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

[Pogo]

Nope. NONE of those states recorded a vote of 50% or more for any candidate. I'm in one of them. In our case we have 15 electors, a conveniently odd number. Did we send 8 electors for Rump and 7 for Clinton? Or 7 for Rump, 6 for Clinton, one each for Johnson/Stein? No, they sent ALL FIFTEEN for Rump. Minority sweeps. THAT's the issue, nothing to do with "pluralities".

All of which means more than half of my state's voters --- as well as every other state on that list --- had their votes immediately shitcanned.

Go right ahead, look 'em up. I'm way ahead of you.

No, the plurality did sweep, and that's how it works.

The State can always change it to 2 EV's per statewide vote, and 1 each for each congressional district. That would be far more fair and more apt to match the popular vote (but who cares) than making your vote beholden to a plurality outside your own State.

Yeah they could do that ------ but they won't. They won't for the same reason they all caved in on WTA in the first place: state status. A state using WTA has more influence than a state apportioning proportionately. If your state gives it up, your neighboring states have more swagger. So clearly that's not going to happen because of mob mentality.

And that's where NPV comes in to undo that electoral cartel.

It's an end run around the proper procedure, amending the constitution. It should be thrown out by the SC just on that point alone.

It's amazing how far progressives will go to get their way, rules be damned.

It doesn't REQUIRE an Amendment. It's a simple agreement between states party to that agreement, that those states will revamp the way they choose electors. That decision --- how they choose electors --- is **COMPLETELY** up to each state, so they absolutely have standing to do that.

If by "proper procedure" you refer to WTA ---- and you must be referring to that ---- it literally DOES NOT EXIST anywhere in the Constitution, so there is nothing to "end around". The end-around is circumventing the WTA system, which is nothing but several individual states choosing that method per the above (see COTUS Article II clause 2, to wit:

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. )
​

Not a damn thing in there about what the "proper procedure" is. "Proper" my ass. So in this case the states involved direct a different manner than they had been using before. That -- the idea of changing the method -- has happened dozens of times in the past; this is simply one more. It ain't rocket surgery. Any given state can, if it wishes, LITERALLY flip a coin.

As far as "Progressives" they've been gone for a century but the fact remains this here NPV compact has broad bipartisan support.


And there's nothing you can do about any of that. But you go ahead and show the class these "rules" of "proper procedure" that somehow "require" WTA. Happy huntin'.

To do that you have to ignore my 3 points made about OTHER parts of the constitution that seem to say this type of agreement doesn't work.

Bipartisan support?

BULLSHIT. It's a dem move only. Stop lying, oxygen thief.

Sorry Snowflake ------------ read 'em and weep.

• Newt Gingrich (link to his letter)...
• Bob Barr (link to his letter soliciting support)....
• Former Reps John B. Anderson (R-IL), John Buchanan (R-AL) and Tom Campbell (R-CA)
• Twenty-five Michigan state senators --- fifteen of whom are Republicans....
• Survey of Michigan voters --- with support from more than two-thirds of Republicans....
• Similar survey of Missouri voters -- with support from more than three-quarters or Republican respondents....
• Yet another survey in Arizona, again with over 75% Republican support....
• Republican-controlled state legislative chambers in Arizona, New York and Oklahoma having already passed it....
• Former Sens. Jake Garn (R-UT) and David Durenberger (R-MN)
• Eight former ALEC chairs....

Hm. Wasn't there somebody else? Oh yes ---- Rump.
"I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play."

Howzat for "Dem only", jerkoff?

 

[BlindBoo]

Once again ---- it has broad bipartisan support. We've mentioned Newt Gingrich. John B. Anderson. Jake Garn. Some others I'd have to look up. Has nothing to do with political parties.

I love it.

One thing we can always count on with dims --

You're always campaigning to win the last election......

I'm telling you right now, a popular vote (which is what you're really going for here) might just surprise the hell out of you.

