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

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is a democrat representative in Ohio who also threw his hat in the ring to run for Prez in 2020. Getting rid of the EC is his idea and not the majority of Ohioans. DeWine is the new GOP governor of Ohio and Ohio remains solid GOP.

Maybe, but DeWine is also a RINO. I'm sure he wouldn't approve of this, but he's hardly what I would call a conservatives conservative.

Ohio raised gasoline tax which DeWine is complicit, Battle Royal in the State House and how do you tax a Tesla? edit: Tax Elon Musk out of business.

Well they watered that down a bit. DeWine wanted taxes much higher. This will have a severe impact on business. I'm in the transportation industry, and a huge diesel fuel tax will only force us to increase our prices to Ohio businesses. After all, my tractor-trailer only averages about 6.5 miles to the gallon. If I take a load from Cleveland to Dayton and back, I use around 70 gallons of fuel depending on the weight I get both ways.

If costs become severe enough, businesses may move out of Ohio.

 

[SandSquid]

[

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

The last sentence from him is correct.

In the state i live in, 2.1 million people vote for Trump and 209,000 voted for Johnson. Both voters had the same impact on the election, both groups of voters accounted for the exact same number of electrical votes...zero

In Texas 3.8 million people voted for Hillary and 283,000 voted for Johnson. Both voters had the same impact on the election, both groups of voters accounted for the exact same number of electrical votes...zero

This is an inherent weakness with the EC but more with the winner take all system that we have.

Keep in mind. The Electoral College was part of a system of the original 13 colonies.

Also keep in mind that women could not vote until 1921.

The EC does not fit in 2019, with 50 states, and 325 million people, in which the population centers that make up for 3/4 of the entire GDP of a $20 trillion economy.

No historical, or Constitutional argument can be made that continues to support the Electoral College. This is no longer an ideological debate.

Sure there is, your opinion just happens to be the wrong one. Don't like the system, amend the Constitution and good luck with that one. Until that time, the electoral college is here to stay be it 13 states or 57.

But is there anything in the constitution that a state cannot have its electors vote for whomever wins the popular vote?

I havent seen that. In fact I believe the Constitution says it's up to the state to choose their electors. And like with Maine and Nebraska they can choose how their electors vote.

You can't vote by disenfranchising everybody in the state.

In the last election, Ohio voted for Trump. Hillary got the popular vote. If this law were in place last election, that would have meant all our electoral votes would have went to Hillary in spite of Ohio voting for Trump. How can you think that's constitutional?

Now if an elector votes against the states choice, that's an issue that can be addressed. But if there is a law that states electors must vote with the country instead of the people of that state, it would be violating the right to choose a representative of choice.

It's like I posted earlier. This is as un-constitutinoal as passing a law that says no matter who wins an election, all EC votes must go to a Republican, even if we clearly voted for the Democrat candidate.

I guess when asked if it's constitutional it's because the Constitution literally doesn't have a law about it, except that it is up to the states.

Not arguing if the idea would be good or not, but to say it's unconstitutional when there is NOTHING about it in the Constitution except that it is up to the states is incorrect.

There is no constitutional right that electors must vote one way or the other. It's up to the states to make that choice.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I guess when asked if it's constitutional it's because the Constitution literally doesn't have a law about it, except that it is up to the states.

Not arguing if the idea would be good or not, but to say it's unconstitutional when there is NOTHING about it in the Constitution except that it is up to the states is incorrect.

There is no constitutional right that electors must vote one way or the other. It's up to the states to make that choice.

If that's what you believe, then riddle me this: How is it the high courts have ruled Voter-ID as unconstitutional in some states? Obviously there is a constitutional protection of citizens regardless of how a state proceeds with elections.

You can give electors wiggle room based on states law. But you cannot disenfranchise a majority of voters of a state.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Quote it!

You couldn't find your ass with both hands, much less anything in the Constitution! You flushed your copy long ago!

The word militia is in the amendment.
Unless you think the framers are just adding in words for shits and giggles, the word "militia" means something.
Feel free to google the amendment.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

LOL

Typical lame-ass libtard response! I hope you are laughing at your own ineptitude.

More or less laughing at the lame attempt. Much like your last date; right?

My last date was in 1983. That would be several decades after you last got laid, right?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

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

The last sentence from him is correct.

In the state i live in, 2.1 million people vote for Trump and 209,000 voted for Johnson. Both voters had the same impact on the election, both groups of voters accounted for the exact same number of electrical votes...zero

In Texas 3.8 million people voted for Hillary and 283,000 voted for Johnson. Both voters had the same impact on the election, both groups of voters accounted for the exact same number of electrical votes...zero

This is an inherent weakness with the EC but more with the winner take all system that we have.

Keep in mind. The Electoral College was part of a system of the original 13 colonies.

Also keep in mind that women could not vote until 1921.

The EC does not fit in 2019, with 50 states, and 325 million people, in which the population centers that make up for 3/4 of the entire GDP of a $20 trillion economy.

