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

[candycorn]

\
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?

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.

No, it's punctuation and the correct reading. Wishful thinking doesn't change that.

.

ok

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I'm actually torn on this subject because I see how both methods are good and bad.

I understand that electoral college means smaller population states have a voice. I also see that, people say if you went with popular vote that New York and California would decide every election. It's not about geographical location, it's about population density. Yes, we would probably go blue every time, but that's only because New York and California have more people that those smaller populated states.


Again, "states" dont choose presidents, people do. Under the current system, more voices go unheard, because in many states, whoever wins the majority get all of the electoral votes. Take California for example. If dems win that state where 52% of the vote was blue and the other 48% was red, all of California's 54 electoral votes go to one candidate, which means the voice of those other 48% no longer matters.

Under a popular vote, every vote matters and it would mean candidates would have to work harder to earn those votes.

One thing is for sure, I do not agree with the way the left is going about this. If they want a popular vote, they need to attempt it by going about it the right way, and not trying to side step the current system.

Well I think the founders did want states to vote and not individuals. That was the idea behind the electoral college. But remember, the President of the United States is more than the leader of the people, he is also the leader of the land as well.

Let's say the President wants to run an oil line across the US like the Keystone. He has to consider the political impact of the states that line is going to go through. Or perhaps if we start running out of places for our garbage. You wouldn't want NYC trash hauled to your state because the population there is only 700,000 people and their vote is meaningless. How about if we expand our nuclear power plants and need new space for nuclear waste?

If we had popular vote and a major war broke out where the draft had to be re-instituted, why not have the draft board take people from those lowest populated states? Don't piss off those people in New York or Texas! Let them stay at home and vote for me!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ohio can decide how it assigns electoral votes

Okay, so let's say we voted to change our state constitution to say that no matter how the people vote, all EC votes goes to the Republican? Would you be okay with that?

 

[Pogo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

I'm actually torn on this subject because I see how both methods are good and bad.

I understand that electoral college means smaller population states have a voice. I also see that, people say if you went with popular vote that New York and California would decide every election. It's not about geographical location, it's about population density. Yes, we would probably go blue every time, but that's only because New York and California have more people that those smaller populated states.


Again, "states" dont choose presidents, people do. Under the current system, more voices go unheard, because in many states, whoever wins the majority get all of the electoral votes. Take California for example. If dems win that state where 52% of the vote was blue and the other 48% was red, all of California's 54 electoral votes go to one candidate, which means the voice of those other 48% no longer matters.

Under a popular vote, every vote matters and it would mean candidates would have to work harder to earn those votes.

One thing is for sure, I do not agree with the way the left is going about this. If they want a popular vote, they need to attempt it by going about it the right way, and not trying to side step the current system.

Two corrections, to the first and last parts of your post.

The first:
"But the electors are supposed to vote with the majority of their state, not the nation."

Actually there literally IS NO thing the electors are 'supposed to' do. Again, any state can allocate its electors any way it wants. No state is required to hold an election at all, for all the noise we make about it, plus even if a state does hold an election it's in no way required to follow that vote in any way whatsoever. A state can literally say "that's nice", ignore the election altogether and throw darts at a board. This is completely up to each state.

The second:
"One thing is for sure, I do not agree with the way the left is going about this. If they want a popular vote, they need to attempt it by going about it the right way, and not trying to side step the current system."

This is neither "the left" nor is it 'sidestepping' any system except the WTA system, which is NOT Constitutionally required in any way, nor was it the intention of the Electoral College's designers. First thing to understand is that the title of this thread is complete made-up crap. The plan it refers to, dates back to 2005 and includes a plethora of support from both parties as well as both Democratic and Republican state legislative bodies. We spelled all this out upthread with names, yet the liars yammer on as if they didn't hear.

Brought forth here from 260 posts ago, a partial list of supporters:

• 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....

And ---- 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."

 

[Pogo]

Ohio can decide how it assigns electoral votes

Okay, so let's say we voted to change our state constitution to say that no matter how the people vote, all EC votes goes to the Republican? Would you be okay with that?

Guess what. That would be Constitutional too.
Go ahead. Do it.

 

[Pogo]

Well I think the founders did want states to vote and not individuals. That was the idea behind the electoral college.

Well you're wrong, and I showed you that days (weeks?) ago. Quoted both Jefferson and Madison on it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ohio can decide how it assigns electoral votes

Okay, so let's say we voted to change our state constitution to say that no matter how the people vote, all EC votes goes to the Republican? Would you be okay with that?

