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

[Harpy Eagle]

Actually, I do not support this movement, I think it is the wrong way to go. But that does not make it unconstitutional.

The people not being represented is not un-constitutional? The idea your vote is worthless is un-constitutional?

This method makes a vote no more worthless than the current winner take all system.

How do you figure? We have (like most states) winner takes all. That means the people as a whole decided who they want for President. If the people decide who they want for President, and the EC is forced to vote the opposite way, then it totally disenfranchises the majority of voters in our state. That's un-constitutional.

Were how the electors voted always tied to state popular vote?

Was there a constitutional challenge to electors being appointed by Senators?

That is a pertinent fact you were going to conveniently gloss over.

There was not one because it was not against the Constitution...just like this is not.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The people not being represented is not un-constitutional? The idea your vote is worthless is un-constitutional?

This method makes a vote no more worthless than the current winner take all system.

How do you figure? We have (like most states) winner takes all. That means the people as a whole decided who they want for President. If the people decide who they want for President, and the EC is forced to vote the opposite way, then it totally disenfranchises the majority of voters in our state. That's un-constitutional.

Were how the electors voted always tied to state popular vote?

Was there a constitutional challenge to electors being appointed by Senators?

That is a pertinent fact you were going to conveniently gloss over.

There was not one because it was not against the Constitution...just like this is not.

Do some basic research, sparky.

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

 

[Pogo]

This method makes a vote no more worthless than the current winner take all system.

How do you figure? We have (like most states) winner takes all. That means the people as a whole decided who they want for President. If the people decide who they want for President, and the EC is forced to vote the opposite way, then it totally disenfranchises the majority of voters in our state. That's un-constitutional.

Were how the electors voted always tied to state popular vote?

Was there a constitutional challenge to electors being appointed by Senators?

That is a pertinent fact you were going to conveniently gloss over.

There was not one because it was not against the Constitution...just like this is not.

Do some basic research, sparky.

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

In before the "oh shit did I post that" edit.

"Pothead Learns to Read". Tomorrow.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How do you figure? We have (like most states) winner takes all. That means the people as a whole decided who they want for President. If the people decide who they want for President, and the EC is forced to vote the opposite way, then it totally disenfranchises the majority of voters in our state. That's un-constitutional.

Were how the electors voted always tied to state popular vote?

Was there a constitutional challenge to electors being appointed by Senators?

That is a pertinent fact you were going to conveniently gloss over.

There was not one because it was not against the Constitution...just like this is not.

Do some basic research, sparky.

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

In before the "oh shit did I post that" edit.

"Pothead Learns to Read". Tomorrow.

Thanks Holocaust denier, that no doubt had some meaning in your malformed brain...

Heraderrppp, dey wuz takeen about sinotors electifying electors, what cood dat possiby haz ta dew wid da popalar electifying of sinotors by da peeps? DERP

 

[Pogo]

Were how the electors voted always tied to state popular vote?

Was there a constitutional challenge to electors being appointed by Senators?

That is a pertinent fact you were going to conveniently gloss over.

There was not one because it was not against the Constitution...just like this is not.

Do some basic research, sparky.

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

In before the "oh shit did I post that" edit.

"Pothead Learns to Read". Tomorrow.

Thanks Holocaust denier, that no doubt had some meaning in your malformed brain...

The sequel: "Pothead Doesn't Get It"
Starring Paddy O'Blivious

 

[Uncensored2008]

Was there a constitutional challenge to electors being appointed by Senators?

That is a pertinent fact you were going to conveniently gloss over.

There was not one because it was not against the Constitution...just like this is not.

Do some basic research, sparky.

Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

In before the "oh shit did I post that" edit.

"Pothead Learns to Read". Tomorrow.

Thanks Holocaust denier, that no doubt had some meaning in your malformed brain...

The sequel: "Pothead Doesn't Get It"
Starring Paddy O'Blivious

Derrrrpppp

Holocaust denier didn't bother to read the material and fails to grasp that the selection of EC electors was a significant motivator to the 17th.

You truly are a dumbfuck.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Comrade, I doubt what you say is true. The Constitution does say that states will apportion electors according to their own rules, but the Constitution also guarantees a republican form of government. Hence if Ohio voters elect Donald Trump but the state awards the electors to Nicolas Maduro because California voted for him, that violates the guarantee of a republican government, Ohio is shitting on the votes of the people their.

You will be challenged in the courts over this. And remember, you Bolsheviks have lost your stranglehold on the courts.

Actually, I do not support this movement, I think it is the wrong way to go. But that does not make it unconstitutional.

The people not being represented is not un-constitutional? The idea your vote is worthless is un-constitutional?

This method makes a vote no more worthless than the current winner take all system.

