Republicans, do you really want Trump to win the ‘popular vote’?

[Pogo]

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Note: The pact only goes into effect when enough states that represent the 270 E

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Number one, the NPVC doesn't kick in unless and until there are enough states in the Compact to effect the result, i.e. add up to 270.

And number two, there's no "subversion of the Constitution" in it anyway. The COTUS says that each state shall pick its electors any way it wants. And this is one of the ways.

Go ahead, look any of that up.

I already know that and pointed it out. There are already lawsuits in the courts about this shit. If it goes to the Scotus - I think they will scuttle it.

There are a lot more issues than what you're pointing out:

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".[41] In a report released in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981),[42] as stating that the words "agreement" and "compact" are synonyms, that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with", while explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is required when the underlying compact is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" — meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments.[43]

I can tell you right now that states are already in compacts with other states and have been for ages. If for example I get a traffic ticket in Virginia that counts points, those points will be hung on my North Carolina driver's license. On the other hand if I get one in Tennessee, they will not -- Tennessee isn't part of the compact.

Not only does an electoral compact not involve commerce (money), but the same Constitution already provides that each state shall choose its Electors, quote, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". That means it's up to the state, period.

Article II, Section 1.

That is a complete pile of bullshit.
it may choose its electors in any way that it chooses but it may not choose their vote.
That's what the term faithless elector means you moron. That term wouldn't even exist if what you say has any credence. If Trump wins the popular vote say in Virginia.... Then Virginia tries to take those Electors away from him in the national tally it will be reversed by the supreme Court very rapidly. If they try to hold back the results they will go to jail.

Jo

That's actually on the SCOTUS docket right now.

It's a separate issue.

 

[MAGAman]

It would be nice, just to give the Progs one less talking point to harp about when and if they lose in 2020.

On 2004 the MSM just moved on to different yellow journalism topics.

 

[Ken Mac]

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Note: The pact only goes into effect when enough states that represent the 270 E

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Number one, the NPVC doesn't kick in unless and until there are enough states in the Compact to effect the result, i.e. add up to 270.

And number two, there's no "subversion of the Constitution" in it anyway. The COTUS says that each state shall pick its electors any way it wants. And this is one of the ways.

Go ahead, look any of that up.

I already know that and pointed it out. There are already lawsuits in the courts about this shit. If it goes to the Scotus - I think they will scuttle it.

There are a lot more issues than what you're pointing out:

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".[41] In a report released in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981),[42] as stating that the words "agreement" and "compact" are synonyms, that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with", while explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is required when the underlying compact is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" — meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments.[43]

I can tell you right now that states are already in compacts with other states and have been for ages. If for example I get a traffic ticket in Virginia that counts points, those points will be hung on my North Carolina driver's license. On the other hand if I get one in Tennessee, they will not -- Tennessee isn't part of the compact.

Not only does an electoral compact not involve commerce (money), but the same Constitution already provides that each state shall choose its Electors, quote, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". That means it's up to the state, period.

Article II, Section 1.

You go ahead and believe what you want. We'll find out in the next five years or so. Reciprocity is not equal to "Compact"

 

[Ken Mac]

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Note: The pact only goes into effect when enough states that represent the 270 E

Number one, the NPVC doesn't kick in unless and until there are enough states in the Compact to effect the result, i.e. add up to 270.

And number two, there's no "subversion of the Constitution" in it anyway. The COTUS says that each state shall pick its electors any way it wants. And this is one of the ways.

Go ahead, look any of that up.

I already know that and pointed it out. There are already lawsuits in the courts about this shit. If it goes to the Scotus - I think they will scuttle it.

There are a lot more issues than what you're pointing out:

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".[41] In a report released in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981),[42] as stating that the words "agreement" and "compact" are synonyms, that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with", while explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is required when the underlying compact is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" — meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments.[43]

The Federal election commission will never consider it unless it is a change made legally by two-thirds of the elected officials as an amendment. The states can do whatever they want if the electoral votes are improperly cast they will be corrected.

Jo

The Federal Election Commission has nothing to do with it.