Untold MILLIONS of Patriotic Conservatives in places like Kalifornication, New Yawk, Illinoisy, The People's Republic of Massachusetts, etc, etc, etc just don't bother to vote.

dimocrap scum have managed to disenfranchise them to the point of realizing that voting in those States is utterly futile. No matter what, the dimocrap is gonna win.

And Conservatives know it.

I would welcome a National Popular Vote.

You people would get thrown from office so fast, it wouldn't even be funny.

And, if not....... If you retain your criminal ways........ Do you remember the quote from Jefferson about ''The Tree of Liberty...."?

You really should keep that in mind. It's getting much, much closer to realization than you can possibly imagine

I don't know, a lot of freaks moved to the country.

There is nothing in the Constitution that deprives the States the right to choose the manner in which they select their electors.

Since you refused to understand the information I gave you previously, 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.

Well let me repeat myself right back. There is legal precedent that only agreements or compacts that challenge the supremacy of the Federal Government need the Consent of Congress. Has Congress refused to give their consent? Has the question even been asked?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is legal precedent that only agreements or compacts that challenge the supremacy of the Federal Government need the Consent of Congress.

Cite, please.

 

[BlindBoo]

It does not violate the Constitution, why should it be thrown out other than your own butthurt?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

It violates the requirement for States to have a Republican form of government.

It violates one person one vote imposed on the States via the 14th.

it violates The ban on States making compacts without the consent of congress. (and congress giving it would probably violate the checks and balances between the branches)

It has nothing to do with the State's form of Government.

It stops no one from voting.

They probably don't need the consent of Congress, but I understand they will ask for it if/when there are enough states in agreement.

It eliminates a person's vote for president, effectively giving control of it to people in other States.

A majority in the State could vote for person X, but the compact gives electors to person Y.

It's amazing how short sighted partisan idiots get when they think they may get an advantage.

No, it puts everyone's vote across all 50 states on the same equal footing.

I agree it is short sighted and can (if ever passed) easily be overturned by a single State legislature. The best solution is for an Amendment.

That is against the concept of the EC and presidential elections. And I still think it violates all 3 of the constitutional issues I listed, but it only has to violate 1 to be stomped by the SC.

Okay? So what? The EC was a great concept for a 1786 fledgling Republic. Not so much for the world of instantaneous communications or in the worlds remaining superpower. It is the most democratic way to select the man who represents us.

I don't think it violate any of the 3.

 

[martybegan]

No, the plurality did sweep, and that's how it works.

The State can always change it to 2 EV's per statewide vote, and 1 each for each congressional district. That would be far more fair and more apt to match the popular vote (but who cares) than making your vote beholden to a plurality outside your own State.

Yeah they could do that ------ but they won't. They won't for the same reason they all caved in on WTA in the first place: state status. A state using WTA has more influence than a state apportioning proportionately. If your state gives it up, your neighboring states have more swagger. So clearly that's not going to happen because of mob mentality.

And that's where NPV comes in to undo that electoral cartel.

It's an end run around the proper procedure, amending the constitution. It should be thrown out by the SC just on that point alone.

It's amazing how far progressives will go to get their way, rules be damned.

It doesn't REQUIRE an Amendment. It's a simple agreement between states party to that agreement, that those states will revamp the way they choose electors. That decision --- how they choose electors --- is **COMPLETELY** up to each state, so they absolutely have standing to do that.

If by "proper procedure" you refer to WTA ---- and you must be referring to that ---- it literally DOES NOT EXIST anywhere in the Constitution, so there is nothing to "end around". The end-around is circumventing the WTA system, which is nothing but several individual states choosing that method per the above (see COTUS Article II clause 2, to wit:

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. )
​

Not a damn thing in there about what the "proper procedure" is. "Proper" my ass. So in this case the states involved direct a different manner than they had been using before. That -- the idea of changing the method -- has happened dozens of times in the past; this is simply one more. It ain't rocket surgery. Any given state can, if it wishes, LITERALLY flip a coin.

As far as "Progressives" they've been gone for a century but the fact remains this here NPV compact has broad bipartisan support.


