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

[rightwinger]

SCOTUS will not find it unconstitutional

Republicans have just as much chance of benefitting as Democrats

Failure to pass these laws means we could end up with another Trump or Bush. Two of our worst Presidents

 

[OKTexas]

And the NPV would change that how?

Who said it does?

You're doing a bang-up job of not following somebody else's point. The poster I actually quoted ---- which again was not you ----- tried to sell this song and dance about the NPVIC suddenly "disenfranchising" voters in a given state, as if she's completely ignorant of the fact that MOST voters in her state are already disenfranchised by the current system. I set her straight on that, and as you see -- she has no response.

Exactly how would you chose to rectify that and keep the federal system?

Here's an example I've put forth several times, might as well keep running it.

My state has 15 electoral votes, conveniently an odd number. Instead of awarding all 15 to a candy who pulled 49% of the state's vote, those 15 could be allocated as 8 for Rump/7 for Clinton. Or alternately depending on the math, 7 Rump, 6 Clinton, 1 each for Johnson/Stein.

That would mean abandoning the WTA system, which would be nice but isn't going to happen for the same reason we got gangraped by the WTA system nationwide in the first place --- the mob mentality of "if our neighbor state is doing it then we have to do it too or else we'll get less attention, waaah".

The Constitution of course doesn't provide for a prohibition of WTA, as Madison wanted, hence this NPVIC project is about all we have to fend it off. And fend it off we must.

Not true if you state offers a referendum process, you could start an initiative to go to proportional allocations. Of course both parties will fight it. But give it a shot and bring it to the voters.

Yeah ---- forty-eight times. Rotsa ruck wit dat.

From strictly a psychology standpoint the infection of WTA demonstrates one of the pitfalls of mob mentality. It puts you in a hole you can't get out of. That's why this NPVIC thingy exists --- and why it's designed to only go into effect when it directs 270 EVs.

Is that an ideal solution? Hardly. But it's about all we have to wipe out this infection, short of banning WTA altogether, which would require a Constitutional Amendment as Madison advocated. That would finally return the Electoral College back to its intended operation and deflate most of the argument for abolishing the EC because it would finally work as intended, it would quit disenfranchising millions, it would bring in many more millions who don't bother now because what's the point, and it would put to death these artificial and divisive bullshit concepts of "red states" and "blue states". Votes would actually matter. Everywhere.

90% of the criticism of the Electoral College doesn't stem from the Electoral College idea itself --- it stems from the WTA infection.

Yeah, that's the problem with commies, the right way is slow and cumbersome, so they seek shortcuts. Can't get a social policy though legislation, run to the courts, can't win an election under the current system, band together and try to nullify a constitutional process. Neither congress or the courts will buy it.

.

 

[Pogo]

Who said it does?

You're doing a bang-up job of not following somebody else's point. The poster I actually quoted ---- which again was not you ----- tried to sell this song and dance about the NPVIC suddenly "disenfranchising" voters in a given state, as if she's completely ignorant of the fact that MOST voters in her state are already disenfranchised by the current system. I set her straight on that, and as you see -- she has no response.

Exactly how would you chose to rectify that and keep the federal system?

Here's an example I've put forth several times, might as well keep running it.

My state has 15 electoral votes, conveniently an odd number. Instead of awarding all 15 to a candy who pulled 49% of the state's vote, those 15 could be allocated as 8 for Rump/7 for Clinton. Or alternately depending on the math, 7 Rump, 6 Clinton, 1 each for Johnson/Stein.

That would mean abandoning the WTA system, which would be nice but isn't going to happen for the same reason we got gangraped by the WTA system nationwide in the first place --- the mob mentality of "if our neighbor state is doing it then we have to do it too or else we'll get less attention, waaah".

The Constitution of course doesn't provide for a prohibition of WTA, as Madison wanted, hence this NPVIC project is about all we have to fend it off. And fend it off we must.

Not true if you state offers a referendum process, you could start an initiative to go to proportional allocations. Of course both parties will fight it. But give it a shot and bring it to the voters.

Yeah ---- forty-eight times. Rotsa ruck wit dat.

From strictly a psychology standpoint the infection of WTA demonstrates one of the pitfalls of mob mentality. It puts you in a hole you can't get out of. That's why this NPVIC thingy exists --- and why it's designed to only go into effect when it directs 270 EVs.

