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

[Pogo]

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a state deciding how the electoral votes are apportioned. You may not like it but hey...tough shit

Good, let em do it. I'm looking forward to another civil war. This time conservatives vs liberals.

You people are dangerous and violent

You are a drama queen.

"Civil war" isn't drama?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a state deciding how the electoral votes are apportioned. You may not like it but hey...tough shit

Good, let em do it. I'm looking forward to another civil war. This time conservatives vs liberals.

We did that. Twice. Liberals are 2-0. You're thinking what, third time's the charm?

Right, because anybody on the good side was a liberal in your determination. Liberals today are anti-Americans, anti-constitutionalists, anti-freedom. They are power hungry dictators that could care less about the country and only care about themselves and the Democrat party.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

You must live in a state where your vote counts for something.

I did a quick calculation and I came up to about 55 million people cast votes in states for a candidate that had zero chance to win that state (I used the winner taking more than 60% of the vote as my cutoff.)

So you’d rather have New York and California vote and let the rest of the nation’s votes not count? I agree the winner take all model however dividing the EC in states would better represent the Republic.

About 130 million people voted in the last election, 16% of those were in Cali or NY. How does 16% make the rest of the nation not count?

In the 2016 election, roughly 55 million people voted in states for a candidate that had no realistic chance to win that state. That means that roughly 42% of the people cast votes knowing they would not count in the winner take all system we now have.

That is why I am more in favor of states not using the winner take all system. With that system I could see a third party pick up a delegate or two. The popular vote could be a huge mess if there was a national recount.

 

[Pogo]

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a state deciding how the electoral votes are apportioned. You may not like it but hey...tough shit

Good, let em do it. I'm looking forward to another civil war. This time conservatives vs liberals.

We did that. Twice. Liberals are 2-0. You're thinking what, third time's the charm?

Right, because anybody on the good side was a liberal in your determination. Liberals today are anti-Americans, anti-constitutionalists, anti-freedom. They are power hungry dictators that could care less about the country and only care about themselves and the Democrat party.

Uh nnnno, because (a) I'm counting the Revolutionary War where Liberals declared independence and fought off the Loyalists, and (b) I'm counting the Abolitionists who defeated the slavemongers. NEITHER of which involved a "Democrat party", even if such a thing actually existed.

You brought up the idea of "civil war, Liberals versus Conservatives" Princess. I'm just taking it where it goes.

 

[Pogo]

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

You must live in a state where your vote counts for something.

I did a quick calculation and I came up to about 55 million people cast votes in states for a candidate that had zero chance to win that state (I used the winner taking more than 60% of the vote as my cutoff.)

So you’d rather have New York and California vote and let the rest of the nation’s votes not count? I agree the winner take all model however dividing the EC in states would better represent the Republic.

About 130 million people voted in the last election, 16% of those were in Cali or NY. How does 16% make the rest of the nation not count?

In the 2016 election, roughly 55 million people voted in states for a candidate that had no realistic chance to win that state. That means that roughly 42% of the people cast votes knowing they would not count in the winner take all system we now have.

That is why I am more in favor of states not using the winner take all system. With that system I could see a third party pick up a delegate or two. The popular vote could be a huge mess if there was a national recount.

There would be no such thing as a national recount, for the same reason there is none now. Votes are certified by the individual states.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The electoral college is not going anywhere no matter how much the far left screams and bitches about it.

It's just like with guns. They can't get rid of it, so they are trying to create schemes to get around it somehow. The left is just a bunch of anti-Americans. They should leave for another country.

Once AGAIN --- be sure to plug your ears and go because here it comes --- it ain't "the left".

You consider Newt Gingrich to be on the left?

Gingrich had an option, just like many do. However he never took any action to change the system like these clowns in Ohio are trying to do.

What they are basically saying is that the EC will be forced to ignore the voters of their state, and vote with the national majority against the will of the states voters. This eliminates the entire concept of the electoral college and switches it to a national popular vote.