Guess what. That would be Constitutional too.
Go ahead. Do it.

It is? Well if that's constitutional, how is it Voter-ID in some states was ruled unconstitutional? What you're saying is it's constitutional to disenfranchise an entire state of people, but not a couple of people in a state?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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?

When our founders designed our system of government, they didn't want mob rule. So with the House, it's represented by population whereas population is irrelevant in the Senate. That way everybody gets something and nobody gets everything.

You can't do that with the presidency because there is only one position there. So the electoral college was the half-way meeting point that we find in our Congress. If every state was like our Senate, then each state would get an equal amount of EC votes regardless of size. If it was like our House, then less populated states would have no relevancy whatsoever. So the EC is the half-way point of those two systems.

After all, NYC has over 8 million people. That's more of a population than our nine lowest populated states combined. And while NY still has a great advantage with the EC, those less populated states can't be ignored either.

And changing from winner take all to a proportional allotment of EC votes does not change that at all. I just keeps people's votes from being meaningless

 

[rightwinger]

Ohio can decide how it assigns electoral votes

Okay, so let's say we voted to change our state constitution to say that no matter how the people vote, all EC votes goes to the Republican? Would you be okay with that?

That is what they are trying to do

If the Republican candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, he will get all the votes in Ohio

 

[RealDave]

Right wingers:
Abortion ; State's Rights!!!!!!
Elections : Fuck Staste's Rights

Oh look - another liberal that doe snot understand the 'state's rights' argument.

I recognize how you flip flop depending on the issue. Funny chit

 

[M14 Shooter]

Strange how you guys are for State's rights....until you're not.

Like every other liberal, you are ignorant as to what "states rights" means and doesn't mean.

Like every other conservative, you just post here to show the idiocy you covet.
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.

The right of the states to allocate their electors is limited by the constitutionally specified limits on the states in Article I.
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. ME and NE have had a system different than the other states for decades

This is no way negates what I said.
Do you need me to explain this in a manner you can better understand?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

This is a lie.

No. It’s in the amendment

Again, you lie - you are fully aware of the fact that nowhere does the amendment say you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It says Militia in the amendment. Clearly the founders didn't mean for private gun ownership for other purposes.

Another lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

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.

No... you said "the constitution says" - that a statement of what is found in the text of the constitution, not an interpretation of meaning.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Right wingers:
Abortion ; State's Rights!!!!!!
Elections : Fuck Staste's Rights

Oh look - another liberal that doe snot understand the 'state's rights' argument.

I recognize how you flip flop depending on the issue. Funny chit

No, you choose to wallow in ignorance.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ohio can decide how it assigns electoral votes

Okay, so let's say we voted to change our state constitution to say that no matter how the people vote, all EC votes goes to the Republican? Would you be okay with that?

That is what they are trying to do

If the Republican candidate wins the popular vote nationwide, he will get all the votes in Ohio

Yes, that's exactly what it means. It means our vote doesn't count for anything in our state, and it's the country that gets to have our electoral votes. So if we are going to do that, why vote for a President at all? The country is going to decide who is taking our EC votes away.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

When our founders designed our system of government, they didn't want mob rule. So with the House, it's represented by population whereas population is irrelevant in the Senate. That way everybody gets something and nobody gets everything.

You can't do that with the presidency because there is only one position there. So the electoral college was the half-way meeting point that we find in our Congress. If every state was like our Senate, then each state would get an equal amount of EC votes regardless of size. If it was like our House, then less populated states would have no relevancy whatsoever. So the EC is the half-way point of those two systems.

After all, NYC has over 8 million people. That's more of a population than our nine lowest populated states combined. And while NY still has a great advantage with the EC, those less populated states can't be ignored either.

And changing from winner take all to a proportional allotment of EC votes does not change that at all. I just keeps people's votes from being meaningless

No, it's back to popular vote then. The only way to allocate those electoral votes is by population. Then the most populated areas (Democrat areas) get the most electors. It's pure popular vote.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

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.

I'm actually torn on this subject because I see how both methods are good and bad.

I understand that electoral college means smaller population states have a voice. I also see that, people say if you went with popular vote that New York and California would decide every election. It's not about geographical location, it's about population density. Yes, we would probably go blue every time, but that's only because New York and California have more people that those smaller populated states.


