Ohio Joins The Attempt To Shit on The Constitution and Eliminate The Electoral College

[Papageorgio]

This kind of talk favors the oligarchy and always has. Americans vs
Americans while they sit back and laugh about this coming rebellion some people are always talking about. Jay Gould said he could hire half the workers to kill the other half over a century ago and he was right. In the meanwhile, those at the top keep on sucking up most of the profits this country produces via tax cuts for the rich and more and more poverty for the citizenry. In the meantime, they're laughing at the working class for going at each others' throats. What to do? Getting money out of politics is a first step. Used to be illegal for corporate lobbyists to bribe politicians. Now they do it out in the open, it's legal, and the corporations that do it are now called citizens. Another crazy rule to overthrow since there's nothing in the constitution that says anything about corporations anyway so how did they become citizens?

Back when McCain and Feingold introduced Campaign Finance Reform, there were many that predicted that that legislation would result in a Citizens United type decision and they and myself were right. Every time government wants to interfere they screw it up.

 

[Pogo]

Hey, what the state and 47 others are ALREADY saying is that the state is already forced to ignore everybody who didn't vote with the plurality, even if that's most of the state. Funny how you didn't mind it when one set of people was getting fucked, yet now you wanna play it differently when another one is.

Fine, then just dump the EC altogether and count everybody's vote. Simple.

So what? It's winner takes all which most states exercise. The majority still wins, just like Congressional and gubernatorial elections. What this bill does is create a possible loser takes all scenario.

Correct. As opposed to even if 56% voted for somebody else and the state cast 100% of its EVs for the 44% --- as happened in Utah.

And guess what ---- that was also Constitutional. The state (any state) could if it wanted hold an election and then ignore the voting results ENTIRELY and give its votes to some obscure entity who wasn't even running like Douglas Spotted Eagle or Harry Byrd. And that too would be perfectly Constitutional. And as for "no sense to vote at all, wake up and smell the stink Virginia, that's been going on as long as the insane WTA system created artificial "red states" and "blue states", NONE of whose voters have any reason to vote at all. Their state is predetermined, regardless whether they vote with it, vote against it, or don't vote at all. That's why our turnuout is abysmal. Because it's a sham.

Don't like it? Then dump the EC altogether.

It's most instructive that you keep falling back on this crutch whining that it's about "who will win", and then your argument is whining about "who will lose".

A state can change parties for a representative. Mass holes voted in a Republican Governor. If we in Ohio decided to become a totally red state, and this law forced us to vote blue, then it's not up to the people to select a side or candidate. The vote is over before it started. That's a disenfranchisement of voters and against the US Constitution.

Again, I'm not worried too much about this proposal as it isn't going anywhere. All our state legislatures would have to do if it passed is make a Faithless Elector law and that would be the end of it.

It's amusing you're still leaning on that crutch of "red states" and "blue states", an artificial concept that literally does not exist in the real world, as if it were something real. The only reason it even exists as an abstract is the WTA system. In actual reality there has never been, and there never will be, any state anywhere that votes unanimously for a POTUS (or for a governor or Senator either). That world literally does not exist. Yet there's the electors of 48 states going in front of Congress and lying about what their state selected, every. single. time.

You don't have a "red" state or a "blue" state. You have a purple state, same as the rest of us. The bottom line is, if WTA was not infecting the entire system, then this NPV compact would be unnecessary and would not even exist.

But when you do have an artificially "red" or "blue" state, because WTA does exist, THAT is a disenfranchisement of voters. But it's *STILL* not "against the US Constitution". AGAIN go ahead and show us that part of the COTUS that prohibits it. You can't do it. Doesn't exist.

I think "faithless elector" laws should all be struck down as unConstitutional too. If you're going to appoint an elector --- and then turn around and order them to vote a certain way ---- then what the fuck is the function of an elector at all? The whole idea of an elector was to consider and ruminate. If a state removes that function, THERE you have something against the US Constitution.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Democrats intend to disenfranchise rural states abd have the whole nation ruled by California and New York.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ohioans might vote to ditch Electoral College. Who's behind the effort? That's a mystery

DemNazis...