Is that an ideal solution? Hardly. But it's about all we have to wipe out this infection, short of banning WTA altogether, which would require a Constitutional Amendment as Madison advocated. That would finally return the Electoral College back to its intended operation and deflate most of the argument for abolishing the EC because it would finally work as intended, it would quit disenfranchising millions, it would bring in many more millions who don't bother now because what's the point, and it would put to death these artificial and divisive bullshit concepts of "red states" and "blue states". Votes would actually matter. Everywhere.

90% of the criticism of the Electoral College doesn't stem from the Electoral College idea itself --- it stems from the WTA infection.

Yeah, that's the problem with commies, the right way is slow and cumbersome, so they seek shortcuts. Can't get a social policy though legislation, run to the courts, can't win an election under the current system, band together and try to nullify a constitutional process. Neither congress or the courts will buy it.

Strangely you're still hung up on economists not present. Afraid to tackle the substance, one is left to presume.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

SCOTUS will not find it unconstitutional

Republicans have just as much chance of benefitting as Democrats

Failure to pass these laws means we could end up with another Trump or Bush. Two of our worst Presidents

That's not what they would rule on. They don't care if it's beneficial to one or both. The problem is the state can't create a law to disenfranchise a majority of the voters in a state.

 

[Rustic]

Blue areas control the wealth

Red areas would still be using lanterns if not for the subsidies from blue areas

Lol
Na, not really
That obviously is not true, who owns the mineral rights and the land you fucking retard

Those in the cities own those rights
They also subsidize all the infrastructure in rural America

They wouldn’t have electricity without those subsidies

Lol
People in the city’s don’t own mineral rights you fucking retard

Last time I checked, mineral rights are owned by whomever owns the land the minerals are on.

Thé person who owns the rights do not have to live on the land

Lol
True, But the person would have to be an idiot to buy land without the mineral rights.

 

[rightwinger]

SCOTUS will not find it unconstitutional

Republicans have just as much chance of benefitting as Democrats

Failure to pass these laws means we could end up with another Trump or Bush. Two of our worst Presidents

That's not what they would rule on. They don't care if it's beneficial to one or both. The problem is the state can't create a law to disenfranchise a majority of the voters in a state.

What do you think the EC does?

If you are a Republican in a Blue State, your vote gets registered for the Democratic Candidate

You have been disenfranchised

 

[rightwinger]

Lol
Na, not really
That obviously is not true, who owns the mineral rights and the land you fucking retard

Those in the cities own those rights
They also subsidize all the infrastructure in rural America

They wouldn’t have electricity without those subsidies

Lol
People in the city’s don’t own mineral rights you fucking retard

Last time I checked, mineral rights are owned by whomever owns the land the minerals are on.

Thé person who owns the rights do not have to live on the land

Lol
True, But the person would have to be an idiot to buy land without the mineral rights.

If you are interested in mining or drilling on a tract of land, you do not need to live on it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

SCOTUS will not find it unconstitutional

Republicans have just as much chance of benefitting as Democrats

Failure to pass these laws means we could end up with another Trump or Bush. Two of our worst Presidents

That's not what they would rule on. They don't care if it's beneficial to one or both. The problem is the state can't create a law to disenfranchise a majority of the voters in a state.

What do you think the EC does?

If you are a Republican in a Blue State, your vote gets registered for the Democratic Candidate

You have been disenfranchised

No, not the same thing. If your candidate loses the state election by popular vote, you just lost, that's all. Losing is not disenfranchisement.

However having a law that says it doesn't matter how the majority vote, they lose anyway if the country votes the opposite way is disenfranchising the majority of voters.

 

[rightwinger]

SCOTUS will not find it unconstitutional

Republicans have just as much chance of benefitting as Democrats

Failure to pass these laws means we could end up with another Trump or Bush. Two of our worst Presidents

That's not what they would rule on. They don't care if it's beneficial to one or both. The problem is the state can't create a law to disenfranchise a majority of the voters in a state.

What do you think the EC does?

If you are a Republican in a Blue State, your vote gets registered for the Democratic Candidate

You have been disenfranchised

No, not the same thing. If your candidate loses the state election by popular vote, you just lost, that's all. Losing is not disenfranchisement.

However having a law that says it doesn't matter how the majority vote, they lose anyway if the country votes the opposite way is disenfranchising the majority of voters.

Your vote in Ohio went towards the national popular vote. It was counted

With an Electoral Vote, anyone in Ohio who voted for Hillary had their vote registered for Trump

That is disenfranchised

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

SCOTUS will not find it unconstitutional

Republicans have just as much chance of benefitting as Democrats

Failure to pass these laws means we could end up with another Trump or Bush. Two of our worst Presidents

That's not what they would rule on. They don't care if it's beneficial to one or both. The problem is the state can't create a law to disenfranchise a majority of the voters in a state.

