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

[Bush92]

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.

Democrats hate differences of opinion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is the EC written into the Constitution?

I'm sorry to say it is;

The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. ... A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President.
U. S. Electoral College, Official - What is the Electoral College?

U. S. Electoral College, Official - What is the Electoral College?


however...It is my contention that people living to day shouldn't be bound by the mistakes of our founders.

they allowed slavery
we fixed that
women couldn't vote
we fixed that
The EC is no longer necessary and isn't allocated fairly. Time for it to go.

Feel free to put that Amendment up for ratification. But stop trying to weasel around the Constitution to impose your desires onto people. Present your alleged "superiority" to the Founders honestly where everyone can laugh at you derisively as you deserve.

"weasel"
"impose"
"laugh at you"


The difference between you and me is the difference between liberals and conservatives.

I am capable of having a reasonable discussion without resorting to insults and mockery.

I don't think you can.


I am so thankful I am SUPERIOR to you in pretty much every way!

The difference between you and me is the difference between conservatives and leftists.

You think "reasonable discussion" is defined by pretending to be nice, and respect is earned simply by breathing in and out.

I think it's defined by saying things that actually make sense and have a grounding in reality, and I have no patience with stupidity demanding that I treat it like intelligence.

I have no idea if I can behave like a superficial dimwit the way you do, because I've never had any desire to try.

If you're too frail a flower to handle the existence of people who say what they want instead of what you tell them to, do feel free to turn tail and hie your sniveling, crybaby ass to a safe space. I'm sure there's a nice yoga message board you could join. If you're going to stay here, adjust yourself to the fact that you don't pay for my Internet, and I don't respect you enough to piss on you if you were on fire. So there's no chance at all that you're going to PC-bully into censoring myself to suit you.

Strap on a pair and quit whining, Nancy. Didn't care what you wanted before, don't care now, never going to care.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is the EC written into the Constitution?

I'm sorry to say it is;

The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. ... A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President.
U. S. Electoral College, Official - What is the Electoral College?

U. S. Electoral College, Official - What is the Electoral College?


however...It is my contention that people living to day shouldn't be bound by the mistakes of our founders.

they allowed slavery
we fixed that
women couldn't vote
we fixed that
The EC is no longer necessary and isn't allocated fairly. Time for it to go.

Feel free to put that Amendment up for ratification. But stop trying to weasel around the Constitution to impose your desires onto people. Present your alleged "superiority" to the Founders honestly where everyone can laugh at you derisively as you deserve.

Here are some conservative "weasels"

Shall we laugh at them?

or do they deserve respect?

Conservatives seek constitutional convention of the states under ...

https://www.washingtontimes.com/.../conservatives-seek-constitutional-convention-stat...
Nov 4, 2018 - They're pushing for an unprecedented constitutional convention of the states. While opponents are afraid of what such a convention would do, ...

Yeah, uh, you might want to look up the term "weasel", because you have once again shit the bed in your attempt to be clever.

I get that you're a leftist, and by definition you're both uneducated as to how the government works and why, and inexperienced in logical thinking. So I'll try to spell this out in the simplest, most dumbed-down vocabulary I can manage.

Just because what they are doing and what you leftist ass kittens are doing both contain the word "Constitution" doesn't actually make them the same, or even comparable (sorry, that word means "things you can compare to each other").

They are using a Constitutional provision exactly as it was intended to be used, for the purpose for which it was intended.

YOU are attempting to use a Constitutional provision to do exactly the opposite of what the Constitution intended.

One is applying the law; the other is twisting it. Hence the phrase "weasel around", which I realize now I should have explained instead of assuming that you would be able to figure it out.

weasel | Definition of weasel in English by Oxford Dictionaries

VERB
[NO OBJECT]

• 1Achieve something by use of cunning or deceit.
  

So I respect them, but I continue to respect you every time you open your candy-assed, whinging piehole.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 would compel the Supreme Court to strike down such a shenanigan. In short is says no State shall "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State" without the consent of Congress. I would think this section of Clause 3 would especially apply to States trying to circumvent the Constitution.

So I wouldn't get too upset about it.

.

I believe they're claiming that this doesn't require Congressional consent.

Although the Constitution’s text requires that interstate compacts be approved by Congress, NPV advocates claim congressional approval of NPV is not necessary. They observe that in U.S. Steel v. Multistate Tax Comm’n (1978) the Supreme Court held that Congress must approve a compact only when the compact increases state power at the expense of federal power.

