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

[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

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

When you pick what you are arguing, let me know. Your first post was on Gore v. Bush

 

[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. 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.

It only has to add up to 270 regardless of which states it is, battleground or not.

 

[charwin95]

California actively floods their system with illegal voters.

^bullshit claim

Can you prove your bullshit?

 

[charwin95]

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'm from California and I can tell you. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[charwin95]

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

Since you brought up this nonsense. YOU provide link to back up your claim. Otherwise you are bogus.

 

[kaz]

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'm from California and I can tell you. You don't know what you are talking about.

I lived in California and I can tell you. You don't know what you are talking about. You just support it

 

[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

Since you brought up this nonsense. YOU provide link to back up your claim. Otherwise you are bogus.

Gosh, if you say so. You are the standard, you make the rules ...

I don't waste my time with closed minds. I will have fun though ...

 

[rightwinger]

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

Show how many illegal voters cast votes in California

Trump claims it was millions
Can you prove there was even one?

 

[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

When you pick what you are arguing, let me know. Your first post was on Gore v. Bush

When you buy a clue as to what EP is, let me know.

 

[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

Show how many illegal voters cast votes in California

Trump claims it was millions
Can you prove there was even one?

Why ask me? Trump simply spouts bs and his bots eat it up. They do so because accepting a different reality is unacceptable to them .... even if it is the truth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Nonsense. jesus.

 

[BlindBoo]

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?

CA and NY have already passed the law and are included in the 165. All that matters is that enough state sign on with 270 total EV's

(CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA) have all passed it.

National Popular Vote

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

CA and NY have already passed the law and are included in the 165. All that matters is that enough state sign on with 270 total EV's

(CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA) have all passed it.

National Popular Vote

California is definitely NOT proportional with EV's.

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

 

[kaz]

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?

CA and NY have already passed the law and are included in the 165. All that matters is that enough state sign on with 270 total EV's

(CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA) have all passed it.

National Popular Vote

California is definitely NOT proportional with EV's.

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

It took me a while to figure it out too because neither BlindBoo nor the link explained it very well. But what they are doing is agreeing that they will all cast their EVs to the national popular vote winner. That way the popular vote winner will have 270 and win regardless of what the other States do. It doesn't take effect until they have 270 votes

 

[charwin95]

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.

False.... I know one of you idiots will post this. Read your link and tell me what is wrong with your link. See sample of DL.

This did not came from Snopes.

In addition, the information of those who choose to be registered will be sent from the DMV to the Secretary of State’s office, where citizenship will be verified and names will then be added to the voter rolls.

Now let us assume that undocumented immigrants decide to lie about their legal status and ask to be registered to vote. The possibility of them actually ending up on the voter rolls is simply not likely.

Not only will citizenship be verified by the state, but according to DriveCA.org, in California noncitizen licenses carry the words “Federal Limits Apply” and “not valid for official federal purposes.”

While the new bill is not an actual “automatic registration,” like its critics make it out to be, it will ease and accelerate the process of voter registration.

 

[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.

False.... I know one of you idiots will post this. Read your link and tell me what is wrong with your link. See sample of DL.

This did not came from Snopes.

In addition, the information of those who choose to be registered will be sent from the DMV to the Secretary of State’s office, where citizenship will be verified and names will then be added to the voter rolls.

Now let us assume that undocumented immigrants decide to lie about their legal status and ask to be registered to vote. The possibility of them actually ending up on the voter rolls is simply not likely.

Not only will citizenship be verified by the state, but according to DriveCA.org, in California noncitizen licenses carry the words “Federal Limits Apply” and “not valid for official federal purposes.”

While the new bill is not an actual “automatic registration,” like its critics make it out to be, it will ease and accelerate the process of voter registration.

As I said, all are registered and it is up to the SOS to weed out those who are not eligible.

I'm not sure what significance you attach to the federal limits, ID is NEVER required to vote in California - only to buy ammunition....

 

[BlindBoo]

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

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?

CA and NY have already passed the law and are included in the 165. All that matters is that enough state sign on with 270 total EV's

(CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA) have all passed it.

National Popular Vote

California is definitely NOT proportional with EV's.

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

It took me a while to figure it out too because neither BlindBoo nor the link explained it very well. But what they are doing is agreeing that they will all cast their EVs to the national popular vote winner. That way the popular vote winner will have 270 and win regardless of what the other States do. It doesn't take effect until they have 270 votes

It is a simple solution to get to a popular national vote without involving the Federal Government doing anything. No Constitutional Amendment, just a few more states.

 

[charwin95]

See? You tell the retards that Voter ID doesn't stop the most common types of voter fraud which occur, and their little retard brains hear, "There is no fraud" or "I support fraud."

Goddam, you just can't fight that kind of profound stupidity!

Apple != Bird

That said, this is your usual promotion of election fraud. The motor voter bill automatically registers illegal aliens to vote - this is a fact. The Cal-SOS claims that there are enough indicators that they will remove the illegals from the system - sure,,,

The fact is that exactly as Kaz posted, the Peoples Republic is flooding the system with illegal voters. This is deliberate and systematic fraud on behalf of the Soros party, which owns and runs California.

Wrong again.

 

[kaz]

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?

CA and NY have already passed the law and are included in the 165. All that matters is that enough state sign on with 270 total EV's

(CA, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA) have all passed it.

National Popular Vote

California is definitely NOT proportional with EV's.

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

It took me a while to figure it out too because neither BlindBoo nor the link explained it very well. But what they are doing is agreeing that they will all cast their EVs to the national popular vote winner. That way the popular vote winner will have 270 and win regardless of what the other States do. It doesn't take effect until they have 270 votes

It is a simple solution to get to a popular national vote without involving the Federal Government doing anything. No Constitutional Amendment, just a few more states.

Yes, you suck at explaining it though.

It's also not permanent, States can join or pull out of the deal any time they want

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Straight up retarded.