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

[BULLDOG]

Great. That should make it really easy for you to show proof that California actively floods their system with illegal voters.

You mean how you proved that Trump ran on family values and that conservatives abhor skin and are prudes by watching Fox News and all the hot, minimally dressed hotties they have?

Like that?

Nope. Not like that. I never made any of those claims. The voices in your head might be confusing you. Go back and reread what I did say.

You said Republicans are sexual prudes who can't stand to see women's skin. It turns out you were referring to yourself ...

When do you think I said that?

When you said how outraged you were they didn't support your quest to ban lesbian porn, nudity and skimpy dresses. Personally I find it hot once in a while. Maybe you could loosen up your smug condescension. Another tip is maybe you could not click on those links.

Oh, and definitely don't turn to Fox News. Turns out Conservatives do like hot women in skimpy clothing, you were wrong

Never said I was outraged, and certainly not about that. I said it was hypocritical for the right to drop what they have always claimed were their deeply held morals and adherence to family values to accommodate trump's lesbian porn wife. I stand by that statement.

 

[g5000]

Now watch the goldfish brains hit their 30-second reset and claim all over again millions of illegals voted with their California driver's licenses.

Just watch. It's like clockwork.

 

[g5000]

Tabula rasa. That's the retard brain. Whichever propaganda mill writes on their brains first has the advantage. Once some bullshit lies are written on their brain cells, NOTHING can erase it.

And these tards have been trained to always go to their favorite propagand mill for their "knowledge". That way, they won't be subjected to the influences of reality or truth before their puppet masters can get to them.

 

[kaz]

You stated that all states would have to use the same voting machines for the purpose of equal protection. Problem is voters don't use the same voting systems within the same state. it's a bogus point you are trying to make.

Voting methods and equipment by state - Ballotpedia

And? Posting a link without having a point isn't helping you. Why would all states have to use the same voting equipment if they already don't use the same equipment statewide?

Kaz is in fine form today. He is why I always say USMess has the best crazy.

Thanks man, always strive to be #1

Your posts look more like #2.

A potty joke, just what I would expect from you

 

[BULLDOG]

[

That's why I said to get someone to explain what it says. I knew your comprehension wasn't that good. If nothing else, go to the top of the link page where you will see

CLAIM: California passed a law to allow undocumented immigrants to vote.

FALSE

That's Snopes.com way of saying you are wrong.

I was waiting for one of you retards to pull out the lying fucks at Snopes.

Snopes lied by saying this;

CLAIM: California passed a law to allow undocumented immigrants to vote.

NOPE, the claim is;

California passed a law that automatically registers illegal aliens to vote when they get a drivers license, which is absolute fact.

You see Snopes are a bunch of fucking liars, they exist to promote leftism, not to fact check.

Ok. You got a credible link that says illegal aliens are automatically registered to vote when they get a drivers license?

Are you stupid?

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

Are you
California AB-60 Driver's License | DMV.org

 

[kaz]

Voting methods and equipment by state - Ballotpedia

And? Posting a link without having a point isn't helping you. Why would all states have to use the same voting equipment if they already don't use the same equipment statewide?

Begging the question. State elections are run by State election boards and they do use the same equipment across the State. The Supremes smacked Florida when the Florida court tried to violate it

Sorry, voters in Wisconsin for example used different voting methods in different precincts. How's that for your equal protection argument?

If you remember in Florida in 2000 they had the butterfly ballot in some counties, those were never ruled unconstitutional because they weren't used state wide.

So, where is your source backing you up?

You're taking the "same equipment" too literally. Wisconsin machines have to be approved by the State. They would have to be functionally equivalent. Counties can't just go use any equipment they chose.

Approved equipment could be challenged as a violation of equal protection if it is not equivalent.

Butterfly ballots were removed after the election because it turned out liberals were too stupid to follow a line, and they only had to do that in counties that used butterfly ballots. Once it was realized that liberals were actually that stupid, it was corrected. I would have preferred they institute butterfly ballots in every county to let as many of you as possible disenfranchise yourselves, but they went the other way

Of course you miss the point. There is no legal reason why people have to vote on the same machines or even use the same style of ballot. Your equal protection argument is bullshit.

Wrong, every State has an election commission responsible to ensure all citizens can vote equally

 

[HappyJoy]

And? Posting a link without having a point isn't helping you. Why would all states have to use the same voting equipment if they already don't use the same equipment statewide?

Begging the question. State elections are run by State election boards and they do use the same equipment across the State. The Supremes smacked Florida when the Florida court tried to violate it

Sorry, voters in Wisconsin for example used different voting methods in different precincts. How's that for your equal protection argument?