And there's nothing you can do about any of that. But you go ahead and show the class these "rules" of "proper procedure" that somehow "require" WTA. Happy huntin'.

To do that you have to ignore my 3 points made about OTHER parts of the constitution that seem to say this type of agreement doesn't work.

Bipartisan support?

BULLSHIT. It's a dem move only. Stop lying, oxygen thief.

Sorry Snowflake ------------ read 'em and weep.

• Newt Gingrich (link to his letter)...
• Bob Barr (link to his letter soliciting support)....
• Former Reps John B. Anderson (R-IL), John Buchanan (R-AL) and Tom Campbell (R-CA)
• Twenty-five Michigan state senators --- fifteen of whom are Republicans....
• Survey of Michigan voters --- with support from more than two-thirds of Republicans....
• Similar survey of Missouri voters -- with support from more than three-quarters or Republican respondents....
• Yet another survey in Arizona, again with over 75% Republican support....
• Republican-controlled state legislative chambers in Arizona, New York and Oklahoma having already passed it....
• Former Sens. Jake Garn (R-UT) and David Durenberger (R-MN)
• Eight former ALEC chairs....

Hm. Wasn't there somebody else? Oh yes ---- Rump.
"I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play."

Howzat for "Dem only", jerkoff?

Wow, a few examples....

Unconstitutional idiots all of them, even Trump.

Republicans are well known for allowing Dems to shit on them with things like this.

It's still unconstitutional you sniveling twat.

 

[martybegan]

It violates the requirement for States to have a Republican form of government.

It violates one person one vote imposed on the States via the 14th.

it violates The ban on States making compacts without the consent of congress. (and congress giving it would probably violate the checks and balances between the branches)

It has nothing to do with the State's form of Government.

It stops no one from voting.

They probably don't need the consent of Congress, but I understand they will ask for it if/when there are enough states in agreement.

It eliminates a person's vote for president, effectively giving control of it to people in other States.

A majority in the State could vote for person X, but the compact gives electors to person Y.

It's amazing how short sighted partisan idiots get when they think they may get an advantage.

No, it puts everyone's vote across all 50 states on the same equal footing.

I agree it is short sighted and can (if ever passed) easily be overturned by a single State legislature. The best solution is for an Amendment.

That is against the concept of the EC and presidential elections. And I still think it violates all 3 of the constitutional issues I listed, but it only has to violate 1 to be stomped by the SC.

Okay? So what? The EC was a great concept for a 1786 fledgling Republic. Not so much for the world of instantaneous communications or in the worlds remaining superpower. It is the most democratic way to select the man who represents us.

I don't think it violate any of the 3.

you would be wrong.

The federal government as used now would be 10 times worse if the President wasn't voted by States instead of directly.

 

[BlindBoo]

There is legal precedent that only agreements or compacts that challenge the supremacy of the Federal Government need the Consent of Congress.

Cite, please.

Congressional Consent and the Permission for States to Enter into Interstate Compacts | CSG Knowledge Center

The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that “any” does not mean “all” in the context of interstate compacts and congressional consent. To clear up the ambiguity of the compact clause, the U.S. Supreme Court in Virginia v. Tennessee held that Congress must approve only two types of compacts:

• Those compacts that alter the balance of political power between the state and federal government; or
• Those compacts that intrude on a power reserved to Congress.

Thus, when a compact does not touch on either of those two items, the courts have ruled the federal government does not have a direct interest in the compact and congressional consent is not technically required.2 Essentially, if federal supremacy is threatened, then congressional consent is required for the compact to be valid. On the other hand, if federal supremacy is not threatened, then an absence of congressional consent will not render the compact invalid.

 

[Pogo]

Once again ---- it has broad bipartisan support. We've mentioned Newt Gingrich. John B. Anderson. Jake Garn. Some others I'd have to look up. Has nothing to do with political parties.

I love it.

One thing we can always count on with dims --

You're always campaigning to win the last election....