If you cannot win fair, you need to change The Rules so you can cheat!

We are in a Civil War.

And The Dems are Invading this country from The Southern Border and attacking our Constitution in our courts and legislatures.

The delegates must vote as their people vote not the nation as a popular contest votes. They are crushing the US Constitution without doing it lawfully by amendment. The law will be struck down by the SCOTUS as it violates the Constitutional mandate.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Democrats intend to disenfranchise rural states abd have the whole nation ruled by California and New York.

If they succeed they will have a shooting war on their hands..

 

[DOTR]

Ohioans might vote to ditch Electoral College. Who's behind the effort? That's a mystery

DemNazis...

If you cannot win fair, you need to change The Rules so you can cheat!

We are in a Civil War.

And The Dems are Invading this country from The Southern Border and attacking our Constitution in our courts and legislatures.

There is nothing holding the US together but force.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hey, what the state and 47 others are ALREADY saying is that the state is already forced to ignore everybody who didn't vote with the plurality, even if that's most of the state. Funny how you didn't mind it when one set of people was getting fucked, yet now you wanna play it differently when another one is.

Fine, then just dump the EC altogether and count everybody's vote. Simple.

So what? It's winner takes all which most states exercise. The majority still wins, just like Congressional and gubernatorial elections. What this bill does is create a possible loser takes all scenario.

Correct. As opposed to even if 56% voted for somebody else and the state cast 100% of its EVs for the 44% --- as happened in Utah.

And guess what ---- that was also Constitutional. The state (any state) could if it wanted hold an election and then ignore the voting results ENTIRELY and give its votes to some obscure entity who wasn't even running like Douglas Spotted Eagle or Harry Byrd. And that too would be perfectly Constitutional. And as for "no sense to vote at all, wake up and smell the stink Virginia, that's been going on as long as the insane WTA system created artificial "red states" and "blue states", NONE of whose voters have any reason to vote at all. Their state is predetermined, regardless whether they vote with it, vote against it, or don't vote at all. That's why our turnuout is abysmal. Because it's a sham.

Don't like it? Then dump the EC altogether.

It's most instructive that you keep falling back on this crutch whining that it's about "who will win", and then your argument is whining about "who will lose".

A state can change parties for a representative. Mass holes voted in a Republican Governor. If we in Ohio decided to become a totally red state, and this law forced us to vote blue, then it's not up to the people to select a side or candidate. The vote is over before it started. That's a disenfranchisement of voters and against the US Constitution.

Again, I'm not worried too much about this proposal as it isn't going anywhere. All our state legislatures would have to do if it passed is make a Faithless Elector law and that would be the end of it.

It's amusing you're still leaning on that crutch of "red states" and "blue states", an artificial concept that literally does not exist in the real world, as if it were something real. The only reason it even exists as an abstract is the WTA system. In actual reality there has never been, and there never will be, any state anywhere that votes unanimously for a POTUS (or for a governor or Senator either). That world literally does not exist. Yet there's the electors of 48 states going in front of Congress and lying about what their state selected, every. single. time.

You don't have a "red" state or a "blue" state. You have a purple state, same as the rest of us. The bottom line is, if WTA was not infecting the entire system, then this NPV compact would be unnecessary and would not even exist.

But when you do have an artificially "red" or "blue" state, because WTA does exist, THAT is a disenfranchisement of voters. But it's *STILL* not "against the US Constitution". AGAIN go ahead and show us that part of the COTUS that prohibits it. You can't do it. Doesn't exist.

I think "faithless elector" laws should all be struck down as unConstitutional too. If you're going to appoint an elector --- and then turn around and order them to vote a certain way ---- then what the fuck is the function of an elector at all? The whole idea of an elector was to consider and ruminate. If a state removes that function, THERE you have something against the US Constitution.

A faithless elector is one who does vote against the popular vote or for the party that nominated them regardless of the outcome. Some states do have penalties against faithless electors by fines or even nullifying their vote. Everybody should have that, perhaps even prison time.

I have no idea what a WTA is. I understand you're an American, and as such, get way too much exercise, but for once, try spelling it out.

