draw them in a way to ensure they wield the majority power despite being a minority.

Don't forget to mention that BOTH parties gerrymander.

 

[kyzr]

NONE of which happened!

81m my ass...

 

[Marener]

Don't forget to mention that BOTH parties gerrymander.

True, and we could argue about the relative impact of each side’s attempt to gerrymander.

But it’s all the more reason to oppose state legislators handling electors.

 

[kyzr]

A Pick Is Not a Choice. They Offer Us, "Tweedledum or Tweedledee? Pick One."

The mind-control ruling class has channeled us into a multiple choice where all choices serve its self-interest and "None of the Above" is not allowed. The problem with the popular vote is that it's winner-take-all. All states should proportion their electoral votes by the percentages won by each candidate.

So, in 2000, Bush and Gore would have split Florida's electoral vote practically 50-50. Third-party candidates, because they would cause most elections to get thrown into the House, would be eliminated in an automatic runoff procedure. But many of the candidates of the two major parties would be eliminated that way, too; so Perot would have been elected over Clinton, with Bush, Sr., eliminated, since "A vote for Perot is a vote for Clinton" would become an obsolete slogan.

1. That's unconstitutional.
2. To make it constitutional an amendment would require 38 state legislatures to approve. Never happen.

 

[Marener]

If you want to reduce the chance or stealing an election, you should support a national popular vote. The national popular vote margin is typically on the order of millions.

No one is going to be able to fabricate millions of votes without being noticed.

 

[Marener]

1. That's unconstitutional.
2. To make it constitutional an amendment would require 38 state legislatures to approve. Never happen.

How would that be unconstitutional?