Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fake conservatives like KasichOhioans 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.
A pure popular vote for president is mob ruleThe 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.
The right of the states to allocate their electors is limited by the constitutionally specified limits on the states in Article I.Like every other conservative, you just post here to show the idiocy you covet.Like every other liberal, you are ignorant as to what "states rights" means and doesn't mean.Strange how you guys are for State's rights....until you're not.
Pretty sure it’s a state’s right to determine how to allocate it’s electoral votes since states do it differently.
The question is what the underpinning rules are for allocation of those votes. It may be legal to do the compact…but it is (in my view) just wrong.
Somehow, the left managed to come up with the ONE way the Constitution could limit the right of the states to allocate its electors however they want.
No. It’s in the amendmentThis is a lie.Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.
LolYou must live in a state where your vote counts for something.That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You have no understanding of this republicThe 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.
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.)
LolYes, at it's heart the electoral college is a disenfranchisement tactic left over from a time when slave states wanted their slaves to count towards the presidency without having a vote. It's high time for this affront to the spirit of democracy to go away.You must live in a state where your vote counts for something.That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You have no understanding of this republicThe 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.
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.)
\As I posted earlier, the Constitution expressly prohibits such a compact without congressional approval, and you know that ain't gonna happen.
.
Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.
It’s all in how the document is interpreted. If Utah says, “We will award Utah’s votes based on the national popular vote winner” how is that a “compact” between the states?
I’m not sure how you can tell a state that you can’t award your electors based on any criteria. There seems to be no mechanism to do that.
At the same time, such awarding based on anything other than the popular vote IN THAT STATE seems wrong to me.
You're always a reliable liar candyass, the Constitution says a militia is necessary to ensure a free State, and the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No where does in say the right of MILITIA members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But hey nice deflection, even if it was a lie.
.
The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Your interpretation of what that means is noted.
The two phrases are NOT interdependent. SCOTUS already said your interpretation is BS.
.
The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Their interpretation of what that means is noted
LolYou must live in a state where your vote counts for something.That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You have no understanding of this republicThe 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.
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.)
With pure popular vote, Small population states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Would have no reason to vote in an presidential election, It would be pointless . They would lose every presidential election everytime… That’s just a fact
So?\Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.
It’s all in how the document is interpreted. If Utah says, “We will award Utah’s votes based on the national popular vote winner” how is that a “compact” between the states?
I’m not sure how you can tell a state that you can’t award your electors based on any criteria. There seems to be no mechanism to do that.
At the same time, such awarding based on anything other than the popular vote IN THAT STATE seems wrong to me.
You're always a reliable liar candyass, the Constitution says a militia is necessary to ensure a free State, and the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No where does in say the right of MILITIA members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But hey nice deflection, even if it was a lie.
.
The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Your interpretation of what that means is noted.
The two phrases are NOT interdependent. SCOTUS already said your interpretation is BS.
.
The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Their interpretation of what that means is noted
They were two independent phrases, deal with it. The people and the State or federal governments are never used as synonymous terms anywhere in the Constitution.
.
So?\You're always a reliable liar candyass, the Constitution says a militia is necessary to ensure a free State, and the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No where does in say the right of MILITIA members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But hey nice deflection, even if it was a lie.
.
The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Your interpretation of what that means is noted.
The two phrases are NOT interdependent. SCOTUS already said your interpretation is BS.
.
The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Their interpretation of what that means is noted
They were two independent phrases, deal with it. The people and the State or federal governments are never used as synonymous terms anywhere in the Constitution.
.
It says Militia in the amendment. Clearly the founders didn't mean for private gun ownership for other purposes.
LolYou must live in a state where your vote counts for something.That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You have no understanding of this republicThe 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.
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.)
With pure popular vote, Small population states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Would have no reason to vote in an presidential election, It would be pointless . They would lose every presidential election everytime… That’s just a fact
As it stands now voting for one party or the other in at least 30 states is pointless because their party has zero chance to win the state so their vote is meaningless. In the last election 55 million people voted knowing the person they voted for would not win the state, thus rendering their vote useless.