So what are the electors lying about that the Congress is unaware of? The popular vote decided where the electoral votes will go to. Nothing dishonest about that. A majority of states use that system. It's no different than when you vote for a Senator or House representative. Majority rules. And if you think the minority are somehow not getting their vote counted, that's the way a majority system works.

 

[Pogo]

But think of the money we can save when only New York and California have to hold presidential elections!

(/sarcastic font)

Isn't it interesting that Texas is always left out of that pairing.

Mmmm. Cherries!

 

[Pogo]

Ohioans might vote to ditch Electoral College. Who's behind the effort? That's a mystery

DemNazis...

If you cannot win fair, you need to change The Rules so you can cheat!

We are in a Civil War.

And The Dems are Invading this country from The Southern Border and attacking our Constitution in our courts and legislatures.

There is nothing holding the US together but force.

Stupefying how many wags here have never heard of the Constitution. Small wonder they want to ignore it.

 

[Pogo]

Ohioans might vote to ditch Electoral College. Who's behind the effort? That's a mystery

DemNazis...

If you cannot win fair, you need to change The Rules so you can cheat!

We are in a Civil War.

And The Dems are Invading this country from The Southern Border and attacking our Constitution in our courts and legislatures.

The delegates must vote as their people vote not the nation as a popular contest votes. They are crushing the US Constitution without doing it lawfully by amendment. The law will be struck down by the SCOTUS as it violates the Constitutional mandate.

Once AGAIN check your Constitution. Borrow my copy if you need to. I already posted the relevant passage upthread but the upshot is that ANY state can pick its electors ANY WAY IT WANTS, period. They could literally measure the left feet of the first sixteen men to leave church, convert it to centimeters, divide by 14.83 and consult a numerologist to make a name out of it. No election is even required. Never has been.

 

[Pogo]

Hey, what the state and 47 others are ALREADY saying is that the state is already forced to ignore everybody who didn't vote with the plurality, even if that's most of the state. Funny how you didn't mind it when one set of people was getting fucked, yet now you wanna play it differently when another one is.

Fine, then just dump the EC altogether and count everybody's vote. Simple.

So what? It's winner takes all which most states exercise. The majority still wins, just like Congressional and gubernatorial elections. What this bill does is create a possible loser takes all scenario.

Correct. As opposed to even if 56% voted for somebody else and the state cast 100% of its EVs for the 44% --- as happened in Utah.

And guess what ---- that was also Constitutional. The state (any state) could if it wanted hold an election and then ignore the voting results ENTIRELY and give its votes to some obscure entity who wasn't even running like Douglas Spotted Eagle or Harry Byrd. And that too would be perfectly Constitutional. And as for "no sense to vote at all, wake up and smell the stink Virginia, that's been going on as long as the insane WTA system created artificial "red states" and "blue states", NONE of whose voters have any reason to vote at all. Their state is predetermined, regardless whether they vote with it, vote against it, or don't vote at all. That's why our turnuout is abysmal. Because it's a sham.

Don't like it? Then dump the EC altogether.

It's most instructive that you keep falling back on this crutch whining that it's about "who will win", and then your argument is whining about "who will lose".

A state can change parties for a representative. Mass holes voted in a Republican Governor. If we in Ohio decided to become a totally red state, and this law forced us to vote blue, then it's not up to the people to select a side or candidate. The vote is over before it started. That's a disenfranchisement of voters and against the US Constitution.

Again, I'm not worried too much about this proposal as it isn't going anywhere. All our state legislatures would have to do if it passed is make a Faithless Elector law and that would be the end of it.

It's amusing you're still leaning on that crutch of "red states" and "blue states", an artificial concept that literally does not exist in the real world, as if it were something real. The only reason it even exists as an abstract is the WTA system. In actual reality there has never been, and there never will be, any state anywhere that votes unanimously for a POTUS (or for a governor or Senator either). That world literally does not exist. Yet there's the electors of 48 states going in front of Congress and lying about what their state selected, every. single. time.

You don't have a "red" state or a "blue" state. You have a purple state, same as the rest of us. The bottom line is, if WTA was not infecting the entire system, then this NPV compact would be unnecessary and would not even exist.