No historical, or Constitutional argument can be made that continues to support the Electoral College. This is no longer an ideological debate.

Sure there is, your opinion just happens to be the wrong one. Don't like the system, amend the Constitution and good luck with that one. Until that time, the electoral college is here to stay be it 13 states or 57.

But is there anything in the constitution that a state cannot have its electors vote for whomever wins the popular vote?

I havent seen that. In fact I believe the Constitution says it's up to the state to choose their electors. And like with Maine and Nebraska they can choose how their electors vote.

They can choose how their electors are chosen, not how they vote.

 

[candycorn]

The word militia is in the amendment.
Unless you think the framers are just adding in words for shits and giggles, the word "militia" means something.
Feel free to google the amendment.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

LOL

Typical lame-ass libtard response! I hope you are laughing at your own ineptitude.

More or less laughing at the lame attempt. Much like your last date; right?

My last date was in 1983. That would be several decades after you last got laid, right?

Now I can see why you're angry 24/7. You INCELs are all so angry.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

LOL

Typical lame-ass libtard response! I hope you are laughing at your own ineptitude.

More or less laughing at the lame attempt. Much like your last date; right?

My last date was in 1983. That would be several decades after you last got laid, right?

Now I can see why you're angry 24/7. You INCELs are all so angry.

I am angry at stupid schmucks like you who are too fucking lazy to learn the truth, and use made up acronyms like INCEL when it is not an acronym! Just how stupid are you and what is your ultimate goal? Would drooling on yourself in a wheelchair be sufficient?

 

[xband]

There is a democrat representative in Ohio who also threw his hat in the ring to run for Prez in 2020. Getting rid of the EC is his idea and not the majority of Ohioans. DeWine is the new GOP governor of Ohio and Ohio remains solid GOP.

Maybe, but DeWine is also a RINO. I'm sure he wouldn't approve of this, but he's hardly what I would call a conservatives conservative.

Ohio raised gasoline tax which DeWine is complicit, Battle Royal in the State House and how do you tax a Tesla? edit: Tax Elon Musk out of business.

Well they watered that down a bit. DeWine wanted taxes much higher. This will have a severe impact on business. I'm in the transportation industry, and a huge diesel fuel tax will only force us to increase our prices to Ohio businesses. After all, my tractor-trailer only averages about 6.5 miles to the gallon. If I take a load from Cleveland to Dayton and back, I use around 70 gallons of fuel depending on the weight I get both ways.

If costs become severe enough, businesses may move out of Ohio.

My rich neighbor is VP of a major OTR trucking company and we are friends but after he saw my new Jeep Wrangler Sport he stopped coming over. edit: Back in my hayday I was Secretary of Electronics Automation Corporation and had to fire the President of EAC and EAC was a Type C Corporation.

 

[candycorn]

LOL

Typical lame-ass libtard response! I hope you are laughing at your own ineptitude.

More or less laughing at the lame attempt. Much like your last date; right?

My last date was in 1983. That would be several decades after you last got laid, right?

Now I can see why you're angry 24/7. You INCELs are all so angry.

I am angry at stupid schmucks like you who are too fucking lazy to learn the truth, and use made up acronyms like INCEL when it is not an acronym! Just how stupid are you and what is your ultimate goal? Would drooling on yourself in a wheelchair be sufficient?

Aw...poor baby...
You INCELs are so angry.

 

[ptbw forever]

Typical lame-ass libtard response! I hope you are laughing at your own ineptitude.

More or less laughing at the lame attempt. Much like your last date; right?

My last date was in 1983. That would be several decades after you last got laid, right?

Now I can see why you're angry 24/7. You INCELs are all so angry.

I am angry at stupid schmucks like you who are too fucking lazy to learn the truth, and use made up acronyms like INCEL when it is not an acronym! Just how stupid are you and what is your ultimate goal? Would drooling on yourself in a wheelchair be sufficient?

Aw...poor baby...
You INCELs are so angry.

If you were actually intelligent in any way you would very much be angry as well.

But of course it is literally impossible for Democrats to be intelligent.

 

[Westender]

So you think California New York, Washington State, Louisiana, and Illinois should throw out the Votes of the other 44 States?

Why should a few populous cities dictate Fascist Ideologies to the other 83% of the country?

Do you know Hillary Von Cankles only won 17 states?

President Trump won 33. Why should The 33 states he won be given to Clinton in direct violation of The Will Of The People?

I call it Violation because it is Literally a Rape Of Democracy and Lady Liberty to deny those people in those States their voice!

You know who doesn’t have an Electoral College?

Russia!

This is a nationwide organized attempt at cheating in presidential elections cooked up by Democrats.

The spotlight needs to be on this a lot more than it is. They'll name the bills something incredibly opposite to fool people. "The Restore Democracy Act" or something.