Yyyyyyyyyeaaah, once again, so sorry to disappoint but (a) I'm not a "dim" and (b) this critical look at the WTA-EC has been going on for going on two hundred years, all the way back to its first critic James Madison.

I'm telling you right now, a popular vote (which is what you're really going for here) might just surprise the hell out of you.

Untold MILLIONS of Patriotic Conservatives in places like Kalifornication, New Yawk, Illinoisy, The People's Republic of Massachusetts, etc, etc, etc just don't bother to vote.

No shit, Sherlock. I've been pointing that out from the beginning --- it's one of the main complaints about this shitstem. Thanks for the backup. As I've said about 848,269,723 times, everybody who lives in a "locked red" or "locked blue" state can go vote with their state, vote against their state, vote third party, or stay home and bake a cake, and all four actions bring exactly the same result with the exception that Option Four gets you some cake. That's why millions of voters don't even bother and our national turnout rate is an abysmally embarrassing 55% --- because what's the point. But thanks for making me state the same thing ALL OVER AGAIN just because you were too fucking lazy to read it the first 848,269,722 time. 'Preciate that.

As I've also noted the same number of times, we have NO IDEA what the end result would be, directly BECAUSE OF that contingent. Because there is no such thing as a "red state" or a "blue state". These are artificial bullshit concepts foisted on us by this corrupt WTA system that depresses turnout, perpetuates the Duopoly, keeps candidates out of "locked" states because again what's the point, makes us all dependent on polls to find out if it's even worth getting out of bed in the morning, and systematically tosses millions of votes directly into the shitcan, including majorities of the state's voters in states like mine. And Florida. And Michigan. And Virginia. And AridZona. And Colorado. etc etc etc.

Now read that back to me 848,269,723 times, get off your ass, get out of your pig-ignorance and learn to read.

dimocrap scum have managed to disenfranchise them to the point of realizing that voting in those States is utterly futile. No matter what, the dimocrap is gonna win.

And Conservatives know it.

I would welcome a National Popular Vote.

You people would get thrown from office so fast, it wouldn't even be funny.

"You people"?
Who in the wide wide world of blue fuck is "you people"? I don't hold an office, jerkweed.

Good to have you aboard but stay in the corner where nobody will see you. It's embarrassing.

And, if not....... If you retain your criminal ways........ Do you remember the quote from Jefferson about ''The Tree of Liberty...."?

Yuh huh.
And what "criminal ways" would these be, retardo fuckbag with the brain of a turnip?

Jefferson? The guy who "wanted the Electoral College to yield winners who were more reflective of the prevailing sentiment among the American people"? Yeah, he's one of us. Sucks to be you.

You really should keep that in mind. It's getting much, much closer to realization than you can possibly imagine

It's impressive how you can hit "post reply" while drooling on the floor. Really is.

 

[Fang]

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 constitution gives the states the power to choose how they select their Electors and how they will vote.

you cannot shit on the constitution by doing something it gives the power to do

/——/ The Constitution trumps state law and the EC is the constitution

Let me type this a bit slower for you since you have such poor reading comprehension...

The constitution gives the states the power to choose how they select their Electors and how they will vote.

It's not as simple as you're claiming.

...States Legislatures pass laws agreeing to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, but it only kicks in when enough states sign on to add up to 270 electoral votes.

...But that still leaves a key question: If the compact ever got to that 270-threshold, could states award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, or would Congress need to sign off?

If the compact ever meets that benchmark, it’s likely that someone would file a challenge. It’s likely the U.S. Supreme Court would have to rule on whether the system is permissible.

The Compact Clause of the Constitution states that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power." The courts have ruled in the past that if federal supremacy is threatened, then congressional consent is required for a compact to be valid.

Could states overturn the electoral college?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is legal precedent that only agreements or compacts that challenge the supremacy of the Federal Government need the Consent of Congress.

Cite, please.

