Popular vote for POTUS under our current system would violate equal protection

[g5000]

The Supreme Court voted 7-2 that the Florida recount violated equal protection by treating voters in different counties with different standards. Clearly our current system nationally would violate equal protection.

Clearly you are a retard.

 

[kaz]

The Supreme Court voted 7-2 that the Florida recount violated equal protection by treating voters in different counties with different standards. Clearly our current system nationally would violate equal protection. Three huge problems would have to be fixed to make popular vote even Constitutional.

1) Voting equipment. All States would have to have the same voting equipment

2) Voting rules. Early voting, voting by mail, voting hours, counting under votes, registration rules and all the other rules around voting would have to be standardized

3) Voter registration requirements. We range from California which actively recruits illegal voters to States that are requiring IDs to combat fraud would have to be standardized

The reason now States can vary is that they only need to be consistent within their State. For a national popular vote, that wouldn't work. California actively floods their system with illegal voters. Clearly that would violate equal protection for responsible States. You up for stopping that, liberals?

Why would all states have to have the same voting equipment or voter registration rules if we somehow managed to wrestle ourselves from the electoral college?

You must have a source somewhere that you're plagiarizing from that you can post.

Read the first sentence of my OP, dumb ass

I did but that doesn't answer the question. States are allowed different rules on voting times, machines used and registration guidelines as elections are up to the states. Going from the electoral college to a popular vote doesn't change any of that.

That's why I'm asking for your source.

Statewide elections are allowed standard statewide rules under equal protection. National elections would require national rules under equal protection.

You actually, seriously don't grasp that. You've evolved to a whole new plane of stupid

 

[kaz]

Not really. States can decide to bind their electors to the national popular vote.

National Popular Vote

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

Sure they can. That's not a popular vote for President though, so it's irrelevant to the thread

If the number of states that pass such a law reaches the 270 electoral mark then it most certainly would be. They only need a combination of states with 105 more to enact that.

It would do so without the need for a Constitutional Amendment.

The Constitution enables the states to decide how they choose their electors.

EV isn't PV, what is wrong with you?

 

[HappyJoy]

The Supreme Court voted 7-2 that the Florida recount violated equal protection by treating voters in different counties with different standards. Clearly our current system nationally would violate equal protection. Three huge problems would have to be fixed to make popular vote even Constitutional.

1) Voting equipment. All States would have to have the same voting equipment

2) Voting rules. Early voting, voting by mail, voting hours, counting under votes, registration rules and all the other rules around voting would have to be standardized

3) Voter registration requirements. We range from California which actively recruits illegal voters to States that are requiring IDs to combat fraud would have to be standardized

The reason now States can vary is that they only need to be consistent within their State. For a national popular vote, that wouldn't work. California actively floods their system with illegal voters. Clearly that would violate equal protection for responsible States. You up for stopping that, liberals?

Why would all states have to have the same voting equipment or voter registration rules if we somehow managed to wrestle ourselves from the electoral college?

You must have a source somewhere that you're plagiarizing from that you can post.

Read the first sentence of my OP, dumb ass

I did but that doesn't answer the question. States are allowed different rules on voting times, machines used and registration guidelines as elections are up to the states. Going from the electoral college to a popular vote doesn't change any of that.

That's why I'm asking for your source.

Statewide elections are allowed standard statewide rules under equal protection. National elections would require national rules under equal protection.

They would? Why?

You actually, seriously don't grasp that. You've evolved to a whole new plane of stupid

Oh, I grasp that you are jumping to conclusions.

Where is your source?

 

[BULLDOG]

California actively floods their system with illegal voters.

^bullshit claim

^bullshit claim

Data?

You idjits don't know about California and drivers licenses, welfare, free healthcare, government educations and the rights of citizenship for illegals? Seriously? I'd think even a Democrat in the UK would know that

Oh Goodie. Please present your proof that California actively floods their system with illegal voters. Feel free to present any sources you like, but the crazy ones will be laughed at.