Let's see the republicans give up their shameless gerrymandering and voter suppression and then they can complain about cheating.

Progs have gotten most of the stuff they ever wanted and it is never enough. You rule many cities but have a problem with smaller ones. There are many Dems who are not totally Progs in those smaller ones and you lost that vote in 2016. You have legalized people chitting in the middle of center city streets in a large city!

I have lived in the south all my life and my vote has only ever counted once. One time since the 80s. I'm about tired of it. My vote gets thrown in the trash while my Republican neighbor's count. It's not right and it has to end.

You know who else doesn't have an electoral college? MOST OF THE FUCKING WORLD. Although I believe Pakistan does.

You know who won those thirteen states I listed in post 28? NOBODY. Including Rump's states of Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and my own.

You know how to use the fucking quote function?

GO LEARN IT.

Do you know how to get the votes dipshit? Go get them or quit whining.

 

[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

Quote it!
You couldn't find your ass with both hands, much less anything in the Constitution! You flushed your copy long ago!

The word militia is in the amendment.

Where does the constitution say you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms?
Oh - it doesn't?
Why did you lie?

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
Keep in mind. The Electoral College was part of a system of the original 13 colonies.
Also keep in mind that women could not vote until 1921.

Not so. Women were able to vote as early as 1869.

The EC does not fit in 2019, with 50 states, and 325 million people, in which the population centers that make up for 3/4 of the entire GDP of a $20 trillion economy.

All you need to change this is an amendment to constitution.

No historical, or Constitutional argument can be made that continues to support the Electoral College

The states were given the election of the President for a set of reasons; these reasons stand today as then.
No western democracy elects its head of government though a popular vote.

 

[rightwinger]

Vacant land does not vote
People vote

Vacant land is owned by citizens or the government. There is no unowned land in the US. And if it's owned by citizens, that land can be confiscated through a process called eminent domain. So when you vote for a candidate, you want to elect somebody that will not invade your property.

Nobody has profited off of eminent domain as much as Donald J Trump

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I can understand that sentiment, but when it comes from the left, I know it's purely about power.

Here is a map of last election by county. Keep in mind that Trump didn't sweep the country by any stretch of the imagination. He simply had more electoral votes.

Left up to the popular vote, those small blue sections would have power over the entire country red or blue.

View attachment 254516

Vacant land does not vote
People vote

Those blue areas are where the people are

The blue areas are big city people and the red areas are rural folk. Try eating a Gucci handbag rather than Cornbread.

The blue areas support the red areas

Always have

 

[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.

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!

Well, thank you so much for angrily shouting MY OWN POSITION at me, as though YOU had been arguing it. Guess the doctors still don't have your meds quite right.

 

[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.

.

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.

I've been to Montana. Nice place, but very empty. Last time I had to drive through that area, I felt like I was driving on the moon. Nearly drove me barmy.

 

[martybegan]

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.

I can understand that sentiment, but when it comes from the left, I know it's purely about power.

Here is a map of last election by county. Keep in mind that Trump didn't sweep the country by any stretch of the imagination. He simply had more electoral votes.

Left up to the popular vote, those small blue sections would have power over the entire country red or blue.

View attachment 254516

Vacant land does not vote
People vote

Those blue areas are where the people are

The blue areas are big city people and the red areas are rural folk. Try eating a Gucci handbag rather than Cornbread.

The blue areas support the red areas

Always have

Tell that to the Red areas that grow your food, the red areas that supply your drinking water, the red areas where resources are mined or extracted.

You equate overhead and organization (corporate management, economic tasks, and government) for support.

The actual items that fuel the two main "industries" of blue states (finance and entertainment" are fueled by the resources of the blue areas.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

No, the Electoral College exists BECAUSE states matter. The fact that our modern, uneducated-but-proudly-assuming-they're-informed populace has lost track of that fact or the reasons for it doesn't make it any less true.

 

[Pogo]

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.

I can understand that sentiment, but when it comes from the left, I know it's purely about power.

Here is a map of last election by county. Keep in mind that Trump didn't sweep the country by any stretch of the imagination. He simply had more electoral votes.

Left up to the popular vote, those small blue sections would have power over the entire country red or blue.

View attachment 254516

Vacant land does not vote
People vote

Those blue areas are where the people are

The blue areas are big city people and the red areas are rural folk. Try eating a Gucci handbag rather than Cornbread.

The blue areas support the red areas

Always have

Tell that to the Red areas that grow your food, the red areas that supply your drinking water, the red areas where resources are mined or extracted.

You equate overhead and organization (corporate management, economic tasks, and government) for support.

The actual items that fuel the two main "industries" of blue states (finance and entertainment" are fueled by the resources of the blue areas.

Again, there's no such thing as "red" and "blue" states. All states are comprised of people. "Red" and "blue" are artificial bullshit concepts that exist only in the confining confines of the artificial bullshit system of WTA. Declaring a given state is a "red" or "blue" state just insults everybody in it.