But when you do have an artificially "red" or "blue" state, because WTA does exist, THAT is a disenfranchisement of voters. But it's *STILL* not "against the US Constitution". AGAIN go ahead and show us that part of the COTUS that prohibits it. You can't do it. Doesn't exist.

I think "faithless elector" laws should all be struck down as unConstitutional too. If you're going to appoint an elector --- and then turn around and order them to vote a certain way ---- then what the fuck is the function of an elector at all? The whole idea of an elector was to consider and ruminate. If a state removes that function, THERE you have something against the US Constitution.

A faithless elector is one who does vote against the popular vote or for the party that nominated them regardless of the outcome. Some states do have penalties against faithless electors by fines or even nullifying their vote. Everybody should have that, perhaps even prison time.

I have no idea what a WTA is. I understand you're an American, and as such, get way too much exercise, but for once, try spelling it out.

So what are the electors lying about that the Congress is unaware of? The popular vote decided where the electoral votes will go to. Nothing dishonest about that. A majority of states use that system. It's no different than when you vote for a Senator or House representative. Majority rules. And if you think the minority are somehow not getting their vote counted, that's the way a majority system works.

You're actually sitting here in yet-another thread about the Electrical College and the NPV compact, after last week's 1800-post thread about the same thing, plus however many threads in the past --------------- and you have no idea what the issue is?

The memory is the second thing to go. Wave buh-bye. WTA is the Winner Take All system, the infection that degrades the EC into a sham, the very issue that's being discussed in three-quarters of all of these threads and the entire reason the NPV compact, as well as the other various proposals in the past, have been proposed in the first place.

You know, the shitstem that automatically throws your "red" vote out if you live in a "blue" state and vice versa? The one that severely depresses voter turnout because what's the point, your vote is irrelevant? The one that effectively prevents any third party from making any inroads, preserves the Duopoly and ensures that we get a constant diarrhea of Lesser Of Two Evils? The one that James Madison himself wanted to ban? The one that makes us all dependent on polls to find out if it's even worth getting out of bed on election day? The one that sends both (note limitation of two) candies to a handful of states while ignoring most of them because either the Red or the Blue has that state in the bag? The one that divides Americans completely artificially into bullshit concepts of "red states" and "blue states"? You're just figuring this out NOW??

Seriously? You want to knock the chessboard over and restart the whole game?

Holy shit man, catch UP.

 

[blackhawk]

Interesting article about how the electoral college came to be.
Opinion | The Electoral College Was Not a Pro-Slavery Ploy

 

[M14 Shooter]

What they are basically saying is that the EC will be forced to ignore the voters of their state, and vote with the national majority against the will of the states voters. This eliminates the entire concept of the electoral college and switches it to a national popular vote.

Oh gee. Does it do that?
Oh well. It's legal

Except for Article I Section 10:1, sure.

 

[Lesh]

Except for Article I Section 10:1, sure.

You're unaware of the fact that states can apportion their EC votes as they see fit?

Add that to the list

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except for Article I Section 10:1, sure.

You're unaware of the fact that states can apportion their EC votes as they see fit?

Since you refused to understand the information I gave you on the other thread, I'll repeat it here.

Article 1 Sec 10:3
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress....enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

This agreement violates the constitution, verbatim.

 

[Pogo]

Except for Article I Section 10:1, sure.

You're unaware of the fact that states can apportion their EC votes as they see fit?

Since you refused to understand the information I gave you on the other thread, I'll repeat it here.

Article 1 Sec 10:3
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress....enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

This agreement violates the constitution, verbatim.

Gonna plant your flag on that huh? It'll kinda make this hard to explain.

As well as reciprocal interstate compacts on traffic ticket driver's license points. Stuff like that. In practice, no interstate compact (zero) has ever been denied.

But then there's the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the laws to citizens:

>> In the 1968 case of Williams v. Rhodes (393 U.S. 23), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Article II's grant of power to the states is subject to the 14th Amendment.