The Constitution doesn't even REQUIRE an election. On the contrary it specifically prescribes that the several states shall pick their electors any way they want to pick them. That means if they want to put pictures on a wall and have the Governor put on a blindfold and throw darts, that's the system. They can pick random names out of a phone book. Whatever they want.

Good luck with that. The FEC is well established and will be upheld by SCOTUS.
Remember what happened the last time your side change some rules? We are now 195 conservative justices in to that calamitous mistake. Begging for more are you?

Jo

Once AGAIN --- the FEC is irrelevant to this. There's no Constitutional requirement to have an election AT ALL.

PERIOD.

That means whatever the FEC "considers' has no bearing on anything. The state legislatures have the authority to make it happen, not the FEC.

See - you seem to have a very narrow view and base your opinion off of any one thing you can find to support your bias. I realize cognitive dissonance isn't very comfortable, but you need to get a handle on that bias. There are many reasons it is unconstitutional including any one person of the state feeling their vote is misrepresented by their new fucking "buddy compacts".

Good luck with that one world one point view.

 

[Pogo]

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Note: The pact only goes into effect when enough states that represent the 270 E

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Number one, the NPVC doesn't kick in unless and until there are enough states in the Compact to effect the result, i.e. add up to 270.

And number two, there's no "subversion of the Constitution" in it anyway. The COTUS says that each state shall pick its electors any way it wants. And this is one of the ways.

Go ahead, look any of that up.

I already know that and pointed it out. There are already lawsuits in the courts about this shit. If it goes to the Scotus - I think they will scuttle it.

There are a lot more issues than what you're pointing out:

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".[41] In a report released in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981),[42] as stating that the words "agreement" and "compact" are synonyms, that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with", while explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is required when the underlying compact is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" — meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments.[43]

I can tell you right now that states are already in compacts with other states and have been for ages. If for example I get a traffic ticket in Virginia that counts points, those points will be hung on my North Carolina driver's license. On the other hand if I get one in Tennessee, they will not -- Tennessee isn't part of the compact.

Not only does an electoral compact not involve commerce (money), but the same Constitution already provides that each state shall choose its Electors, quote, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". That means it's up to the state, period.

Article II, Section 1.

That is a complete pile of bullshit.
it may choose its electors in any way that it chooses but it may not choose their vote.
That's what the term faithless elector means you moron. That term wouldn't even exist if what you say has any credence. If Trump wins the popular vote say in Virginia.... Then Virginia tries to take those Electors away from him in the national tally it will be reversed by the supreme Court very rapidly. If they try to hold back the results they will go to jail.

Jo

Ummmm NO IT WON'T, Sparkles. Virginia, or any other state, can EV any way it wants to. Doesn't even have to be related to the popular vote. They don't need to hold an election at all. And if they do they can ignore the results and send whoever they want.

Go look it up.

SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. And that Constitution says it's up to the state legislatures. PERIOD.

That means what it says -- up to the legislature, not the voters.

 

[Ken Mac]

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Note: The pact only goes into effect when enough states that represent the 270 E

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Number one, the NPVC doesn't kick in unless and until there are enough states in the Compact to effect the result, i.e. add up to 270.

And number two, there's no "subversion of the Constitution" in it anyway. The COTUS says that each state shall pick its electors any way it wants. And this is one of the ways.

Go ahead, look any of that up.

I already know that and pointed it out. There are already lawsuits in the courts about this shit. If it goes to the Scotus - I think they will scuttle it.

There are a lot more issues than what you're pointing out:

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".[41] In a report released in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981),[42] as stating that the words "agreement" and "compact" are synonyms, that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with", while explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is required when the underlying compact is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" — meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments.[43]

I can tell you right now that states are already in compacts with other states and have been for ages. If for example I get a traffic ticket in Virginia that counts points, those points will be hung on my North Carolina driver's license. On the other hand if I get one in Tennessee, they will not -- Tennessee isn't part of the compact.

Not only does an electoral compact not involve commerce (money), but the same Constitution already provides that each state shall choose its Electors, quote, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". That means it's up to the state, period.

Article II, Section 1.