I don't cater to willful stupidity, BULLSHIT.

I do like it from the guy who can't show Trump ran on family values while you call for women to wear maxis because seeing all that skin just reminds you what you aren't getting.

I even keep pointing you to Fox, the conservative news channel with all the conservative women showing lots of skin and you whiff on that too.

Now you want a link for basic information you could easily find yourself? LOL, yeah ...

I've read your posts. Yes, you are all about willfully stupid. You made the claim. Either prove it or admit it was just something you heard from other RWNJs. As far as pointing out the right's decision to forget about family values to allow trump's lesbian stripper wife, family values are still in your platform. You haven't even had time to drop that yet.

 

[CowboyTed]

The Supreme Court voted 7-2 that the Florida recount violated equal protection by treating voters in different counties with different standards. Clearly our current system nationally would violate equal protection. Three huge problems would have to be fixed to make popular vote even Constitutional.

1) Voting equipment. All States would have to have the same voting equipment

2) Voting rules. Early voting, voting by mail, voting hours, counting under votes, registration rules and all the other rules around voting would have to be standardized

3) Voter registration requirements. We range from California which actively recruits illegal voters to States that are requiring IDs to combat fraud would have to be standardized

The reason now States can vary is that they only need to be consistent within their State. For a national popular vote, that wouldn't work. California actively floods their system with illegal voters. Clearly that would violate equal protection for responsible States. You up for stopping that, liberals?

Would not the Electoral College be the biggest violation.... one vote worth 2.5 times another...

Seems all were not created equal...

 

[BULLDOG]

California actively floods their system with illegal voters.

^bullshit claim

^bullshit claim

Data?

You idjits don't know about California and drivers licenses, welfare, free healthcare, government educations and the rights of citizenship for illegals? Seriously? I'd think even a Democrat in the UK would know that

Oh Goodie. Please present your proof that California actively floods their system with illegal voters. Feel free to present any sources you like, but the crazy ones will be laughed at.

You may see that proof if Trump's justice department does an investigation (and they should). We know the Democrats will never do it.

So no proof now?

 

[kaz]

The Supreme Court voted 7-2 that the Florida recount violated equal protection by treating voters in different counties with different standards. Clearly our current system nationally would violate equal protection. Three huge problems would have to be fixed to make popular vote even Constitutional.

1) Voting equipment. All States would have to have the same voting equipment

2) Voting rules. Early voting, voting by mail, voting hours, counting under votes, registration rules and all the other rules around voting would have to be standardized

3) Voter registration requirements. We range from California which actively recruits illegal voters to States that are requiring IDs to combat fraud would have to be standardized

The reason now States can vary is that they only need to be consistent within their State. For a national popular vote, that wouldn't work. California actively floods their system with illegal voters. Clearly that would violate equal protection for responsible States. You up for stopping that, liberals?

Why would all states have to have the same voting equipment or voter registration rules if we somehow managed to wrestle ourselves from the electoral college?

You must have a source somewhere that you're plagiarizing from that you can post.

Read the first sentence of my OP, dumb ass

I did but that doesn't answer the question. States are allowed different rules on voting times, machines used and registration guidelines as elections are up to the states. Going from the electoral college to a popular vote doesn't change any of that.

That's why I'm asking for your source.

Statewide elections are allowed standard statewide rules under equal protection. National elections would require national rules under equal protection.

They would? Why?

You actually, seriously don't grasp that. You've evolved to a whole new plane of stupid

Oh, I grasp that you are jumping to conclusions.

Where is your source?

Read the first sentence of my op and address it, or don't, but I'm not going to debate you ignoring it. Read the sentence, think about it, and explain your view that equal protection isn't required in voting when the SC says it is

 

[BlindBoo]

Not really. States can decide to bind their electors to the national popular vote.

National Popular Vote

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

Sure they can. That's not a popular vote for President though, so it's irrelevant to the thread

If the number of states that pass such a law reaches the 270 electoral mark then it most certainly would be. They only need a combination of states with 105 more to enact that.