This would be a total disenfranchisement of the states voters. In other words, there would be no sense to vote at all. Whoever is the national winner would be the winner in Ohio, and it doesn't matter if 75% vote for the Republican and 25% vote for the Democrat. Under this commie concept, the Democrat would still get all the EC votes.

 

[Papageorgio]

You must live in a state where your vote counts for something.

I did a quick calculation and I came up to about 55 million people cast votes in states for a candidate that had zero chance to win that state (I used the winner taking more than 60% of the vote as my cutoff.)

So you’d rather have New York and California vote and let the rest of the nation’s votes not count? I agree the winner take all model however dividing the EC in states would better represent the Republic.

About 130 million people voted in the last election, 16% of those were in Cali or NY. How does 16% make the rest of the nation not count?

In the 2016 election, roughly 55 million people voted in states for a candidate that had no realistic chance to win that state. That means that roughly 42% of the people cast votes knowing they would not count in the winner take all system we now have.

That is why I am more in favor of states not using the winner take all system. With that system I could see a third party pick up a delegate or two. The popular vote could be a huge mess if there was a national recount.

There would be no such thing as a national recount, for the same reason there is none now. Votes are certified by the individual states.

More of a reason to be against the popular vote.

 

[Pogo]

I did a quick calculation and I came up to about 55 million people cast votes in states for a candidate that had zero chance to win that state (I used the winner taking more than 60% of the vote as my cutoff.)

So you’d rather have New York and California vote and let the rest of the nation’s votes not count? I agree the winner take all model however dividing the EC in states would better represent the Republic.

About 130 million people voted in the last election, 16% of those were in Cali or NY. How does 16% make the rest of the nation not count?

In the 2016 election, roughly 55 million people voted in states for a candidate that had no realistic chance to win that state. That means that roughly 42% of the people cast votes knowing they would not count in the winner take all system we now have.

That is why I am more in favor of states not using the winner take all system. With that system I could see a third party pick up a delegate or two. The popular vote could be a huge mess if there was a national recount.

There would be no such thing as a national recount, for the same reason there is none now. Votes are certified by the individual states.

More of a reason to be against the popular vote.

That isn't a reason. It's the same thing we do now.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a state deciding how the electoral votes are apportioned. You may not like it but hey...tough shit

Good, let em do it. I'm looking forward to another civil war. This time conservatives vs liberals.

We did that. Twice. Liberals are 2-0. You're thinking what, third time's the charm?

Right, because anybody on the good side was a liberal in your determination. Liberals today are anti-Americans, anti-constitutionalists, anti-freedom. They are power hungry dictators that could care less about the country and only care about themselves and the Democrat party.

Uh nnnno, because (a) I'm counting the Revolutionary War where Liberals declared independence and fought off the Loyalists, and (b) I'm counting the Abolitionists who defeated the slavemongers. NEITHER of which involved a "Democrat party", even if such a thing actually existed.

You brought up the idea of "civil war, Liberals versus Conservatives" Princess. I'm just taking it where it goes.

Right, they were mixed Republicans and Democrats on the southern side.

 

[Lesh]

What they are basically saying is that the EC will be forced to ignore the voters of their state, and vote with the national majority against the will of the states voters. This eliminates the entire concept of the electoral college and switches it to a national popular vote.

Oh gee. Does it do that?

Oh well. It's legal

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What they are basically saying is that the EC will be forced to ignore the voters of their state, and vote with the national majority against the will of the states voters. This eliminates the entire concept of the electoral college and switches it to a national popular vote.

Oh gee. Does it do that?

Oh well. It's legal

Oh well, Democrats are commies too.

This is exactly why we need to divide this country and have two countries instead. We need to separate once and for all and have nothing to do with each other. Put a line north to south dividing the country into the west section and the east section. Have one election (yes a popular vote) and see which side the Democrats get and which side the Republicans get. Put up a huge Trump wall to keep the Democrats out of our side.