NPV advocates may be wrong about congressional approval. It is unclear that the justices would follow U.S. Steel’s ruling now. The Constitution’s language requiring congressional approval is crystal clear, and the court today is much more respectful of the Constitution’s text and historical meaning than it was in 1978. Moreover, you can make a good argument that U.S. Steel requires congressional approval for NPV because NPV would weaken federal institutions: It would (1) abolish the role of the U.S. House of Representatives in the electoral process and (2) alter the presidential election system without congressional involvement. Furthermore, even the U.S. Steel case suggested that compacts require congressional approval whenever they “impact … our federal structure.” - Robert Natelson

Very true, the NPV would basically nullify States authority under our federal system to have a say in the election of the president. Essentially transferring all the electoral power to the most populous States. No way the Supremes will allow that, well at least if they have any respect for the founding principles.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You must live in a state where your vote counts for something.

I did a quick calculation and I came up to about 55 million people cast votes in states for a candidate that had zero chance to win that state (I used the winner taking more than 60% of the vote as my cutoff.)

So you’d rather have New York and California vote and let the rest of the nation’s votes not count? I agree the winner take all model however dividing the EC in states would better represent the Republic.

About 130 million people voted in the last election, 16% of those were in Cali or NY. How does 16% make the rest of the nation not count?

In the 2016 election, roughly 55 million people voted in states for a candidate that had no realistic chance to win that state. That means that roughly 42% of the people cast votes knowing they would not count in the winner take all system we now have.

Please learn the difference between losing an election and "not counting" in an election.

I know the difference, if you candidate lost the state then your vote does not count in the election of the President as you have not accounted for any electoral votes.

please learn how our system works

So when you say, "I know the difference", what you actually mean is, "I think there is no difference." Which means that when you babble about your vote counting, what you're actually saying is that you believe the system should be fixed so that the person you vote for wins.

That's very much in keeping with your previous statements that people who disagree with you "don't really matter". Not so much with your pretense of concern about democracy, but I'm sure that's fixed by the fact that you've made up your own definition for THAT word, too.

 

[OKTexas]

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 problem is this is being done by democratic law makers and not the voting public. Here in Colorado Gov. Polis signed the law which was passed by the democratically controlled state legislature. The people had no input whatsoever.

Essentially what this means, that every voter in Colorado could vote for canidate A, but if canidate B won the PV, all of Colorado electoral votes would go to B. It’s possible for a state to vote heavily against a canidate, but have their electoral votes hand the election to the other canidate. It’s nuetering the small states influence. It is a long way from the spirit of the constitution IMO.

Seems like the people of Colorado need to rise up and get their politicians under control.

One of my brothers-in-law is moving to TX because of the way CO is going. He's lived there almost 40 years.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 would compel the Supreme Court to strike down such a shenanigan. In short is says no State shall "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State" without the consent of Congress. I would think this section of Clause 3 would especially apply to States trying to circumvent the Constitution.

So I wouldn't get too upset about it.

Yeah, it doesn't. There IS NO circumvention of the Constitution.

Wrong again commie, the States are given the power to allocate electors based on how their citizens vote, winner take all or proportional. They can not engage in a multi-state compact to award their electors base on the votes of other States citizens, without the consent of Congress.

.

One point that was made regarding the fools who want to pretend that the power of the States to choose allocation is completely unlimited is this question: if a state decided to sell its Electoral votes to the highest bidder, would you think that was Constitutional as well? Would you think the Supreme Court would uphold that as a valid exercise of the state's power?

No way in hell, would the supremes allow that.

.

 

[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 problem is this is being done by democratic law makers and not the voting public. Here in Colorado Gov. Polis signed the law which was passed by the democratically controlled state legislature. The people had no input whatsoever.

Essentially what this means, that every voter in Colorado could vote for canidate A, but if canidate B won the PV, all of Colorado electoral votes would go to B. It’s possible for a state to vote heavily against a canidate, but have their electoral votes hand the election to the other canidate. It’s nuetering the small states influence. It is a long way from the spirit of the constitution IMO.

Seems like the people of Colorado need to rise up and get their politicians under control.

One of my brothers-in-law is moving to TX because of the way CO is going. He's lived there almost 40 years.

.

If I were going to move out of Arizona - and it's tempting, after they let that ugly, strident cow Sinema steal the election - I'd move to Texas.

 

[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.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 would compel the Supreme Court to strike down such a shenanigan. In short is says no State shall "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State" without the consent of Congress. I would think this section of Clause 3 would especially apply to States trying to circumvent the Constitution.

So I wouldn't get too upset about it.