How do you figure? We have (like most states) winner takes all. That means the people as a whole decided who they want for President. If the people decide who they want for President, and the EC is forced to vote the opposite way, then it totally disenfranchises the majority of voters in our state. That's un-constitutional.

Were how the electors voted always tied to state popular vote?

I think only three times in history that electors voted against the popular vote of a state, and it was stray electors at that, not the entire electorate.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Actually, I do not support this movement, I think it is the wrong way to go. But that does not make it unconstitutional.

The people not being represented is not un-constitutional? The idea your vote is worthless is un-constitutional?

This method makes a vote no more worthless than the current winner take all system.

How do you figure? We have (like most states) winner takes all. That means the people as a whole decided who they want for President. If the people decide who they want for President, and the EC is forced to vote the opposite way, then it totally disenfranchises the majority of voters in our state. That's un-constitutional.

Were how the electors voted always tied to state popular vote?

I think only three times in history that electors voted against the popular vote of a state, and it was stray electors at that, not the entire electorate.

psssttt...prior to about 1820 or so how the state voted was not taken into account at all when the electors were given who to vote for.

 

[Pogo]

The people not being represented is not un-constitutional? The idea your vote is worthless is un-constitutional?

This method makes a vote no more worthless than the current winner take all system.

How do you figure? We have (like most states) winner takes all. That means the people as a whole decided who they want for President. If the people decide who they want for President, and the EC is forced to vote the opposite way, then it totally disenfranchises the majority of voters in our state. That's un-constitutional.

Were how the electors voted always tied to state popular vote?

I think only three times in history that electors voted against the popular vote of a state, and it was stray electors at that, not the entire electorate.

psssttt...prior to about 1820 or so how the state voted was not taken into account at all when the electors were given who to vote for.

As late as 1860 South Carolina for one held no vote at all. Electors were simply appointed by the state leg.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This method makes a vote no more worthless than the current winner take all system.

How do you figure? We have (like most states) winner takes all. That means the people as a whole decided who they want for President. If the people decide who they want for President, and the EC is forced to vote the opposite way, then it totally disenfranchises the majority of voters in our state. That's un-constitutional.

Were how the electors voted always tied to state popular vote?

I think only three times in history that electors voted against the popular vote of a state, and it was stray electors at that, not the entire electorate.

psssttt...prior to about 1820 or so how the state voted was not taken into account at all when the electors were given who to vote for.

As late as 1860 South Carolina for one held no vote at all. Electors were simply appointed by the state leg.

And nobody at the time was whining about it being unconstitutional. Weird

 

[Uncensored2008]

How do you figure? We have (like most states) winner takes all. That means the people as a whole decided who they want for President. If the people decide who they want for President, and the EC is forced to vote the opposite way, then it totally disenfranchises the majority of voters in our state. That's un-constitutional.

Were how the electors voted always tied to state popular vote?

I think only three times in history that electors voted against the popular vote of a state, and it was stray electors at that, not the entire electorate.

psssttt...prior to about 1820 or so how the state voted was not taken into account at all when the electors were given who to vote for.

As late as 1860 South Carolina for one held no vote at all. Electors were simply appointed by the state leg.

And nobody at the time was whining about it being unconstitutional. Weird

That was prior to the popular vote movement in the early 20th that led to the 17th amendment.

You can lead a Marxist to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

 

[Aldo Raine]

ReNasty was even worse than Howie who got spanked 6 years before!

Mandel at least had a familiar name, unlike Renacci who was mostly known locally. Mandel had the ability to raise enough money to compete with Brown whereas Renacci didn't even come close to Brown's spending. It was like joining the car race ten laps behind.

Was that the problem when Brown smoked incumbent DeWhinner? And was it the problem with Howie when Brown smoked him in 2012?

The true effects of Commie Care didn't hit people until after the 2012 election. Brown (like all Democrats) was a strong proponent of the disaster. DeWine was a weak candidate and in my opinion, a RINO and still is. I didn't care for him then and I don't care that he's our Governor now. This state hasn't had a decent Governor since Voinovich, and I wouldn't call him a good Governor either.

We can agree on our governorship for the last 40 years, but once again if Brown is so terrible how did he defeat someone as well known, financed and principled as Howie?

Brown is a household name here in Ohio. Many people go to the polls and just vote for somebody familiar. But I think if Mandel would have stuck in the race, he would have stood a pretty good chance at unseating him. However my crystal ball is no different than yours.

Lol, no he would have been smoked worse than 2012 and that is as much as why he dropped out!

 

[RealDave]

Right wingers:

Abortion ; State's Rights!!!!!!

Elections : Fuck Staste's Rights

 

[Pogo]

How do you figure? We have (like most states) winner takes all. That means the people as a whole decided who they want for President. If the people decide who they want for President, and the EC is forced to vote the opposite way, then it totally disenfranchises the majority of voters in our state. That's un-constitutional.