What do you think the EC does?

If you are a Republican in a Blue State, your vote gets registered for the Democratic Candidate

You have been disenfranchised

No, not the same thing. If your candidate loses the state election by popular vote, you just lost, that's all. Losing is not disenfranchisement.

However having a law that says it doesn't matter how the majority vote, they lose anyway if the country votes the opposite way is disenfranchising the majority of voters.

Your vote in Ohio went towards the national popular vote. It was counted

With an Electoral Vote, anyone in Ohio who voted for Hillary had their vote registered for Trump

That is disenfranchised

That's the way winner takes all works. The voters have their electoral votes go to the winner of that state.

Our vote did not count if we voted differently than the rest of the country. That's as ridiculous of a claim that anybody could ever make. Hillary won the popular vote with the excess in California. That would mean California last election would have chosen where our elector votes went. That is disenfranchisement because they chose our winner, not the citizens of our state.

 

[Pogo]

SCOTUS will not find it unconstitutional

Republicans have just as much chance of benefitting as Democrats

Failure to pass these laws means we could end up with another Trump or Bush. Two of our worst Presidents

That's not what they would rule on. They don't care if it's beneficial to one or both. The problem is the state can't create a law to disenfranchise a majority of the voters in a state.

What do you think the EC does?

If you are a Republican in a Blue State, your vote gets registered for the Democratic Candidate

You have been disenfranchised

No, not the same thing. If your candidate loses the state election by popular vote, you just lost, that's all. Losing is not disenfranchisement.

However having a law that says it doesn't matter how the majority vote, they lose anyway if the country votes the opposite way is disenfranchising the majority of voters.

Your vote in Ohio went towards the national popular vote. It was counted

With an Electoral Vote, anyone in Ohio who voted for Hillary had their vote registered for Trump

That is disenfranchised

That's the way winner takes all works. The voters have their electoral votes go to the winner of that state.

Our vote did not count if we voted differently than the rest of the country. That's as ridiculous of a claim that anybody could ever make. Hillary won the popular vote with the excess in California. That would mean California last election would have chosen where our elector votes went. That is disenfranchisement because they chose our winner, not the citizens of our state.

Nope, it doesn't mean that at all. What you're leaving out of the equation, probably intentionally, is that if we ran such a system EVERYTHING changes in the vote totals. Literally millions of people vote who didn't bother to before, because suddenly their vote is going to matter ---- EVEN IF THEY LIVE IN A SO-CALLED "RED" OR "BLUE" STATE. But you choose to ignore that and pretend that the vote of California (or anywhere else) would be exactly the same as it was under a totally different system. And that's just dishonest.

 

[Rustic]

Those in the cities own those rights
They also subsidize all the infrastructure in rural America

They wouldn’t have electricity without those subsidies

Lol
People in the city’s don’t own mineral rights you fucking retard

Last time I checked, mineral rights are owned by whomever owns the land the minerals are on.

Thé person who owns the rights do not have to live on the land

Lol
True, But the person would have to be an idiot to buy land without the mineral rights.

If you are interested in mining or drilling on a tract of land, you do not need to live on it.

Lol
Never said you did, What I said if you’re buying land you better have the mineral rights come along with it. If you don’t you’re stupid...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's not what they would rule on. They don't care if it's beneficial to one or both. The problem is the state can't create a law to disenfranchise a majority of the voters in a state.

What do you think the EC does?

If you are a Republican in a Blue State, your vote gets registered for the Democratic Candidate

You have been disenfranchised

No, not the same thing. If your candidate loses the state election by popular vote, you just lost, that's all. Losing is not disenfranchisement.

However having a law that says it doesn't matter how the majority vote, they lose anyway if the country votes the opposite way is disenfranchising the majority of voters.

Your vote in Ohio went towards the national popular vote. It was counted

With an Electoral Vote, anyone in Ohio who voted for Hillary had their vote registered for Trump

That is disenfranchised

That's the way winner takes all works. The voters have their electoral votes go to the winner of that state.

Our vote did not count if we voted differently than the rest of the country. That's as ridiculous of a claim that anybody could ever make. Hillary won the popular vote with the excess in California. That would mean California last election would have chosen where our elector votes went. That is disenfranchisement because they chose our winner, not the citizens of our state.