Yeah, it doesn't. There IS NO circumvention of the Constitution.

Wrong again commie, the States are given the power to allocate electors based on how their citizens vote, winner take all or proportional. They can not engage in a multi-state compact to award their electors base on the votes of other States citizens, without the consent of Congress.

.

One point that was made regarding the fools who want to pretend that the power of the States to choose allocation is completely unlimited is this question: if a state decided to sell its Electoral votes to the highest bidder, would you think that was Constitutional as well? Would you think the Supreme Court would uphold that as a valid exercise of the state's power?

No way in hell, would the supremes allow that.

.

Obviously, but the shortsighted fools who keep insisting the Constitution gives states unlimited power on this subject have never considered what that would actually mean.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm curious if any leftist actually has the sac to address this. Haven't found one so far.

If the power delegated to the states by the Constitution to choose how electors are apportioned is as indefinite and unlimited as you want to claim it is, does that mean ALL powers and rights specifically delegated in the Constitution are equally indefinite and unlimited? If not, why not?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Since the redundant thread closed, I'll note that it's not a left-right issue. Maine and Neb are the two states that apportion proportionally. The reason for it is simply to reflect the vote as accurately as possible. I favor the apportion approach, but all 50 states would have to join. It would preserve the weight given to small states. For example, are you better off with 100% of Kan or 70% and 20% of Calif? More or less a wash, imo.

But Jesusland will never do it. So probably we'll have to wait until states with 270 ev's pledge national winner take all before the states take up a way to eliminate the elitism in the EV of the Founders while trying to preserve some protection for very rural states

If you divide up the EC votes, what you have in essence is a popular vote. It would work out the same way, and that defeats the purpose of the college in the first place.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That’s the whole point is to nullify Flyover and Rural states votes and to let California & New York be Dictators over The Whole County!

It gives electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, how is this unfair? Unfair is my presidential vote has only counted one time in my life.

In that state? Or the winner of the nationwide popular vote, which would be impossible to tally without that state's vote so that's a non-starter.

That'd be the quickest way to get your state's vote annulled I ever heard of.

Derp!

Relax, it's not going to go anywhere. If the states that pass it implement it, they forfeit their votes. It may even get passed in a couple states, and the constituents are gonna be pissed at the legislators that passed it for getting their votes nullified with a stunt like that.

It won't get past the Supreme Court. What this proposal would do is nullify the electoral vote and put in place the popular vote, but just not calling it the popular vote.

More than that, it disenfranchises the very people for whom those state legislatures work and is a betrayal of the public trust. If there were such a thing as treason against a state, that would be it.

Exactly. And you have to wonder about these people who would support such an anti-American concept. They say the states can do what they desire, but had no problem when the courts ruled that some of the states that enacted Voter-ID was unconstitutional. Wait a minute: If a court can say it's disenfranchisement of the individual voter to get a Fn ID, how in the world can they say that a policy that disenfranchises everybody is constitutionally protected?

Because if me and my fellow Ohioans vote for Trump next election, and they give our electoral votes to the Democratic contender instead, that's exactly what they are doing; disenfranchising all us Ohio voters. The court couldn't intervene on this according to the left but they can stop Voter-ID?????

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is not an amendment.

It is illegal legislation designed to steal EC votes and throw them to a candidate that did not win that state!

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.

Calm down Skippy.

The constitution was written to be amended from time to time.

Actually it is an amendment. But all this is going to accomplish is a fight to the higher courts at a cost to taxpayers. The petition is to have this amendment proposal put on the ballot for next election. However our State Constitution cannot override the US Constitution. It will be defeated one way or another.

It might be an Amendment to the state Constitution, but it's not an Amendment to the US Constitution.

I find it ironic - and more than a little hypocritical - that leftists who scream themselves hoarse about how Second Amendment rights are not unlimited NOW want to take the stance that the right of states to choose the method of apportioning its electors IS completely unlimited, to the point where it can disenfranchise its own citizens.

Yet another thing they need to make up their damned minds about. Are delegated rights in the Constitution unlimited, or aren't they? They don't get to have it both ways, depending on what they want at the moment.

And this topic is a perfect example. Now their stance is that the electoral college is totally outdated because of civil rights and advanced communications. Sorry, the EC is here for the same reason it was hundreds of years ago, and that is to defend against mob rule.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, they are not thrown out, they are still part of the tally of votes for the candidate. In a Senate race if I vote for person A, my vote goes into his tally.