 

[Pogo]

The electoral college is not going anywhere no matter how much the far left screams and bitches about it.

It's just like with guns. They can't get rid of it, so they are trying to create schemes to get around it somehow. The left is just a bunch of anti-Americans. They should leave for another country.

Once AGAIN --- be sure to plug your ears and go because here it comes --- it ain't "the left".

You consider Newt Gingrich to be on the left?

Gingrich had an option, just like many do. However he never took any action to change the system like these clowns in Ohio are trying to do.

Not sure what you mean by "had an option". Gingrich is named because he among several other conservatives supports this plan and he's clearly not "the left". Therefore your premise fall down, go boom. This "action to change the system" --- which changes no system except the state itself, which is AGAIN the state's prerogative to do so ---- is the same one Gingrich and other conservatives are behind. I know you really really really really had your heart set on "waaah, they're just sore because they lost" but (a) this whole project got underway several elections ago and (b) it's got support from all sides of the political spectrum, so you don't get to do that.

What they are basically saying is that the EC will be forced to ignore the voters of their state, and vote with the national majority against the will of the states voters. This eliminates the entire concept of the electoral college and switches it to a national popular vote.

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

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

This would be a total disenfranchisement of the states voters. In other words, there would be no sense to vote at all. Whoever is the national winner would be the winner in Ohio, and it doesn't matter if 75% vote for the Republican and 25% vote for the Democrat. Under this commie concept, the Democrat would still get all the EC votes.

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".

 

[Pogo]

What they are basically saying is that the EC will be forced to ignore the voters of their state, and vote with the national majority against the will of the states voters. This eliminates the entire concept of the electoral college and switches it to a national popular vote.

Oh gee. Does it do that?

Oh well. It's legal

Oh well, Democrats are commies too.

This is exactly why we need to divide this country and have two countries instead. We need to separate once and for all and have nothing to do with each other. Put a line north to south dividing the country into the west section and the east section. Have one election (yes a popular vote) and see which side the Democrats get and which side the Republicans get. Put up a huge Trump wall to keep the Democrats out of our side.

I suggest you do a prototype wall keeping me safe from the stupids of South Carolina.

 

[Pogo]

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a state deciding how the electoral votes are apportioned. You may not like it but hey...tough shit

Good, let em do it. I'm looking forward to another civil war. This time conservatives vs liberals.

We did that. Twice. Liberals are 2-0. You're thinking what, third time's the charm?

Right, because anybody on the good side was a liberal in your determination. Liberals today are anti-Americans, anti-constitutionalists, anti-freedom. They are power hungry dictators that could care less about the country and only care about themselves and the Democrat party.

Uh nnnno, because (a) I'm counting the Revolutionary War where Liberals declared independence and fought off the Loyalists, and (b) I'm counting the Abolitionists who defeated the slavemongers. NEITHER of which involved a "Democrat party", even if such a thing actually existed.

You brought up the idea of "civil war, Liberals versus Conservatives" Princess. I'm just taking it where it goes.

Right, they were mixed Republicans and Democrats on the southern side.

How come you want to morph your own point from "Liberals and Conservatives" into "Republicans and Democrats"?

Your own point, dood.

Republicans didn't exist in the South until after the Civil War. They didn't even run Lincoln (or Frémont, their first POTUS candidate). Didn't even print ballots. Didn't even run Lincoln in his birth state of Kentucky until 1864. They figured, correctly, that their support was in the north, midwest and west. That left Democrats, Whigs, the dying-out Know Nothings and the upstart Constitutional Unionists. So the dichotomy of Duopoly did not yet exist for either of those wars.

That's got nothing to do with who was "liberal" or "conservative" though.

Did you actually think "Republicans" and "Democrats" have always existed since god created them in the garden of Eden from, I dunno, the bones of a donkey and an elephant?

History is a lost art.

 

[Papageorgio]

So you’d rather have New York and California vote and let the rest of the nation’s votes not count? I agree the winner take all model however dividing the EC in states would better represent the Republic.