That is a complete pile of bullshit.
it may choose its electors in any way that it chooses but it may not choose their vote.
That's what the term faithless elector means you moron. That term wouldn't even exist if what you say has any credence. If Trump wins the popular vote say in Virginia.... Then Virginia tries to take those Electors away from him in the national tally it will be reversed by the supreme Court very rapidly. If they try to hold back the results they will go to jail.

Jo

Ummmm NO IT WON'T, Sparkles. Virginia, or any other state, can EV any way it wants to. Doesn't even have to be related to the popular vote. They don't need to hold an election at all. And if they do they can ignore the results and send whoever they want.

Go look it up.

Yes, but there is a thing called precedent. There has never been a time in which the electorates voted against the will of the people of the state they represent. The SCOTUS would shoo this shit down in a heartbeat.

 

[Pogo]

Note: The pact only goes into effect when enough states that represent the 270 E
I already know that and pointed it out. There are already lawsuits in the courts about this shit. If it goes to the Scotus - I think they will scuttle it.

There are a lot more issues than what you're pointing out:

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".[41] In a report released in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981),[42] as stating that the words "agreement" and "compact" are synonyms, that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with", while explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is required when the underlying compact is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" — meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments.[43]

The Federal election commission will never consider it unless it is a change made legally by two-thirds of the elected officials as an amendment. The states can do whatever they want if the electoral votes are improperly cast they will be corrected.

Jo

The Federal Election Commission has nothing to do with it.

The Constitution doesn't even REQUIRE an election. On the contrary it specifically prescribes that the several states shall pick their electors any way they want to pick them. That means if they want to put pictures on a wall and have the Governor put on a blindfold and throw darts, that's the system. They can pick random names out of a phone book. Whatever they want.

Good luck with that. The FEC is well established and will be upheld by SCOTUS.
Remember what happened the last time your side change some rules? We are now 195 conservative justices in to that calamitous mistake. Begging for more are you?

Jo

Once AGAIN --- the FEC is irrelevant to this. There's no Constitutional requirement to have an election AT ALL.

PERIOD.

That means whatever the FEC "considers' has no bearing on anything. The state legislatures have the authority to make it happen, not the FEC.

See - you seem to have a very narrow view and base your opinion off of any one thing you can find to support your bias. I realize cognitive dissonance isn't very comfortable, but you need to get a handle on that bias. There are many reasons it is unconstitutional including any one person of the state feeling their vote is misrepresented by their new fucking "buddy compacts".

Good luck with that one world one point view.

"One thing" is all that's needed when that one thing spells it out.

Roll tape.

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 1. Verbatim.

Whelp --- this is one Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct. Isn't it.

Not sure wtf that has to do with "one world" but how many "worlds" do you think there are?

 

[Ken Mac]

The Federal election commission will never consider it unless it is a change made legally by two-thirds of the elected officials as an amendment. The states can do whatever they want if the electoral votes are improperly cast they will be corrected.

Jo

The Federal Election Commission has nothing to do with it.

The Constitution doesn't even REQUIRE an election. On the contrary it specifically prescribes that the several states shall pick their electors any way they want to pick them. That means if they want to put pictures on a wall and have the Governor put on a blindfold and throw darts, that's the system. They can pick random names out of a phone book. Whatever they want.

Good luck with that. The FEC is well established and will be upheld by SCOTUS.
Remember what happened the last time your side change some rules? We are now 195 conservative justices in to that calamitous mistake. Begging for more are you?

Jo

Once AGAIN --- the FEC is irrelevant to this. There's no Constitutional requirement to have an election AT ALL.

PERIOD.

That means whatever the FEC "considers' has no bearing on anything. The state legislatures have the authority to make it happen, not the FEC.

See - you seem to have a very narrow view and base your opinion off of any one thing you can find to support your bias. I realize cognitive dissonance isn't very comfortable, but you need to get a handle on that bias. There are many reasons it is unconstitutional including any one person of the state feeling their vote is misrepresented by their new fucking "buddy compacts".

Good luck with that one world one point view.

"One thing" is all that's needed when that one thing spells it out.

Roll tape.

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 1. Verbatim.

Whelp --- this is one Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct. Isn't it.

Not sure wtf that has to do with "one world" but how many "worlds" do you think there are?