So it goes for their tally. WTF does that mean? If you vote for a candidate that lost, you lost. It doesn't matter what their stupid tally is. Your vote is thrown out via the majority vote won.

 

[Nosmo King]

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.

Calm down Skippy.

The constitution was written to be amended from time to time.

When you asshats actually AMEND it, instead of trying to "reinterpret" it, or weasel around it entirely, we'll calm down, "Skippy".

It takes an amendment! Usurping the constitution isn't on the table!

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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 problem is this is being done by democratic law makers and not the voting public. Here in Colorado Gov. Polis signed the law which was passed by the democratically controlled state legislature. The people had no input whatsoever.

Essentially what this means, that every voter in Colorado could vote for canidate A, but if canidate B won the PV, all of Colorado electoral votes would go to B. It’s possible for a state to vote heavily against a canidate, but have their electoral votes hand the election to the other canidate. It’s nuetering the small states influence. It is a long way from the spirit of the constitution IMO.

The people vote for the state legislature, that is their input.

You’re being Pollyanna. Neither the governor of Colorado nor any of the current legislators ran on this idea, or even mentioned it before they were elected. This is blindsiding the voters. It’s a huge overreach by the Dems and I pray they suffer brutally for it, but it’s possible that it will effectively kill the electoral college.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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 problem is this is being done by democratic law makers and not the voting public. Here in Colorado Gov. Polis signed the law which was passed by the democratically controlled state legislature. The people had no input whatsoever.

Essentially what this means, that every voter in Colorado could vote for canidate A, but if canidate B won the PV, all of Colorado electoral votes would go to B. It’s possible for a state to vote heavily against a canidate, but have their electoral votes hand the election to the other canidate. It’s nuetering the small states influence. It is a long way from the spirit of the constitution IMO.

Seems like the people of Colorado need to rise up and get their politicians under control.

It’s a blue state. What can I say.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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 problem is this is being done by democratic law makers and not the voting public. Here in Colorado Gov. Polis signed the law which was passed by the democratically controlled state legislature. The people had no input whatsoever.

Essentially what this means, that every voter in Colorado could vote for canidate A, but if canidate B won the PV, all of Colorado electoral votes would go to B. It’s possible for a state to vote heavily against a canidate, but have their electoral votes hand the election to the other canidate. It’s nuetering the small states influence. It is a long way from the spirit of the constitution IMO.

Seems like the people of Colorado need to rise up and get their politicians under control.

One of my brothers-in-law is moving to TX because of the way CO is going. He's lived there almost 40 years.

.

If I were going to move out of Arizona - and it's tempting, after they let that ugly, strident cow Sinema steal the election - I'd move to Texas.

That’s right! You had a huge Poner for Cruz in 2016......or was it Rubio?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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 problem is this is being done by democratic law makers and not the voting public. Here in Colorado Gov. Polis signed the law which was passed by the democratically controlled state legislature. The people had no input whatsoever.

Essentially what this means, that every voter in Colorado could vote for canidate A, but if canidate B won the PV, all of Colorado electoral votes would go to B. It’s possible for a state to vote heavily against a canidate, but have their electoral votes hand the election to the other canidate. It’s nuetering the small states influence. It is a long way from the spirit of the constitution IMO.

Seems like the people of Colorado need to rise up and get their politicians under control.

One of my brothers-in-law is moving to TX because of the way CO is going. He's lived there almost 40 years.

.

Interesting. I have Lived in Colorado all my life, and I’d move to Montana before I’d move to Texas if I chose to leave.

 

[ptbw forever]

Bullshit, it rewrites The Constitution giving all of Ohio’s Electoral Votes to Hillary Clinton even if President Trump Wins Ohio!

IF this were in place in 2016, then it not only stabs Ohio voters in the back, but everyone not living in New York City Chicago, Miami or Los Angelos has Zero Representation in National Elections for President.

It would Completely overturn The 2016 Election and have All The States Trump won 33 of them actually cast their votes for Clinton.

Wake the Hell Up People!

It’s a big Screw You to All The State’s Voters!

These people proposing this need to be hunted down and dragged through the streets then tarred and feathered and set on fire!

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.

Read your own link Drama Llama. Nothing in it says anything about "ditching the Electoral College". It's actually entirely within the guidelines of the Constitution. Unless of course you can show the class where the COTUS dictates how the states "must" choose electors.

Rotsa ruck finding that Dumbass.

Unfair is my presidential vote has only counted one time in my life.

My city has not voted Republican since before I was born.

Why limit it to the states?

States only matter because of the electoral college.

You dipshits do realize this, don’t you?