About 130 million people voted in the last election, 16% of those were in Cali or NY. How does 16% make the rest of the nation not count?

In the 2016 election, roughly 55 million people voted in states for a candidate that had no realistic chance to win that state. That means that roughly 42% of the people cast votes knowing they would not count in the winner take all system we now have.

That is why I am more in favor of states not using the winner take all system. With that system I could see a third party pick up a delegate or two. The popular vote could be a huge mess if there was a national recount.

There would be no such thing as a national recount, for the same reason there is none now. Votes are certified by the individual states.

More of a reason to be against the popular vote.

That isn't a reason. It's the same thing we do now.

Yes it is, if only the national vote counts then there Is no need to ever have a state recount, no one would care if a state was won or lost by a few votes. Only a national recount could possibly change a tight election, if not, then not every vote would count.

 

[Pogo]

About 130 million people voted in the last election, 16% of those were in Cali or NY. How does 16% make the rest of the nation not count?

In the 2016 election, roughly 55 million people voted in states for a candidate that had no realistic chance to win that state. That means that roughly 42% of the people cast votes knowing they would not count in the winner take all system we now have.

That is why I am more in favor of states not using the winner take all system. With that system I could see a third party pick up a delegate or two. The popular vote could be a huge mess if there was a national recount.

There would be no such thing as a national recount, for the same reason there is none now. Votes are certified by the individual states.

More of a reason to be against the popular vote.

That isn't a reason. It's the same thing we do now.

Yes it is, if only the national vote counts then there Is no need to ever have a state recount, no one would care if a state was won or lost by a few votes. Only a national recount could possibly change a tight election, if not, then not every vote would count.

For what purpose would you open up a national recount ---- when you already have a state system to do that?

State A reports X, State B reports Y, etc etc. You simply add those numbers up. We already add them up, if only for information. If some state is within some margin, that state can do a recount. It isn't necessary for Idaho to do a recount if the state that isn't sure is Florida.

 

[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.

 

[jasonnfree]

This kind of talk favors the oligarchy and always has. Americans vs
Americans while they sit back and laugh about this coming rebellion some people are always talking about. Jay Gould said he could hire half the workers to kill the other half over a century ago and he was right. In the meanwhile, those at the top keep on sucking up most of the profits this country produces via tax cuts for the rich and more and more poverty for the citizenry. In the meantime, they're laughing at the working class for going at each others' throats. What to do? Getting money out of politics is a first step. Used to be illegal for corporate lobbyists to bribe politicians. Now they do it out in the open, it's legal, and the corporations that do it are now called citizens. Another crazy rule to overthrow since there's nothing in the constitution that says anything about corporations anyway so how did they become citizens?

 

[Papageorgio]

That is why I am more in favor of states not using the winner take all system. With that system I could see a third party pick up a delegate or two. The popular vote could be a huge mess if there was a national recount.

There would be no such thing as a national recount, for the same reason there is none now. Votes are certified by the individual states.

More of a reason to be against the popular vote.

That isn't a reason. It's the same thing we do now.

Yes it is, if only the national vote counts then there Is no need to ever have a state recount, no one would care if a state was won or lost by a few votes. Only a national recount could possibly change a tight election, if not, then not every vote would count.

For what purpose would you open up a national recount ---- when you already have a state system to do that?

State A reports X, State B reports Y, etc etc. You simply add those numbers up. We already add them up, if only for information. If some state is within some margin, that state can do a recount. It isn't necessary for Idaho to do a recount if the state that isn't sure is Florida.

If the national count is .01% of each other then states that voted heavily for one candidate over the other would not recount? How would you know that state make errors that on a state level don’t matter however nationally it could determine the election? So to be fair and have every vote count, then the states would all need to recount because it could change the outcome of an election.

 

[HenryBHough]

But think of the money we can save when only New York and California have to hold presidential elections!

(/sarcastic font)