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.
Trump isn't popular, can't get the popular vote. Sad!
Leftists aren't popular outside of their own communes, can't figure out how to win without cheating. SAD!
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.
You can deposit the term "RINO" into the same Bullshit Bin with the "red states" and "blue states". The job of a Governor is to govern a state; the job of a Congresscritter is to represent constituents. NONE of them have the job of representing a damn political party.
Still yet more Dichotomy Disease. Fer fuxsake open your damn mind.
(/offtopic)
You really live in your own little make up world, don’t cha?
Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Right wingers:
Abortion ; State's Rights!!!!!!
Elections : Fuck State's Rights
What right does a state have to ignore the Constitution as written?
Answer: They do not.
Next: Your stupid deflection in reply?
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.
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.
Yes, they can allocate their electoral college votes based on how they choose, not some other states' voters.
can you actually quote an actual source where any of those news sites said they knew the Mueller Report would say anything, since there were no leaks of any kind coming from Mueller or his team? Where do you get this shit? From a dream you had?CNN, NBC/MSNBC (Comcast), ABC, CBS, PBS, NYT, Washpo, AP, Reuters and others bet the farm on the fake Russia narrative. Some, like CNN and MSNBC a bit more than the others but if you watched or read one, you pretty much saw them all as they were pushing the same theme.
Fox, Breitbart, some opt Talk Radio were they only, relatively SMALL voices that were reporting it, but not concluding Trump was guilty up front. So, maybe 95% were pulling for the removal of Trump due to Russian collusion. Now they are paying for it.
The audience is very small yet CNN is on everywhere. Who pours money into CNN so they can keep pumping out their disinformation and propaganda?
Nobody asks to see it yet you can't get away from it.
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.
States agreed to the Constitution when they became states. So what is specifically written in the Constitution is not for the States to ignore. The Constitution trumps states rights only on those issues specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The Electoral College is specifically enumerated, and thus not up to the states to ignore or MODIFY.
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
Comrade, I doubt what you say is true. The Constitution does say that states will apportion electors according to their own rules, but the Constitution also guarantees a republican form of government. Hence if Ohio voters elect Donald Trump but the state awards the electors to Nicolas Maduro because California voted for him, that violates the guarantee of a republican government, Ohio is shitting on the votes of the people their.
You will be challenged in the courts over this. And remember, you Bolsheviks have lost your stranglehold on the courts.
Actually, I do not support this movement, I think it is the wrong way to go. But that does not make it unconstitutional.
The people not being represented is not un-constitutional? The idea your vote is worthless is un-constitutional?
This method makes a vote no more worthless than the current winner take all system.
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.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.
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.
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:
And ---- Rump.
- 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....
"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.
Oh be honest for once in your miserable partisan life. The only reason you support the existence of current system s because it give YOUR party a huge advantage.The population of Wyoming with one congressional district is roughly 586,000 while in the Brooklyn, NY 1st congressional district alone there are more than 684.000. 101,000 votes diluted by the ECBy diluting individual votes. Where every vote is scared and must weigh equally.Only in America can the candidate who wins fewer votes can get elected.
Doesn't that seem like a bad way to run a democratic republic?
Yes! It prevents New York and California from deciding every presidential election.
It does not do that. The number of electoral votes is determined by the number of representatives in Congress. That is not specified in the Constitution and can be changed by a simple act of Congress signed by the President.
. . . In a popular vote, which we don't currently have, so I for one don't find a compelling argument in "If we count the votes this special way that isn't actually the law, it doesn't look fair!!!"
Votes are not counted nationally, except by asswipe leftists trying to look for leverage, so comparing Wyoming to NY is as valid as comparing it to New Zealand. Who gives a fuck whether or not something is "fair" under a system that exists nowhere but in leftists' drug-addled imaginations?
In the ACTUAL election, under the ACTUAL laws of the United States, votes are cast and counted in states. A vote in Wyoming is worth exactly as much as any other vote in Wyoming, which is what matters. And Wyoming has fewer EC votes than NY, which is correct since it's a less-populous state, without being deprived of all representation, which you might remember was kinda important to our Founding Fathers, what with them fighting a revolution over that idea.
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
Comrade, I doubt what you say is true. The Constitution does say that states will apportion electors according to their own rules, but the Constitution also guarantees a republican form of government. Hence if Ohio voters elect Donald Trump but the state awards the electors to Nicolas Maduro because California voted for him, that violates the guarantee of a republican government, Ohio is shitting on the votes of the people their.
You will be challenged in the courts over this. And remember, you Bolsheviks have lost your stranglehold on the courts.
Actually, I do not support this movement, I think it is the wrong way to go. But that does not make it unconstitutional.