Congressional Consent and the Permission for States to Enter into Interstate Compacts | CSG Knowledge Center

This is why you have to read the cases.
Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893)

In the opinion explaining the case:
The compact or agreement will then be within the prohibition of the Constitution, or without it, according as the establishment of the boundary line may lead or not to the increase of the political power or influence of the states affected and thus encroach or not upon the full and free exercise of federal authority. If the boundary established is so run as to cut off an important and valuable portion of a state, the political power of the state enlarged would be affected by the settlement of the boundary, and to an agreement for the running of such a boundary, or rather for its adoption afterwards, the consent of Congress may well be required.

In the case of the NPV, , we have a number of states conspiring to remove something of value from other states - the power of their electoral votes- and in doing so, increase their own political power and influence -- the electoral votes of the states not party to the compact will never matter as the states within the compact will always outweigh their votes. Given the clear parallel to example, above, the consent of congress is required.

 

[Pogo]

Once again ---- it has broad bipartisan support. We've mentioned Newt Gingrich. John B. Anderson. Jake Garn. Some others I'd have to look up. Has nothing to do with political parties.

I love it.

One thing we can always count on with dims --

You're always campaigning to win the last election......

I'm telling you right now, a popular vote (which is what you're really going for here) might just surprise the hell out of you.

Untold MILLIONS of Patriotic Conservatives in places like Kalifornication, New Yawk, Illinoisy, The People's Republic of Massachusetts, etc, etc, etc just don't bother to vote.

dimocrap scum have managed to disenfranchise them to the point of realizing that voting in those States is utterly futile. No matter what, the dimocrap is gonna win.

And Conservatives know it.

I would welcome a National Popular Vote.

You people would get thrown from office so fast, it wouldn't even be funny.

And, if not....... If you retain your criminal ways........ Do you remember the quote from Jefferson about ''The Tree of Liberty...."?

You really should keep that in mind. It's getting much, much closer to realization than you can possibly imagine

I don't know, a lot of freaks moved to the country.

There is nothing in the Constitution that deprives the States the right to choose the manner in which they select their electors.

Since you refused to understand the information I gave you previously, 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.

Well let me repeat myself right back. There is legal precedent that only agreements or compacts that challenge the supremacy of the Federal Government need the Consent of Congress. Has Congress refused to give their consent? Has the question even been asked?

I don't believe there is any interstate compact that has ever been denied. It's pretty much automatic. Such interstate co-agreements are common for stuff like taxation, reciprocal traffic violation points, etc.

 

[BlindBoo]

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 constitution gives the states the power to choose how they select their Electors and how they will vote.

you cannot shit on the constitution by doing something it gives the power to do

/——/ The Constitution trumps state law and the EC is the constitution

Let me type this a bit slower for you since you have such poor reading comprehension...

The constitution gives the states the power to choose how they select their Electors and how they will vote.

It's not as simple as you're claiming.

...States Legislatures pass laws agreeing to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, but it only kicks in when enough states sign on to add up to 270 electoral votes.

...But that still leaves a key question: If the compact ever got to that 270-threshold, could states award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, or would Congress need to sign off?

If the compact ever meets that benchmark, it’s likely that someone would file a challenge. It’s likely the U.S. Supreme Court would have to rule on whether the system is permissible.

The Compact Clause of the Constitution states that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power." The courts have ruled in the past that if federal supremacy is threatened, then congressional consent is required for a compact to be valid.

Could states overturn the electoral college?

Suit has already been filed.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah they could do that ------ but they won't. They won't for the same reason they all caved in on WTA in the first place: state status. A state using WTA has more influence than a state apportioning proportionately. If your state gives it up, your neighboring states have more swagger. So clearly that's not going to happen because of mob mentality.

And that's where NPV comes in to undo that electoral cartel.

It's an end run around the proper procedure, amending the constitution. It should be thrown out by the SC just on that point alone.

It's amazing how far progressives will go to get their way, rules be damned.

It doesn't REQUIRE an Amendment. It's a simple agreement between states party to that agreement, that those states will revamp the way they choose electors. That decision --- how they choose electors --- is **COMPLETELY** up to each state, so they absolutely have standing to do that.