If you remember in Florida in 2000 they had the butterfly ballot in some counties, those were never ruled unconstitutional because they weren't used state wide.

So, where is your source backing you up?

You're taking the "same equipment" too literally. Wisconsin machines have to be approved by the State. They would have to be functionally equivalent. Counties can't just go use any equipment they chose.

Approved equipment could be challenged as a violation of equal protection if it is not equivalent.

Butterfly ballots were removed after the election because it turned out liberals were too stupid to follow a line, and they only had to do that in counties that used butterfly ballots. Once it was realized that liberals were actually that stupid, it was corrected. I would have preferred they institute butterfly ballots in every county to let as many of you as possible disenfranchise yourselves, but they went the other way

Of course you miss the point. There is no legal reason why people have to vote on the same machines or even use the same style of ballot. Your equal protection argument is bullshit.

Wrong, every State has an election commission responsible to ensure all citizens can vote equally

They do and they still would. But you're still missing the point. They use different voting mechanisms in the same state, that has nothing to do with the equal protection clause. Moron.

 

[kaz]

That would be a good argument if I said California passed a law allowing them to vote. Unfortunately for your argument, I didn't say that

But you presented it as proof that California actively flooded their system with illegal voters. We both agree that didn't prove your claim. You got anything else?

You killed your argument with the voter registration example where illegals can legally get a drivers license and are automatically registered to vote. I didn't have to lift a finger

Really? I presented a link that said just the opposite. Are you doing drugs?

No, your link said they didn't technically make it legal for illegals to vote. It did not say they were not making it easy to illegally vote by making it legal for them to get drivers licenses then automatically registering them.

Are you reading your own links?

From the link
Eligible citizens are registered to vote when they show up at a Department of Motor Vehicles office to obtain a driver's license or state ID.


Illegal aliens receive what is known as an AB-60 license, and anyone receiving an AB-60 drivers license is not automatically registered to vote, and can not use the specially marked license for ID, so can not use it to register to vote.


California AB-60 Driver's License | DMV.org
This is a special driver's license that:

• May NOT be used for identification purposes.
• MAY be used to drive anywhere throughout the state of California.
• Has a distinguishing feature and notice on the front of the license indicating that it is for driving purposes only, per the AB-60 law (i.e. “DP" instead of “DL").
• Cannot be used against the license holder to determine their immigration status or citizenship, or detain them in any way for reasons other than valid traffic violations.

I like it, disproving your own link. Now that's some real progress

 

[BULLDOG]

But you presented it as proof that California actively flooded their system with illegal voters. We both agree that didn't prove your claim. You got anything else?

You killed your argument with the voter registration example where illegals can legally get a drivers license and are automatically registered to vote. I didn't have to lift a finger

Really? I presented a link that said just the opposite. Are you doing drugs?

No, your link said they didn't technically make it legal for illegals to vote. It did not say they were not making it easy to illegally vote by making it legal for them to get drivers licenses then automatically registering them.

Are you reading your own links?

From the link
Eligible citizens are registered to vote when they show up at a Department of Motor Vehicles office to obtain a driver's license or state ID.


Illegal aliens receive what is known as an AB-60 license, and anyone receiving an AB-60 drivers license is not automatically registered to vote, and can not use the specially marked license for ID, so can not use it to register to vote.


California AB-60 Driver's License | DMV.org
This is a special driver's license that:

• May NOT be used for identification purposes.
• MAY be used to drive anywhere throughout the state of California.
• Has a distinguishing feature and notice on the front of the license indicating that it is for driving purposes only, per the AB-60 law (i.e. “DP" instead of “DL").
• Cannot be used against the license holder to determine their immigration status or citizenship, or detain them in any way for reasons other than valid traffic violations.

I like it, disproving your own link. Now that's some real progress

Sorry, but I can only deal with your crazy for so long at a time.

 

[kaz]

You mean how you proved that Trump ran on family values and that conservatives abhor skin and are prudes by watching Fox News and all the hot, minimally dressed hotties they have?

Like that?

Nope. Not like that. I never made any of those claims. The voices in your head might be confusing you. Go back and reread what I did say.

You said Republicans are sexual prudes who can't stand to see women's skin. It turns out you were referring to yourself ...

When do you think I said that?

When you said how outraged you were they didn't support your quest to ban lesbian porn, nudity and skimpy dresses. Personally I find it hot once in a while. Maybe you could loosen up your smug condescension. Another tip is maybe you could not click on those links.