"There of course can be no question but that this section does grant extensive power to the States to pass laws regulating the selection of electors. But the Constitution is filled with provisions that grant Congress or the States specific power to legislate in certain areas; these granted powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution. For example, Congress is granted broad power to ‘lay and collect Taxes,’ but the taxing power, broad as it is, may not be invoked in such a way as to violate the privilege against self-incrimination. Nor can it be thought that the power to select electors could be exercised in such a way as to violate express constitutional commands that specifically bar States from passing certain kinds of laws. Clearly, the Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments were intended to bar the Federal Government and the States from denying the right to vote on grounds of race and sex in presidential elections. ... Obviously we must reject the notion that Art. II, § 1, gives the States power to impose burdens on the right to vote where such burdens are expressly prohibited in other constitutional provisions. We therefore hold that no State can pass a law regulating elections that violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s command that ‘No State shall . . . deny to any person . . . the equal protection of the laws.’”

The plaintiffs in the lawsuits point out that a presidential election is a two-stage process to fill a single office. After counting all the votes for President cast in the state on Election Day in early November, the state then gives 100% of the state's electoral votes to the voters supporting the presidential candidate who received a plurality of the votes, while giving the supporters of other candidates no electoral votes. That is, the state counts and then immediately discards the votes cast by supporters of the other candidates. The votes cast by supporters of the other candidates do not get counted at the decisive second stage of the process (that is, the meeting of the Electoral College in mid-December). Thus, the supporters of the other candidates are shut out of decisive second stage of the process. << --- Linky Link
​

--- which means the WTA as exercised is already unConstitutional. Matter of fact there are lawsuits filed in California, Texas, Massachusetts and South Carolina on exactly that basis, REGARDLESS of this NPV compact. (ibid)

But before we get to all that ------------------ your assignment was to show the class where poster Lesh .... how did you put it again....

approves of shooting up baseball practices full of GOP congressmen.

Yeah, that.

Where is it?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Is the EC written into the Constitution?

You're joking right?

 

[Pogo]

Is the EC written into the Constitution?

You're joking right?

He lives on the other side of the earth.

 

[BlindBoo]

If they get Ohio, only 68 more to go.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hey, what the state and 47 others are ALREADY saying is that the state is already forced to ignore everybody who didn't vote with the plurality, even if that's most of the state. Funny how you didn't mind it when one set of people was getting fucked, yet now you wanna play it differently when another one is.

Fine, then just dump the EC altogether and count everybody's vote. Simple.

So what? It's winner takes all which most states exercise. The majority still wins, just like Congressional and gubernatorial elections. What this bill does is create a possible loser takes all scenario.

Correct. As opposed to even if 56% voted for somebody else and the state cast 100% of its EVs for the 44% --- as happened in Utah.

And guess what ---- that was also Constitutional. The state (any state) could if it wanted hold an election and then ignore the voting results ENTIRELY and give its votes to some obscure entity who wasn't even running like Douglas Spotted Eagle or Harry Byrd. And that too would be perfectly Constitutional. And as for "no sense to vote at all, wake up and smell the stink Virginia, that's been going on as long as the insane WTA system created artificial "red states" and "blue states", NONE of whose voters have any reason to vote at all. Their state is predetermined, regardless whether they vote with it, vote against it, or don't vote at all. That's why our turnuout is abysmal. Because it's a sham.

Don't like it? Then dump the EC altogether.

It's most instructive that you keep falling back on this crutch whining that it's about "who will win", and then your argument is whining about "who will lose".

A state can change parties for a representative. Mass holes voted in a Republican Governor. If we in Ohio decided to become a totally red state, and this law forced us to vote blue, then it's not up to the people to select a side or candidate. The vote is over before it started. That's a disenfranchisement of voters and against the US Constitution.

Again, I'm not worried too much about this proposal as it isn't going anywhere. All our state legislatures would have to do if it passed is make a Faithless Elector law and that would be the end of it.

It's amusing you're still leaning on that crutch of "red states" and "blue states", an artificial concept that literally does not exist in the real world, as if it were something real. The only reason it even exists as an abstract is the WTA system. In actual reality there has never been, and there never will be, any state anywhere that votes unanimously for a POTUS (or for a governor or Senator either). That world literally does not exist. Yet there's the electors of 48 states going in front of Congress and lying about what their state selected, every. single. time.