The Constitutional challenge is in regard to denying a republican form of government. What Colorado and the other Soros ruled states have done is subvert the voice of their own voters with the voice of California. Essentially they have created a dictatorship by denying the people the right to vote in presidential elections.
Except for Article I Section 10:1, sure.
You're unaware of the fact that states can apportion their EC votes as they see fit?
Add that to the list
They cannot base their votes on results outside of their state. That is not a republican form of government. It is an abortion.
Is anyone else amused that the leftists are trying to cloak their evil in righteousness by claiming they're "trying to protect the sacredness of every vote", when what they're suggesting actually makes large numbers of votes invalid entirely?
There's some 1984 Newspeak bullshit for you right there.
Your opinion has no factual basis behind it.Oh be honest for once in your miserable partisan life. The only reason you support the existence of current system s because it give YOUR party a huge advantage.
You have been shows this is not true.And a state has the complete right as to how they apportion their EC votes.
Comrade, I doubt what you say is true. The Constitution does say that states will apportion electors according to their own rules, but the Constitution also guarantees a republican form of government. Hence if Ohio voters elect Donald Trump but the state awards the electors to Nicolas Maduro because California voted for him, that violates the guarantee of a republican government, Ohio is shitting on the votes of the people their.
You will be challenged in the courts over this. And remember, you Bolsheviks have lost your stranglehold on the courts.
Actually, I do not support this movement, I think it is the wrong way to go. But that does not make it unconstitutional.
The people not being represented is not un-constitutional? The idea your vote is worthless is un-constitutional?
This method makes a vote no more worthless than the current winner take all system.
How do you figure? We have (like most states) winner takes all. That means the people as a whole decided who they want for President. If the people decide who they want for President, and the EC is forced to vote the opposite way, then it totally disenfranchises the majority of voters in our state. That's un-constitutional.
Were how the electors voted always tied to state popular vote?
The people not being represented is not un-constitutional? The idea your vote is worthless is un-constitutional?
This method makes a vote no more worthless than the current winner take all system.
How do you figure? We have (like most states) winner takes all. That means the people as a whole decided who they want for President. If the people decide who they want for President, and the EC is forced to vote the opposite way, then it totally disenfranchises the majority of voters in our state. That's un-constitutional.
Were how the electors voted always tied to state popular vote?
Was there a constitutional challenge to electors being appointed by Senators?
That is a pertinent fact you were going to conveniently gloss over.
There was not one because it was not against the Constitution...just like this is not.
The people not being represented is not un-constitutional? The idea your vote is worthless is un-constitutional?
This method makes a vote no more worthless than the current winner take all system.
How do you figure? We have (like most states) winner takes all. That means the people as a whole decided who they want for President. If the people decide who they want for President, and the EC is forced to vote the opposite way, then it totally disenfranchises the majority of voters in our state. That's un-constitutional.
Were how the electors voted always tied to state popular vote?
I think only three times in history that electors voted against the popular vote of a state, and it was stray electors at that, not the entire electorate.
psssttt...prior to about 1820 or so how the state voted was not taken into account at all when the electors were given who to vote for.
How do you figure? We have (like most states) winner takes all. That means the people as a whole decided who they want for President. If the people decide who they want for President, and the EC is forced to vote the opposite way, then it totally disenfranchises the majority of voters in our state. That's un-constitutional.
Were how the electors voted always tied to state popular vote?
I think only three times in history that electors voted against the popular vote of a state, and it was stray electors at that, not the entire electorate.
psssttt...prior to about 1820 or so how the state voted was not taken into account at all when the electors were given who to vote for.
As late as 1860 South Carolina for one held no vote at all. Electors were simply appointed by the state leg.
And nobody at the time was whining about it being unconstitutional. Weird
Right wingers:
Abortion ; State's Rights!!!!!!
Elections : Fuck Staste's Rights
Ohioans might vote to ditch Electoral College. Who's behind the effort? That's a mystery
DemNazis...
If you cannot win fair, you need to change The Rules so you can cheat!
We are in a Civil War.
And The Dems are Invading this country from The Southern Border and attacking our Constitution in our courts and legislatures.
If the people of Ohio vote for it, the only recourse is for a court challenge.
This isn't being done by politicians. This is a petition and ballot initiative process so it's the people who vote on it. Not politicians.
If the people of Ohio want to abolish the electoral college they have the right to vote to do so.
It's called democracy.
No, they really can't. That's like saying in Ohio, only the Republican presidential candidate can have our electoral college votes. You can't legislate that no matter who proposes it or who votes for it. You can't make a law that an entire state will have the college vote against their will.
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.
. I mean.....c'mon now.....and you people wonder why you are labeled as Disney dwellers?
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.
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.