It would do so without the need for a Constitutional Amendment.

The Constitution enables the states to decide how they choose their electors.

EV isn't PV, what is wrong with you?

If enough states legally bind their EV's to the nation wide PV then the winner will be based on the PV total of all 50 states(and D.C). They have states with 165 EV's now and need only 105 more.

 

[kaz]

^bullshit claim

Data?

You idjits don't know about California and drivers licenses, welfare, free healthcare, government educations and the rights of citizenship for illegals? Seriously? I'd think even a Democrat in the UK would know that

Oh Goodie. Please present your proof that California actively floods their system with illegal voters. Feel free to present any sources you like, but the crazy ones will be laughed at.

I don't cater to willful stupidity, BULLSHIT.

I do like it from the guy who can't show Trump ran on family values while you call for women to wear maxis because seeing all that skin just reminds you what you aren't getting.

I even keep pointing you to Fox, the conservative news channel with all the conservative women showing lots of skin and you whiff on that too.

Now you want a link for basic information you could easily find yourself? LOL, yeah ...

I've read your posts. Yes, you are all about willfully stupid. You made the claim. Either prove it or admit it was just something you heard from other RWNJs. As far as pointing out the right's decision to forget about family values to allow trump's lesbian stripper wife, family values are still in your platform. You haven't even had time to drop that yet.

You want proof that California is illegal friendly and you say I'm willfully stupid. Grow a pair, Nancy, you're a joke

 

[CowboyTed]

California actively floods their system with illegal voters.

^bullshit claim

^bullshit claim

Data?

You idjits don't know about California and drivers licenses, welfare, free healthcare, government educations and the rights of citizenship for illegals? Seriously? I'd think even a Democrat in the UK would know that

I think you should have some data to point to, some peer reviewed study. Do you? Or just the usual shyte?

Any simple Google search would verify all that for you and more how out of their way California is going to import illegal aliens. If I make a questionable claim then sure, asking for a link is reasonable. But clearly you've done zero to remediate your own ignorance because again any simple searches on your part would have flooded you with what I am talking about. I always have two tabs open. One for USMB, one for searching. I'd never ask someone to provide me a link to simple verification I can easily find myself. I only ask when I try and can't. As you clearly did not try

Doesn't look like proof to me... Think he might be struggling....

Did you not understand the question...

 

[kaz]

The Supreme Court voted 7-2 that the Florida recount violated equal protection by treating voters in different counties with different standards. Clearly our current system nationally would violate equal protection. Three huge problems would have to be fixed to make popular vote even Constitutional.

1) Voting equipment. All States would have to have the same voting equipment

2) Voting rules. Early voting, voting by mail, voting hours, counting under votes, registration rules and all the other rules around voting would have to be standardized

3) Voter registration requirements. We range from California which actively recruits illegal voters to States that are requiring IDs to combat fraud would have to be standardized

The reason now States can vary is that they only need to be consistent within their State. For a national popular vote, that wouldn't work. California actively floods their system with illegal voters. Clearly that would violate equal protection for responsible States. You up for stopping that, liberals?

Would not the Electoral College be the biggest violation.... one vote worth 2.5 times another...

Seems all were not created equal...

No, because in the EV, States vote for President, not individual citizens. In PV citizens are voting for President so equal protection would apply.

And more directly, the EV is in the Constitution and PV isn't. Seriously, you're arguing the Constitution is Unconstitutional? Now that's funny

 

[CowboyTed]

Data?

You idjits don't know about California and drivers licenses, welfare, free healthcare, government educations and the rights of citizenship for illegals? Seriously? I'd think even a Democrat in the UK would know that

Oh Goodie. Please present your proof that California actively floods their system with illegal voters. Feel free to present any sources you like, but the crazy ones will be laughed at.

I don't cater to willful stupidity, BULLSHIT.