You don't have a "red" state or a "blue" state. You have a purple state, same as the rest of us. The bottom line is, if WTA was not infecting the entire system, then this NPV compact would be unnecessary and would not even exist.

But when you do have an artificially "red" or "blue" state, because WTA does exist, THAT is a disenfranchisement of voters. But it's *STILL* not "against the US Constitution". AGAIN go ahead and show us that part of the COTUS that prohibits it. You can't do it. Doesn't exist.

I think "faithless elector" laws should all be struck down as unConstitutional too. If you're going to appoint an elector --- and then turn around and order them to vote a certain way ---- then what the fuck is the function of an elector at all? The whole idea of an elector was to consider and ruminate. If a state removes that function, THERE you have something against the US Constitution.

A faithless elector is one who does vote against the popular vote or for the party that nominated them regardless of the outcome. Some states do have penalties against faithless electors by fines or even nullifying their vote. Everybody should have that, perhaps even prison time.

I have no idea what a WTA is. I understand you're an American, and as such, get way too much exercise, but for once, try spelling it out.

So what are the electors lying about that the Congress is unaware of? The popular vote decided where the electoral votes will go to. Nothing dishonest about that. A majority of states use that system. It's no different than when you vote for a Senator or House representative. Majority rules. And if you think the minority are somehow not getting their vote counted, that's the way a majority system works.

You're actually sitting here in yet-another thread about the Electrical College and the NPV compact, after last week's 1800-post thread about the same thing, plus however many threads in the past --------------- and you have no idea what the issue is?

The memory is the second thing to go. Wave buh-bye. WTA is the Winner Take All system, the infection that degrades the EC into a sham, the very issue that's being discussed in three-quarters of all of these threads and the entire reason the NPV compact, as well as the other various proposals in the past, have been proposed in the first place.

You know, the shitstem that automatically throws your "red" vote out if you live in a "blue" state and vice versa? The one that severely depresses voter turnout because what's the point, your vote is irrelevant? The one that effectively prevents any third party from making any inroads, preserves the Duopoly and ensures that we get a constant diarrhea of Lesser Of Two Evils? The one that James Madison himself wanted to ban? The one that makes us all dependent on polls to find out if it's even worth getting out of bed on election day? The one that sends both (note limitation of two) candies to a handful of states while ignoring most of them because either the Red or the Blue has that state in the bag? The one that divides Americans completely artificially into bullshit concepts of "red states" and "blue states"? You're just figuring this out NOW??

Seriously? You want to knock the chessboard over and restart the whole game?

Holy shit man, catch UP.

I know exactly what the issue is. I live here, remember?

This discussion is about the measure the commies are trying to get on the ballot, not just the electoral votes in general. They want to disenfranchise all voters by giving our electoral votes to whoever other states vote for.

Nobody is blocking any third party. If Kasich decided that he's going to enter the race as an Independent, and gets 50% of our votes compared to Trump's 25% and Beto's 25%, Kasich gets all our electoral votes. It can't be more fair than that, and as much as I can no longer stand the guy, I would concede he is rightly the states winner and deserving of those EC votes.

Now just be honest for once when I ask this question: If you vote for a Democrat Senator, and the Republican Senator wins, did your vote not get thrown out as well? How about for the House, for the Governor?

Yes, in a WTA system as you like to call it, the losers votes are tossed out. We have that in every race outside of the presidency, so why not keep it for the presidential electoral college as well? Now to your split vote suggestion:

Most of the founders didn't want a popular vote for reasons already discussed. So if we use a split-vote system, doesn't that in essence defeat the purpose of the electoral college? If every state had a split vote system, then we might as well get rid of the electoral college and go to popular vote because that's virtually what it would be. Heavily Democrat cities across each state would get a disproportionate amount of electoral votes and make the EC a PV system. I know as a Democrat you'd love that, but the rest of us want to keep the system as it is to be a little bit more fair to less populated states.