It's not that simple skippy. Someone can easily argue that their rights are being violated and file a class action law suit to stop such action. IMO, their right would be violated.

States have rights but those rights cannot overrun the constitutionally protected rights of the individual or persons of the state.

See - Your one world, one point view just fucking imploded.

 

[Pogo]

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Note: The pact only goes into effect when enough states that represent the 270 E

Number one, the NPVC doesn't kick in unless and until there are enough states in the Compact to effect the result, i.e. add up to 270.

And number two, there's no "subversion of the Constitution" in it anyway. The COTUS says that each state shall pick its electors any way it wants. And this is one of the ways.

Go ahead, look any of that up.

I already know that and pointed it out. There are already lawsuits in the courts about this shit. If it goes to the Scotus - I think they will scuttle it.

There are a lot more issues than what you're pointing out:

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".[41] In a report released in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981),[42] as stating that the words "agreement" and "compact" are synonyms, that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with", while explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is required when the underlying compact is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" — meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments.[43]

I can tell you right now that states are already in compacts with other states and have been for ages. If for example I get a traffic ticket in Virginia that counts points, those points will be hung on my North Carolina driver's license. On the other hand if I get one in Tennessee, they will not -- Tennessee isn't part of the compact.

Not only does an electoral compact not involve commerce (money), but the same Constitution already provides that each state shall choose its Electors, quote, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". That means it's up to the state, period.

Article II, Section 1.

That is a complete pile of bullshit.
it may choose its electors in any way that it chooses but it may not choose their vote.
That's what the term faithless elector means you moron. That term wouldn't even exist if what you say has any credence. If Trump wins the popular vote say in Virginia.... Then Virginia tries to take those Electors away from him in the national tally it will be reversed by the supreme Court very rapidly. If they try to hold back the results they will go to jail.

Jo

Ummmm NO IT WON'T, Sparkles. Virginia, or any other state, can EV any way it wants to. Doesn't even have to be related to the popular vote. They don't need to hold an election at all. And if they do they can ignore the results and send whoever they want.

Go look it up.

Yes, but there is a thing called precedent. There has never been a time in which the electorates voted against the will of the people of the state they represent. The SCOTUS would shoo this shit down in a heartbeat.

The SCOTUS doesn't even enter into it. If the Legislature of State X directs that its electors are awarded to Peewee Herman,. then that's it. All Constitutional.

As for "never been a time in which the electorates [sic] [you mean Electors] voted against the will of the people of the state they represent", I already cited nine states that did just that in 2016 alone, and I didn't even name all of them.

 

[Pogo]

The Federal Election Commission has nothing to do with it.

The Constitution doesn't even REQUIRE an election. On the contrary it specifically prescribes that the several states shall pick their electors any way they want to pick them. That means if they want to put pictures on a wall and have the Governor put on a blindfold and throw darts, that's the system. They can pick random names out of a phone book. Whatever they want.

Good luck with that. The FEC is well established and will be upheld by SCOTUS.
Remember what happened the last time your side change some rules? We are now 195 conservative justices in to that calamitous mistake. Begging for more are you?

Jo

Once AGAIN --- the FEC is irrelevant to this. There's no Constitutional requirement to have an election AT ALL.

PERIOD.

That means whatever the FEC "considers' has no bearing on anything. The state legislatures have the authority to make it happen, not the FEC.

See - you seem to have a very narrow view and base your opinion off of any one thing you can find to support your bias. I realize cognitive dissonance isn't very comfortable, but you need to get a handle on that bias. There are many reasons it is unconstitutional including any one person of the state feeling their vote is misrepresented by their new fucking "buddy compacts".

Good luck with that one world one point view.

"One thing" is all that's needed when that one thing spells it out.

Roll tape.

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 1. Verbatim.

Whelp --- this is one Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct. Isn't it.

Not sure wtf that has to do with "one world" but how many "worlds" do you think there are?

It's not that simple skippy. Someone can easily argue that their rights are being violated and file a class action law suit to stop such action. IMO, their right would be violated.

States have rights but those rights cannot overrun the constitutionally protected rights of the individual or persons of the state.

See - Your one world, one point view just fucking imploded.

No citizen has the "right" to vote for a President.