Nope, it doesn't mean that at all. What you're leaving out of the equation, probably intentionally, is that if we ran such a system EVERYTHING changes in the vote totals. Literally millions of people vote who didn't bother to before, because suddenly their vote is going to matter ---- EVEN IF THEY LIVE IN A SO-CALLED "RED" OR "BLUE" STATE. But you choose to ignore that and pretend that the vote of California (or anywhere else) would be exactly the same as it was under a totally different system. And that's just dishonest.

Totally irrelevant. So what if we did have the same results? It would mean the same thing: another state chose our winner instead of us.

 

[rightwinger]

SCOTUS will not find it unconstitutional

Republicans have just as much chance of benefitting as Democrats

Failure to pass these laws means we could end up with another Trump or Bush. Two of our worst Presidents

That's not what they would rule on. They don't care if it's beneficial to one or both. The problem is the state can't create a law to disenfranchise a majority of the voters in a state.

What do you think the EC does?

If you are a Republican in a Blue State, your vote gets registered for the Democratic Candidate

You have been disenfranchised

No, not the same thing. If your candidate loses the state election by popular vote, you just lost, that's all. Losing is not disenfranchisement.

However having a law that says it doesn't matter how the majority vote, they lose anyway if the country votes the opposite way is disenfranchising the majority of voters.

Your vote in Ohio went towards the national popular vote. It was counted

With an Electoral Vote, anyone in Ohio who voted for Hillary had their vote registered for Trump

That is disenfranchised

That's the way winner takes all works. The voters have their electoral votes go to the winner of that state.

Our vote did not count if we voted differently than the rest of the country. That's as ridiculous of a claim that anybody could ever make. Hillary won the popular vote with the excess in California. That would mean California last election would have chosen where our elector votes went. That is disenfranchisement because they chose our winner, not the citizens of our state.

And now there would be a nationwide winner takes all

There are a lot more votes to be won than California

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's not what they would rule on. They don't care if it's beneficial to one or both. The problem is the state can't create a law to disenfranchise a majority of the voters in a state.

What do you think the EC does?

If you are a Republican in a Blue State, your vote gets registered for the Democratic Candidate

You have been disenfranchised

No, not the same thing. If your candidate loses the state election by popular vote, you just lost, that's all. Losing is not disenfranchisement.

However having a law that says it doesn't matter how the majority vote, they lose anyway if the country votes the opposite way is disenfranchising the majority of voters.

Your vote in Ohio went towards the national popular vote. It was counted

With an Electoral Vote, anyone in Ohio who voted for Hillary had their vote registered for Trump

That is disenfranchised

That's the way winner takes all works. The voters have their electoral votes go to the winner of that state.

Our vote did not count if we voted differently than the rest of the country. That's as ridiculous of a claim that anybody could ever make. Hillary won the popular vote with the excess in California. That would mean California last election would have chosen where our elector votes went. That is disenfranchisement because they chose our winner, not the citizens of our state.

And now there would be a nationwide winner takes all

There are a lot more votes to be won than California

Yes there would be which is unconstitutional. You need an amendment for winner take all, not some small group of losers who can't win by the rules any longer.

 

[Pogo]

What do you think the EC does?

If you are a Republican in a Blue State, your vote gets registered for the Democratic Candidate

You have been disenfranchised

No, not the same thing. If your candidate loses the state election by popular vote, you just lost, that's all. Losing is not disenfranchisement.

However having a law that says it doesn't matter how the majority vote, they lose anyway if the country votes the opposite way is disenfranchising the majority of voters.

Your vote in Ohio went towards the national popular vote. It was counted

With an Electoral Vote, anyone in Ohio who voted for Hillary had their vote registered for Trump

That is disenfranchised

That's the way winner takes all works. The voters have their electoral votes go to the winner of that state.

Our vote did not count if we voted differently than the rest of the country. That's as ridiculous of a claim that anybody could ever make. Hillary won the popular vote with the excess in California. That would mean California last election would have chosen where our elector votes went. That is disenfranchisement because they chose our winner, not the citizens of our state.

Nope, it doesn't mean that at all. What you're leaving out of the equation, probably intentionally, is that if we ran such a system EVERYTHING changes in the vote totals. Literally millions of people vote who didn't bother to before, because suddenly their vote is going to matter ---- EVEN IF THEY LIVE IN A SO-CALLED "RED" OR "BLUE" STATE. But you choose to ignore that and pretend that the vote of California (or anywhere else) would be exactly the same as it was under a totally different system. And that's just dishonest.