Oh, and definitely don't turn to Fox News. Turns out Conservatives do like hot women in skimpy clothing, you were wrong

Never said I was outraged, and certainly not about that. I said it was hypocritical for the right to drop what they have always claimed were their deeply held morals and adherence to family values to accommodate trump's lesbian porn wife. I stand by that statement.

Who claimed Republicans were for family values that voted for Trump? We've gone full circle, this is the crap you made up that I challenged in the first place.

Prove that socons voted for Trump. He sure didn't run as a socon.

And your contrived standard is laughable when you vote for sexual predators and women who attack victims of sexual predators while claiming you are pro-woman. You target women and black conservatives for your sharpest knives when they dare not to be democrats. You ignore tax cheats and tax evaders who are Democrats or Democrat donors.

Suddenly this is a standard for you. You're a liar, and a bad one

 

[kaz]

You killed your argument with the voter registration example where illegals can legally get a drivers license and are automatically registered to vote. I didn't have to lift a finger

Really? I presented a link that said just the opposite. Are you doing drugs?

No, your link said they didn't technically make it legal for illegals to vote. It did not say they were not making it easy to illegally vote by making it legal for them to get drivers licenses then automatically registering them.

Are you reading your own links?

From the link
Eligible citizens are registered to vote when they show up at a Department of Motor Vehicles office to obtain a driver's license or state ID.


Illegal aliens receive what is known as an AB-60 license, and anyone receiving an AB-60 drivers license is not automatically registered to vote, and can not use the specially marked license for ID, so can not use it to register to vote.


California AB-60 Driver's License | DMV.org
This is a special driver's license that:

• May NOT be used for identification purposes.
• MAY be used to drive anywhere throughout the state of California.
• Has a distinguishing feature and notice on the front of the license indicating that it is for driving purposes only, per the AB-60 law (i.e. “DP" instead of “DL").
• Cannot be used against the license holder to determine their immigration status or citizenship, or detain them in any way for reasons other than valid traffic violations.

I like it, disproving your own link. Now that's some real progress

Sorry, but I can only deal with your crazy for so long at a time.

You only wanted serious arguments to your argument that California is not enabling illegal immigration? You don't want crazy, offer more than crazy

 

[Uncensored2008]

The motor voter bill automatically registers illegal aliens to vote - this is a fact.

Nope. That is a lie. A bald faced lie. Retard.

Also, see post 56. Idiot.

Wrong again Guno, it is a FACT, as you know. That the SOS claims they will remove them does not alter the FACT that the illegals are automatically registered, as you well know.

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

Look, you're a democrat, lying to you is like breathing to normal people, you cannot exist without it. Still....

You realllllly should have read post 56, retard. I gave you a chance, but your two brain cells were too taxed.

California driver's licenses for illegals say in all caps "FEDERAL LIMITS APPLY" in the upper right hand corner.

You can't miss it.

On the back, it says, “This card is not acceptable for official federal purposes. This license is issued only as a license to drive a motor vehicle. It does not establish eligibility for employment, voter registration, or public benefits.”

Illegals are not automatically registered to vote under the Motor Voter law. Got it now, retard?

Again with the Straw Man fallacy.

The bill AUTOMATICALLY registers ALL drivers license recipients.

Nope.

Read your own link, dumbass. They only register citizens, period. Retard. It's right there in black and white in your own link.

You are making shit up. Stop that.

And again, I ask you to explain how someone with a "FEDERAL LIMITS APPLY" identification would be able to vote.

False Guno,

They register everyone and remove the ineligible after the fact.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

It will accomplish the same thing as an amendment without having to worry about 1, 2, or 3 of you list. Makes them a moot point. It would base the EV on the Nationwide PV.

Yes, it would largely do that. Not exactly since proportionality wouldn't be exact. It's irrelevant to the thread and I keep agreeing with you that they could do that though so I still don't know what you're arguing. Also, to require the States to do it, you'd need a Constitutional amendment

The states themselves have always had the right. All that is needed is for enough states that have a total of 105 more EVs to pass the law and it will be a done deal. No Amendment required.

Do you think the Peoples Republic would to this?

But that's the rub, you wouldn't WANT them to, only the battle ground states.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

It will accomplish the same thing as an amendment without having to worry about 1, 2, or 3 of you list. Makes them a moot point. It would base the EV on the Nationwide PV.

Yes, it would largely do that. Not exactly since proportionality wouldn't be exact. It's irrelevant to the thread and I keep agreeing with you that they could do that though so I still don't know what you're arguing. Also, to require the States to do it, you'd need a Constitutional amendment

The states themselves have always had the right

I am not sure why you keep repeating a statement to me that I keep repeating I agree with as if it's an argument against what I'm saying

All that is needed is for enough states that have a total of 105 more EVs to pass the law and it will be a done deal. No Amendment required.