I do like it from the guy who can't show Trump ran on family values while you call for women to wear maxis because seeing all that skin just reminds you what you aren't getting.

I even keep pointing you to Fox, the conservative news channel with all the conservative women showing lots of skin and you whiff on that too.

Now you want a link for basic information you could easily find yourself? LOL, yeah ...

I've read your posts. Yes, you are all about willfully stupid. You made the claim. Either prove it or admit it was just something you heard from other RWNJs. As far as pointing out the right's decision to forget about family values to allow trump's lesbian stripper wife, family values are still in your platform. You haven't even had time to drop that yet.

You want proof that California is illegal friendly and you say I'm willfully stupid. Grow a pair, Nancy, you're a joke

Sorry you need proof that they are all voting on a massive scale...

Please offer that or it's back to bullshit mountain for you...

 

[kaz]

Not really. States can decide to bind their electors to the national popular vote.

National Popular Vote

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

Sure they can. That's not a popular vote for President though, so it's irrelevant to the thread

If the number of states that pass such a law reaches the 270 electoral mark then it most certainly would be. They only need a combination of states with 105 more to enact that.

It would do so without the need for a Constitutional Amendment.

The Constitution enables the states to decide how they choose their electors.

EV isn't PV, what is wrong with you?

If enough states legally bind their EV's to the nation wide PV then the winner will be based on the PV total of all 50 states(and D.C). They have states with 165 EV's now and need only 105 more.

No, it's still EV where States decided the criteria for their EV votes, it is not PV. PV is citizens voting directly for President.

EV is States voting for POTUS
PV is citizens voting for POTUS

You are still clearly in an EV system which is not the topic of the thread. States can do what you say, sure. But it's not PV

 

[Uncensored2008]

California actively floods their system with illegal voters.

^bullshit claim

Absolute fact.

When an illegal alien gets a drivers license, they are automatically registered to vote.

Bill Text - AB-1461 Voter registration: California New Motor Voter Program.

While it is still technically illegal for the illegals to vote, they ARE registered and nothing will stop or even hamper them from voting.

California does indeed flood the system with illegal voters.

Go ahead and post leftwing Snopes, and I will again show WHY Snopes is a fraud.

 

[kaz]

^bullshit claim

Data?

You idjits don't know about California and drivers licenses, welfare, free healthcare, government educations and the rights of citizenship for illegals? Seriously? I'd think even a Democrat in the UK would know that

I think you should have some data to point to, some peer reviewed study. Do you? Or just the usual shyte?

Any simple Google search would verify all that for you and more how out of their way California is going to import illegal aliens. If I make a questionable claim then sure, asking for a link is reasonable. But clearly you've done zero to remediate your own ignorance because again any simple searches on your part would have flooded you with what I am talking about. I always have two tabs open. One for USMB, one for searching. I'd never ask someone to provide me a link to simple verification I can easily find myself. I only ask when I try and can't. As you clearly did not try

Doesn't look like proof to me... Think he might be struggling....

Did you not understand the question...

When I say no I won't do simple Google searches for you, that doesn't say I didn't understand the question. I just gave the answer of no. You aren't very bright, that was pretty clear

 

[HappyJoy]

Why would all states have to have the same voting equipment or voter registration rules if we somehow managed to wrestle ourselves from the electoral college?

You must have a source somewhere that you're plagiarizing from that you can post.

Read the first sentence of my OP, dumb ass

I did but that doesn't answer the question. States are allowed different rules on voting times, machines used and registration guidelines as elections are up to the states. Going from the electoral college to a popular vote doesn't change any of that.

That's why I'm asking for your source.

Statewide elections are allowed standard statewide rules under equal protection. National elections would require national rules under equal protection.

They would? Why?

You actually, seriously don't grasp that. You've evolved to a whole new plane of stupid

Oh, I grasp that you are jumping to conclusions.

Where is your source?