As I said, I do not wish to get rid of the EC, I want to get rid of the winner take all system.
LolYou must live in a state where your vote counts for something.That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You have no understanding of this republic
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.)
With pure popular vote, Small population states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Would have no reason to vote in an presidential election, It would be pointless . They would lose every presidential election everytime… That’s just a fact
As it stands now voting for one party or the other in at least 30 states is pointless because their party has zero chance to win the state so their vote is meaningless. In the last election 55 million people voted knowing the person they voted for would not win the state, thus rendering their vote useless.
As I said, I do not wish to get rid of the EC, I want to get rid of the winner take all system.
It's winner take all in every election. Why not the presidency?
LolYou 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.)
With pure popular vote, Small population states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Would have no reason to vote in an presidential election, It would be pointless . They would lose every presidential election everytime… That’s just a fact
As it stands now voting for one party or the other in at least 30 states is pointless because their party has zero chance to win the state so their vote is meaningless. In the last election 55 million people voted knowing the person they voted for would not win the state, thus rendering their vote useless.
As I said, I do not wish to get rid of the EC, I want to get rid of the winner take all system.
It's winner take all in every election. Why not the presidency?
it is pure democracy in every other election, why not the presidency?
So?\The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Your interpretation of what that means is noted.
The two phrases are NOT interdependent. SCOTUS already said your interpretation is BS.
.
The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Their interpretation of what that means is noted
They were two independent phrases, deal with it. The people and the State or federal governments are never used as synonymous terms anywhere in the Constitution.
.
It says Militia in the amendment. Clearly the founders didn't mean for private gun ownership for other purposes.
Yeah, just like the 1st amendment covers more than one subject, separated by commas, so does the 2nd. And that exactly how the supremes ruled. Deal with it.
.
But, the electors are supposed to vote with the majority of their state, not the nation. Anything less than that, then there would be no need to even choose electors, as the electoral votes would already be decided by national popular vote.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.
LolI 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.)
With pure popular vote, Small population states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Would have no reason to vote in an presidential election, It would be pointless . They would lose every presidential election everytime… That’s just a fact
As it stands now voting for one party or the other in at least 30 states is pointless because their party has zero chance to win the state so their vote is meaningless. In the last election 55 million people voted knowing the person they voted for would not win the state, thus rendering their vote useless.
As I said, I do not wish to get rid of the EC, I want to get rid of the winner take all system.
It's winner take all in every election. Why not the presidency?
it is pure democracy in every other election, why not the presidency?
For the same reason every state only gets two Senators regardless of size; to equal the power of the people.
Lol
With pure popular vote, Small population states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Would have no reason to vote in an presidential election, It would be pointless . They would lose every presidential election everytime… That’s just a fact
As it stands now voting for one party or the other in at least 30 states is pointless because their party has zero chance to win the state so their vote is meaningless. In the last election 55 million people voted knowing the person they voted for would not win the state, thus rendering their vote useless.
As I said, I do not wish to get rid of the EC, I want to get rid of the winner take all system.
It's winner take all in every election. Why not the presidency?
it is pure democracy in every other election, why not the presidency?
For the same reason every state only gets two Senators regardless of size; to equal the power of the people.
So, then you agree that the POTUS election is different, so why not be different with the winner take all?
So?\The two phrases are NOT interdependent. SCOTUS already said your interpretation is BS.
.
The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Their interpretation of what that means is noted
They were two independent phrases, deal with it. The people and the State or federal governments are never used as synonymous terms anywhere in the Constitution.
.
It says Militia in the amendment. Clearly the founders didn't mean for private gun ownership for other purposes.
Yeah, just like the 1st amendment covers more than one subject, separated by commas, so does the 2nd. And that exactly how the supremes ruled. Deal with it.
.
Again, it's an interpretation.