Currently every State would have to decide that for themselves. Where do you get 105 EVs? I don't know what that means

It was in the links.

11 states have passed the law already. The EV of those states totals up to 165. As soon as enough states pass the law to equal 270 EV's the law goes into effect in those states. Hence the 105 number. If enough states pass the law, it will effectively give us a national popular vote without having to worry about an amendment or the things you listed.

 

[bendog]

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?

That's NOT what Bush v. Gore held. What was unconstitutional was applying different means of recount in different counties. What WAS constitutional was poorer, generally minority counties, having less accurate means of counting votes than more affluent, usually white, communities.

Hence the irony of Sandy Baby's equal protection analysis.

Under the Const the power to regulate elections resides with individual states. All that matters is that each state must count votes equally in that state. And equal doesn't mean all counties the same, at least according to Sandy Baby.

Not that I have any gripe with W winning. The gop held the Fla legislature, and they can appoint the electors. And even with a popular vote, I think W wins under Sandy Baby's constitutional analysis ... which btw expressly said it had no precedential value to future cases.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

It will accomplish the same thing as an amendment without having to worry about 1, 2, or 3 of you list. Makes them a moot point. It would base the EV on the Nationwide PV.

Yes, it would largely do that. Not exactly since proportionality wouldn't be exact. It's irrelevant to the thread and I keep agreeing with you that they could do that though so I still don't know what you're arguing. Also, to require the States to do it, you'd need a Constitutional amendment

The states themselves have always had the right

I am not sure why you keep repeating a statement to me that I keep repeating I agree with as if it's an argument against what I'm saying

All that is needed is for enough states that have a total of 105 more EVs to pass the law and it will be a done deal. No Amendment required.

Currently every State would have to decide that for themselves. Where do you get 105 EVs? I don't know what that means

It was in the links.

11 states have passed the law already. The EV of those states totals up to 165. As soon as enough states pass the law to equal 270 EV's the law goes into effect in those states. Hence the 105 number. If enough states pass the law, it will effectively give us a national popular vote without having to worry about an amendment or the things you listed.

Your logic is well, suspect.

If each of the proportional states were to spit evenly, it would only serve to allow the non-proportiaonal states of California and New York to dominate the elections.

Of course you can get to your 105 number REAL fast by pushing California and New York to go proportional. Shall I hold my breath awaiting you glorious Soros soldiers demanding this?

 

[rightwinger]

Wyoming has 584,000 people and gets 3 Electoral Votes...........194,000 people per EV
California has 38.8 million people and gets 55 Electoral Votes.....705,000 people per EV

A vote in Wyoming carries 3.6 times the electoral weight as a vote in California

Hardly equal protection

 

[kaz]

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

It will accomplish the same thing as an amendment without having to worry about 1, 2, or 3 of you list. Makes them a moot point. It would base the EV on the Nationwide PV.

Yes, it would largely do that. Not exactly since proportionality wouldn't be exact. It's irrelevant to the thread and I keep agreeing with you that they could do that though so I still don't know what you're arguing. Also, to require the States to do it, you'd need a Constitutional amendment

The states themselves have always had the right

I am not sure why you keep repeating a statement to me that I keep repeating I agree with as if it's an argument against what I'm saying

All that is needed is for enough states that have a total of 105 more EVs to pass the law and it will be a done deal. No Amendment required.

Currently every State would have to decide that for themselves. Where do you get 105 EVs? I don't know what that means

It was in the links.

11 states have passed the law already. The EV of those states totals up to 165. As soon as enough states pass the law to equal 270 EV's the law goes into effect in those states. Hence the 105 number. If enough states pass the law, it will effectively give us a national popular vote without having to worry about an amendment or the things you listed.

And the other 268 EVs would still be winner take all States. I don't get what you think you are proving

 

[kaz]

The Supreme Court voted 7-2 that the Florida recount violated equal protection by treating voters in different counties with different standards

That's NOT what Bush v. Gore held. What was unconstitutional was applying different means of recount in different counties

You didn't contradict me, you were just more specific

 

[bendog]

The Supreme Court voted 7-2 that the Florida recount violated equal protection by treating voters in different counties with different standards

That's NOT what Bush v. Gore held. What was unconstitutional was applying different means of recount in different counties

You didn't contradict me, you were just more specific

You asserted the following three things must be present, and they do not under EP

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