Totally irrelevant. So what if we did have the same results? It would mean the same thing: another state chose our winner instead of us.

You don't seem to follow the idea. NO, "another state" would not choose the winner, the COUNTRY would choose the winner. Collectively.

What do you think the EC does?

If you are a Republican in a Blue State, your vote gets registered for the Democratic Candidate

You have been disenfranchised

No, not the same thing. If your candidate loses the state election by popular vote, you just lost, that's all. Losing is not disenfranchisement.

However having a law that says it doesn't matter how the majority vote, they lose anyway if the country votes the opposite way is disenfranchising the majority of voters.

Your vote in Ohio went towards the national popular vote. It was counted

With an Electoral Vote, anyone in Ohio who voted for Hillary had their vote registered for Trump

That is disenfranchised

That's the way winner takes all works. The voters have their electoral votes go to the winner of that state.

Our vote did not count if we voted differently than the rest of the country. That's as ridiculous of a claim that anybody could ever make. Hillary won the popular vote with the excess in California. That would mean California last election would have chosen where our elector votes went. That is disenfranchisement because they chose our winner, not the citizens of our state.

And now there would be a nationwide winner takes all

There are a lot more votes to be won than California

Yes there would be which is unconstitutional. You need an amendment for winner take all, not some small group of losers who can't win by the rules any longer.

AGAIN ---- nothing "unconstitutional" about " in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". That specifically states that literally anything is Constitutional. It is unqualified, unlimited and wide open.

 

[Bush92]

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.

Electoral College is part of our federalist system.

 

[The Original Tree]

As long as we are aware and fight everyone who advocates this EVIL, we can preserve The Republic.

 

[The Original Tree]

You be smoking dop, laced with LSD?

Yes you are.

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.

Electoral College is part of our federalist system.

 

[Bush92]

No, not the same thing. If your candidate loses the state election by popular vote, you just lost, that's all. Losing is not disenfranchisement.

However having a law that says it doesn't matter how the majority vote, they lose anyway if the country votes the opposite way is disenfranchising the majority of voters.

Your vote in Ohio went towards the national popular vote. It was counted

With an Electoral Vote, anyone in Ohio who voted for Hillary had their vote registered for Trump

That is disenfranchised

That's the way winner takes all works. The voters have their electoral votes go to the winner of that state.

Our vote did not count if we voted differently than the rest of the country. That's as ridiculous of a claim that anybody could ever make. Hillary won the popular vote with the excess in California. That would mean California last election would have chosen where our elector votes went. That is disenfranchisement because they chose our winner, not the citizens of our state.

Nope, it doesn't mean that at all. What you're leaving out of the equation, probably intentionally, is that if we ran such a system EVERYTHING changes in the vote totals. Literally millions of people vote who didn't bother to before, because suddenly their vote is going to matter ---- EVEN IF THEY LIVE IN A SO-CALLED "RED" OR "BLUE" STATE. But you choose to ignore that and pretend that the vote of California (or anywhere else) would be exactly the same as it was under a totally different system. And that's just dishonest.

Totally irrelevant. So what if we did have the same results? It would mean the same thing: another state chose our winner instead of us.

You don't seem to follow the idea. NO, "another state" would not choose the winner, the COUNTRY would choose the winner. Collectively.

No, not the same thing. If your candidate loses the state election by popular vote, you just lost, that's all. Losing is not disenfranchisement.

However having a law that says it doesn't matter how the majority vote, they lose anyway if the country votes the opposite way is disenfranchising the majority of voters.

Your vote in Ohio went towards the national popular vote. It was counted

With an Electoral Vote, anyone in Ohio who voted for Hillary had their vote registered for Trump

That is disenfranchised

That's the way winner takes all works. The voters have their electoral votes go to the winner of that state.

Our vote did not count if we voted differently than the rest of the country. That's as ridiculous of a claim that anybody could ever make. Hillary won the popular vote with the excess in California. That would mean California last election would have chosen where our elector votes went. That is disenfranchisement because they chose our winner, not the citizens of our state.

And now there would be a nationwide winner takes all

There are a lot more votes to be won than California

Yes there would be which is unconstitutional. You need an amendment for winner take all, not some small group of losers who can't win by the rules any longer.

AGAIN ---- nothing "unconstitutional" about " in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". That specifically states that literally anything is Constitutional. It is unqualified, unlimited and wide open.

POTUS is chosen by the people through the states. This way each region of our large nation has a voice. We cannot allow California and New York to run the nation. They are already fucked up enough.