If by "proper procedure" you refer to WTA ---- and you must be referring to that ---- it literally DOES NOT EXIST anywhere in the Constitution, so there is nothing to "end around". The end-around is circumventing the WTA system, which is nothing but several individual states choosing that method per the above (see COTUS Article II clause 2, to wit:

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. )
​

Not a damn thing in there about what the "proper procedure" is. "Proper" my ass. So in this case the states involved direct a different manner than they had been using before. That -- the idea of changing the method -- has happened dozens of times in the past; this is simply one more. It ain't rocket surgery. Any given state can, if it wishes, LITERALLY flip a coin.

As far as "Progressives" they've been gone for a century but the fact remains this here NPV compact has broad bipartisan support.


And there's nothing you can do about any of that. But you go ahead and show the class these "rules" of "proper procedure" that somehow "require" WTA. Happy huntin'.

To do that you have to ignore my 3 points made about OTHER parts of the constitution that seem to say this type of agreement doesn't work.

Bipartisan support?

BULLSHIT. It's a dem move only. Stop lying, oxygen thief.

Sorry Snowflake ------------ read 'em and weep.

• Newt Gingrich (link to his letter)...
• Bob Barr (link to his letter soliciting support)....
• Former Reps John B. Anderson (R-IL), John Buchanan (R-AL) and Tom Campbell (R-CA)
• Twenty-five Michigan state senators --- fifteen of whom are Republicans....
• Survey of Michigan voters --- with support from more than two-thirds of Republicans....
• Similar survey of Missouri voters -- with support from more than three-quarters or Republican respondents....
• Yet another survey in Arizona, again with over 75% Republican support....
• Republican-controlled state legislative chambers in Arizona, New York and Oklahoma having already passed it....
• Former Sens. Jake Garn (R-UT) and David Durenberger (R-MN)
• Eight former ALEC chairs....

Hm. Wasn't there somebody else? Oh yes ---- Rump.
"I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play."

Howzat for "Dem only", jerkoff?

Wow, a few examples....

Unconstitutional idiots all of them, even Trump.

Republicans are well known for allowing Dems to shit on them with things like this.

It's still unconstitutional you sniveling twat.

You keep shitting the word "unconstitutional" with no idea what it means.

That's why you can't find any part of the Constitution to make that case. There isn't one.
They kinda thought of that when they made this plan.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 constitution gives the states the power to choose how they select their Electors and how they will vote.

you cannot shit on the constitution by doing something it gives the power to do

That's always a popular leftist line, isn't it? "We're not breaking the law if we just twist it to do the opposite of what it intends."

Does it ever bother you that the only people who don't derisively spit on your tortured excuses are the other unhinged, embittered losers? It's already obvious that your hypocrisy bothers you not at all.

 

[Pogo]

There is legal precedent that only agreements or compacts that challenge the supremacy of the Federal Government need the Consent of Congress.

Cite, please.

Congressional Consent and the Permission for States to Enter into Interstate Compacts | CSG Knowledge Center

This is why you have to read the cases.
Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893)

In the opinion explaining the case:
The compact or agreement will then be within the prohibition of the Constitution, or without it, according as the establishment of the boundary line may lead or not to the increase of the political power or influence of the states affected and thus encroach or not upon the full and free exercise of federal authority. If the boundary established is so run as to cut off an important and valuable portion of a state, the political power of the state enlarged would be affected by the settlement of the boundary, and to an agreement for the running of such a boundary, or rather for its adoption afterwards, the consent of Congress may well be required.

In the case of the NPV, , we have a number of states conspiring to remove something of value from other states - the power of their electoral votes- and in doing so, increase their own political power and influence -- the electoral votes of the states not party to the compact will never matter as the states within the compact will always outweigh their votes. Given the clear parallel to example, above, the consent of congress is required.

BULLSHIT.

Again *EVERY* state is free to assign its electors in any way it wants. What method State A chooses has no bearing on what State B chooses. State B continues to render its votes as IT wants as well. One does not affect the other.