Again, "states" dont choose presidents, people do. Under the current system, more voices go unheard, because in many states, whoever wins the majority get all of the electoral votes. Take California for example. If dems win that state where 52% of the vote was blue and the other 48% was red, all of California's 54 electoral votes go to one candidate, which means the voice of those other 48% no longer matters.

Under a popular vote, every vote matters and it would mean candidates would have to work harder to earn those votes.

One thing is for sure, I do not agree with the way the left is going about this. If they want a popular vote, they need to attempt it by going about it the right way, and not trying to side step the current system.

Well I think the founders did want states to vote and not individuals. That was the idea behind the electoral college. But remember, the President of the United States is more than the leader of the people, he is also the leader of the land as well.

Let's say the President wants to run an oil line across the US like the Keystone. He has to consider the political impact of the states that line is going to go through. Or perhaps if we start running out of places for our garbage. You wouldn't want NYC trash hauled to your state because the population there is only 700,000 people and their vote is meaningless. How about if we expand our nuclear power plants and need new space for nuclear waste?

If we had popular vote and a major war broke out where the draft had to be re-instituted, why not have the draft board take people from those lowest populated states? Don't piss off those people in New York or Texas! Let them stay at home and vote for me!

I hadn't thought of that before. The impact of decisions that affect states. It's a good point, and I appreciate that insight.

I think I see now what they mean when they say states choose presidents. Each state has to have a voice in the matter so they can represent their land, and the choices made about that land from a federal perspective.

More so, a voice about federal laws, and taxation and such.

It does make the popular vote less appealing when you think that cali and NY would have major role, more than a small state like RI.

Since you have a higher population of dems across the country than repubs, a popular vote would mean people living in west and east coast states would have more impact on the lives of people living in southern states and middle America.

I was just going off of a majority rule type thing. My thought process was wrapped around, if more people want candidate A, then why should fewer people be able to override them.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

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.

I'm actually torn on this subject because I see how both methods are good and bad.

I understand that electoral college means smaller population states have a voice. I also see that, people say if you went with popular vote that New York and California would decide every election. It's not about geographical location, it's about population density. Yes, we would probably go blue every time, but that's only because New York and California have more people that those smaller populated states.


Again, "states" dont choose presidents, people do. Under the current system, more voices go unheard, because in many states, whoever wins the majority get all of the electoral votes. Take California for example. If dems win that state where 52% of the vote was blue and the other 48% was red, all of California's 54 electoral votes go to one candidate, which means the voice of those other 48% no longer matters.

Under a popular vote, every vote matters and it would mean candidates would have to work harder to earn those votes.

One thing is for sure, I do not agree with the way the left is going about this. If they want a popular vote, they need to attempt it by going about it the right way, and not trying to side step the current system.

Two corrections, to the first and last parts of your post.

The first:
"But the electors are supposed to vote with the majority of their state, not the nation."

Actually there literally IS NO thing the electors are 'supposed to' do. Again, any state can allocate its electors any way it wants. No state is required to hold an election at all, for all the noise we make about it, plus even if a state does hold an election it's in no way required to follow that vote in any way whatsoever. A state can literally say "that's nice", ignore the election altogether and throw darts at a board. This is completely up to each state.

The second:
"One thing is for sure, I do not agree with the way the left is going about this. If they want a popular vote, they need to attempt it by going about it the right way, and not trying to side step the current system."

This is neither "the left" nor is it 'sidestepping' any system except the WTA system, which is NOT Constitutionally required in any way, nor was it the intention of the Electoral College's designers. First thing to understand is that the title of this thread is complete made-up crap. The plan it refers to, dates back to 2005 and includes a plethora of support from both parties as well as both Democratic and Republican state legislative bodies. We spelled all this out upthread with names, yet the liars yammer on as if they didn't hear.

Brought forth here from 260 posts ago, a partial list of supporters:

• 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....

And ---- 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."

You're correct, there are no laws except current state laws that dictate how a state must cast its electoral votes, however, we know that the left has been wanting a popular vote for some time, and the changes these states are making will definitely play more favorably into the left's hands.

This is why I say "the left", because my initial hunch is that this push to alter the states electoral laws is being driven by the left.

 

[OKTexas]

Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

This is a lie.

No. It’s in the amendment

Again, you lie - you are fully aware of the fact that nowhere does the amendment say you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

In her ignorance she seems to forget, at the time of the founding, most Americans depended on fire arms to eat. So to say private ownership was not an intended purpose of the 2nd would mean the founders didn't care if the citizens starved. Critical thinking is not a commie attribute.

.