Were how the electors voted always tied to state popular vote?

I think only three times in history that electors voted against the popular vote of a state, and it was stray electors at that, not the entire electorate.

psssttt...prior to about 1820 or so how the state voted was not taken into account at all when the electors were given who to vote for.

As late as 1860 South Carolina for one held no vote at all. Electors were simply appointed by the state leg.

And nobody at the time was whining about it being unconstitutional. Weird

To be fair, the internet really sucked in 1860. So Duh Echobubble really couldn't get going until recently.

Lucky us.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Were how the electors voted always tied to state popular vote?

I think only three times in history that electors voted against the popular vote of a state, and it was stray electors at that, not the entire electorate.

psssttt...prior to about 1820 or so how the state voted was not taken into account at all when the electors were given who to vote for.

As late as 1860 South Carolina for one held no vote at all. Electors were simply appointed by the state leg.

And nobody at the time was whining about it being unconstitutional. Weird

That was prior to the popular vote movement in the early 20th that led to the 17th amendment.

You can lead a Marxist to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

The 17th Amendment did not have anything to do with the EC.

Try again.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Uncensored2008]

I think only three times in history that electors voted against the popular vote of a state, and it was stray electors at that, not the entire electorate.

psssttt...prior to about 1820 or so how the state voted was not taken into account at all when the electors were given who to vote for.

As late as 1860 South Carolina for one held no vote at all. Electors were simply appointed by the state leg.

And nobody at the time was whining about it being unconstitutional. Weird

That was prior to the popular vote movement in the early 20th that led to the 17th amendment.

You can lead a Marxist to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

The 17th Amendment did not have anything to do with the EC.

Try again.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wrong again sploogy. The apportionment of EC electors was a direct issue of why people sought popular election of Senators. It was one of MANY reasons, but it was certainly in the top 10.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

If the people of Ohio vote for it, the only recourse is for a court challenge.

This isn't being done by politicians. This is a petition and ballot initiative process so it's the people who vote on it. Not politicians.

If the people of Ohio want to abolish the electoral college they have the right to vote to do so.

It's called democracy.

 

[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.

If the people of Ohio vote for it, the only recourse is for a court challenge.

This isn't being done by politicians. This is a petition and ballot initiative process so it's the people who vote on it. Not politicians.

If the people of Ohio want to abolish the electoral college they have the right to vote to do so.

It's called democracy.

It isn't about "abolishing the Electoral College". The thread title is a blatant lie by a dishonest hack who ran away from his own thread.

 

[Dana7360]

All I am hearing from you is that my vote shouldn't count and that I should just accept it. Never. I understand your argument and I am not entirely unsympathetic but I fail to see how it would matter that much. The ratio of urban to rural is now so tilted that the populous states control the lion's share anyway.

If you're in Nevada, North Dakota, or New Mexico your vote isn't going to count on a nationwide popular vote anymore than it will count in the EV system. Say your candidate does win; She is going to spend 90-95% of the time talking to the voters in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago and crafting a message to get as many votes from those major metropolitan areas as possible (so will the other major party candidate as well).

You have a much better chance of having your issues spoken to in the EV than the straight popular vote.

Additionally, currently we have two major political parties. What happens if we get 3, 4 or 5 cranked up and going? Currently we have about 130M voting. And currently it's about 65M each or 50/50%. Get a 3rd Party and you may end 45/40/15%. Four parties? 35/30/20/15% You want to have a President who gets 35% of the vote? What do you do in that case? Just accept it?

I'm on the fence about the EC. I see it's advantages and disadvantages.

Right now. Very few presidential candidates come to my state.

I live in a blue state so democratic presidential candidates rarely come here because they know they will win my state. Republican candidates rarely come here because they know they won't win the state. Or if they do come here, the bush boy did, they went to the red area of the state and talked to those who they knew were going to vote for him. He made no attempt to go to rest of the state where he could have talked to Independents, liberals and conservatives but he only went to those who already were going to vote for him.

So right now, with the electoral college, my state isn't noticed by both sides of the aisle.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

psssttt...prior to about 1820 or so how the state voted was not taken into account at all when the electors were given who to vote for.

As late as 1860 South Carolina for one held no vote at all. Electors were simply appointed by the state leg.

And nobody at the time was whining about it being unconstitutional. Weird

That was prior to the popular vote movement in the early 20th that led to the 17th amendment.

You can lead a Marxist to knowledge, but you can't make them think.

The 17th Amendment did not have anything to do with the EC.

Try again.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Wrong again sploogy. The apportionment of EC electors was a direct issue of why people sought popular election of Senators. It was one of MANY reasons, but it was certainly in the top 10.

And yet they failed to address the the apportionment of EC electors, how shortsighted of them.