The legal passage you quote is an example of what this clause was primarily designed to address --- boundary lines. A state line affects the states on BOTH sides of it; a voting scheme --- does not.

BESIDES WHICH you're still supposed to be finding us this evidence of a poster celebrating shootings. You're still failing to do that. Which also makes you a liar.

 

[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 constitution gives the states the power to choose how they select their Electors and how they will vote.

you cannot shit on the constitution by doing something it gives the power to do

That's always a popular leftist line, isn't it? "We're not breaking the law if we just twist it to do the opposite of what it intends."

Does it ever bother you that the only people who don't derisively spit on your tortured excuses are the other unhinged, embittered losers? It's already obvious that your hypocrisy bothers you not at all.

THERE IS NO LAW requiring most of the states to use WTA.

Go ahead and try to prove me wrong.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 constitution gives the states the power to choose how they select their Electors and how they will vote.

you cannot shit on the constitution by doing something it gives the power to do

/——/ The Constitution trumps state law and the EC is the constitution

Let me type this a bit slower for you since you have such poor reading comprehension...

The constitution gives the states the power to choose how they select their Electors and how they will vote.

Are you familiar with the concept of "reserved and delegated powers"?

 

[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 constitution gives the states the power to choose how they select their Electors and how they will vote.

you cannot shit on the constitution by doing something it gives the power to do

/——/ The Constitution trumps state law and the EC is the constitution

Let me type this a bit slower for you since you have such poor reading comprehension...

The constitution gives the states the power to choose how they select their Electors and how they will vote.

It's not as simple as you're claiming.

...States Legislatures pass laws agreeing to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, but it only kicks in when enough states sign on to add up to 270 electoral votes.

...But that still leaves a key question: If the compact ever got to that 270-threshold, could states award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, or would Congress need to sign off?

If the compact ever meets that benchmark, it’s likely that someone would file a challenge. It’s likely the U.S. Supreme Court would have to rule on whether the system is permissible.

The Compact Clause of the Constitution states that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power." The courts have ruled in the past that if federal supremacy is threatened, then congressional consent is required for a compact to be valid.

Could states overturn the electoral college?

And this one doesn't threaten federal anything. The Constitution plainly allots to the several states the decision of how they allocate their electoral votes. This is simply another way of doing it.

If it wanted a state could consult a psychic to ascertain how its votes get allocated. It could spin a wheel. It could draw names out of a hat.

 

[BlindBoo]

There is legal precedent that only agreements or compacts that challenge the supremacy of the Federal Government need the Consent of Congress.

Cite, please.

Congressional Consent and the Permission for States to Enter into Interstate Compacts | CSG Knowledge Center

This is why you have to read the cases.
Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893)

In the opinion explaining the case:
The compact or agreement will then be within the prohibition of the Constitution, or without it, according as the establishment of the boundary line may lead or not to the increase of the political power or influence of the states affected and thus encroach or not upon the full and free exercise of federal authority. If the boundary established is so run as to cut off an important and valuable portion of a state, the political power of the state enlarged would be affected by the settlement of the boundary, and to an agreement for the running of such a boundary, or rather for its adoption afterwards, the consent of Congress may well be required.

In the case of the NPV, , we have a number of states conspiring to remove something of value from other states - the power of their electoral votes- and in doing so, increase their own political power and influence -- the electoral votes of the states not party to the compact will never matter as the states within the compact will always outweigh their votes. Given the clear parallel to example, above, the consent of congress is required.

All the states have the absolute right to choose the way they select their electors. There is no constitutional method of selecting electors that Congress could impose on the states.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The electoral college was born of slave owners to protect slavery from the abolitionist north. It's origins are tainted and it's original purpose no longer exists. People like to explain that it protects rural voters from irrelevance but what it really does is make minority party votes worthless. If you vote democrat in a red state or republican in a blue state your vote has probably never counted. I want my vote to count.

That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You have no understanding of this republic

Does that surprise you?