Read the first sentence of my op and address it, or don't, but I'm not going to debate you ignoring it. Read the sentence, think about it, and explain your view that equal protection isn't required in voting when the SC says it is

I did, states run their own elections, the Supreme Court said that the recount did not provide equal protection within a statewide election. You are making an assumption that a national popular vote wouldn't be run by 50 individual states plus D.C.

What is your source that a national popular vote would be unconstitutional (assuming the electoral college was amended out)?

 

[kaz]

You idjits don't know about California and drivers licenses, welfare, free healthcare, government educations and the rights of citizenship for illegals? Seriously? I'd think even a Democrat in the UK would know that

Oh Goodie. Please present your proof that California actively floods their system with illegal voters. Feel free to present any sources you like, but the crazy ones will be laughed at.

I don't cater to willful stupidity, BULLSHIT.

I do like it from the guy who can't show Trump ran on family values while you call for women to wear maxis because seeing all that skin just reminds you what you aren't getting.

I even keep pointing you to Fox, the conservative news channel with all the conservative women showing lots of skin and you whiff on that too.

Now you want a link for basic information you could easily find yourself? LOL, yeah ...

I've read your posts. Yes, you are all about willfully stupid. You made the claim. Either prove it or admit it was just something you heard from other RWNJs. As far as pointing out the right's decision to forget about family values to allow trump's lesbian stripper wife, family values are still in your platform. You haven't even had time to drop that yet.

You want proof that California is illegal friendly and you say I'm willfully stupid. Grow a pair, Nancy, you're a joke

Sorry you need proof that they are all voting on a massive scale...

Please offer that or it's back to bullshit mountain for you...

I do? Or what? This should be interesting.

My standard is I do my own searching before asking questions. I apply that same standard to people who ask me stupid questions. I don't give a shit what your standard is, tough guy

 

[BULLDOG]

Data?

You idjits don't know about California and drivers licenses, welfare, free healthcare, government educations and the rights of citizenship for illegals? Seriously? I'd think even a Democrat in the UK would know that

Oh Goodie. Please present your proof that California actively floods their system with illegal voters. Feel free to present any sources you like, but the crazy ones will be laughed at.

I don't cater to willful stupidity, BULLSHIT.

I do like it from the guy who can't show Trump ran on family values while you call for women to wear maxis because seeing all that skin just reminds you what you aren't getting.

I even keep pointing you to Fox, the conservative news channel with all the conservative women showing lots of skin and you whiff on that too.

Now you want a link for basic information you could easily find yourself? LOL, yeah ...

I've read your posts. Yes, you are all about willfully stupid. You made the claim. Either prove it or admit it was just something you heard from other RWNJs. As far as pointing out the right's decision to forget about family values to allow trump's lesbian stripper wife, family values are still in your platform. You haven't even had time to drop that yet.

You want proof that California is illegal friendly and you say I'm willfully stupid. Grow a pair, Nancy, you're a joke

You didn't claim they were friendly. You claimed that they actively flooded their system with illegal voters. Two drastically different things. Why are you trying to weasel out of it? Present your proof.

 

[kaz]

Read the first sentence of my OP, dumb ass

I did but that doesn't answer the question. States are allowed different rules on voting times, machines used and registration guidelines as elections are up to the states. Going from the electoral college to a popular vote doesn't change any of that.

That's why I'm asking for your source.

Statewide elections are allowed standard statewide rules under equal protection. National elections would require national rules under equal protection.

They would? Why?

You actually, seriously don't grasp that. You've evolved to a whole new plane of stupid

Oh, I grasp that you are jumping to conclusions.

Where is your source?

Read the first sentence of my op and address it, or don't, but I'm not going to debate you ignoring it. Read the sentence, think about it, and explain your view that equal protection isn't required in voting when the SC says it is

I did, states run their own elections, the Supreme Court said that the recount did not provide equal protection within a statewide election. You are making an assumption that a national popular vote wouldn't be run by 50 individual states plus D.C.

What is your source that a national popular vote would be unconstitutional (assuming the electoral college was amended out)?

Read the OP