Go ahead, find me one.

 

[Flash]

There is one good way to make sure Trump wins the popular vote; stop the Illegals from voting.

 

[Ken Mac]

Note: The pact only goes into effect when enough states that represent the 270 E
I already know that and pointed it out. There are already lawsuits in the courts about this shit. If it goes to the Scotus - I think they will scuttle it.

There are a lot more issues than what you're pointing out:

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".[41] In a report released in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981),[42] as stating that the words "agreement" and "compact" are synonyms, that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with", while explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is required when the underlying compact is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" — meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments.[43]

I can tell you right now that states are already in compacts with other states and have been for ages. If for example I get a traffic ticket in Virginia that counts points, those points will be hung on my North Carolina driver's license. On the other hand if I get one in Tennessee, they will not -- Tennessee isn't part of the compact.

Not only does an electoral compact not involve commerce (money), but the same Constitution already provides that each state shall choose its Electors, quote, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". That means it's up to the state, period.

Article II, Section 1.

That is a complete pile of bullshit.
it may choose its electors in any way that it chooses but it may not choose their vote.
That's what the term faithless elector means you moron. That term wouldn't even exist if what you say has any credence. If Trump wins the popular vote say in Virginia.... Then Virginia tries to take those Electors away from him in the national tally it will be reversed by the supreme Court very rapidly. If they try to hold back the results they will go to jail.

Jo

Ummmm NO IT WON'T, Sparkles. Virginia, or any other state, can EV any way it wants to. Doesn't even have to be related to the popular vote. They don't need to hold an election at all. And if they do they can ignore the results and send whoever they want.

Go look it up.

Yes, but there is a thing called precedent. There has never been a time in which the electorates voted against the will of the people of the state they represent. The SCOTUS would shoo this shit down in a heartbeat.

The SCOTUS doesn't even enter into it. If the Legislature of State X directs that its electors are awarded to Peewee Herman,. then that's it. All Constitutional.

As for "never been a time in which the electorates [sic] [you mean Electors] voted against the will of the people of the state they represent", I already cited nine states that did just that in 2016 alone, and I didn't even name all of them.

States cannot institute laws that overrun and individual's federal constitutional rights. You're out of your mind.

 

[Ken Mac]

Good luck with that. The FEC is well established and will be upheld by SCOTUS.
Remember what happened the last time your side change some rules? We are now 195 conservative justices in to that calamitous mistake. Begging for more are you?

Jo

Once AGAIN --- the FEC is irrelevant to this. There's no Constitutional requirement to have an election AT ALL.

PERIOD.

That means whatever the FEC "considers' has no bearing on anything. The state legislatures have the authority to make it happen, not the FEC.

See - you seem to have a very narrow view and base your opinion off of any one thing you can find to support your bias. I realize cognitive dissonance isn't very comfortable, but you need to get a handle on that bias. There are many reasons it is unconstitutional including any one person of the state feeling their vote is misrepresented by their new fucking "buddy compacts".

Good luck with that one world one point view.

"One thing" is all that's needed when that one thing spells it out.

Roll tape.

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 1. Verbatim.

Whelp --- this is one Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct. Isn't it.

Not sure wtf that has to do with "one world" but how many "worlds" do you think there are?

It's not that simple skippy. Someone can easily argue that their rights are being violated and file a class action law suit to stop such action. IMO, their right would be violated.

States have rights but those rights cannot overrun the constitutionally protected rights of the individual or persons of the state.

See - Your one world, one point view just fucking imploded.

No citizen has the "right" to vote for a President.

Go ahead, find me one.

Yeah let's just toss out the 15th amendment. Who needs it anyways? It really wasn't necessary because Pogo says so.

 

[Slade3200]

Please let go of that tired played out “POPULAR VOTE” shit.
NOBODY I know who will vote for Trump would encourage him to tailor his form of governance to appeal to the populous of Mexifornia and Loon York.
We are a nation divided and we want it to stay that way.....Welcome to the Democrat designed, LefTist built Divided States Of America.

Why would he need to appeal to California? If there was a popular vote instead of the Electoral College last election then the outcome of the California vote would have benefited Trump more than it did with the current system.

 

[Flash]

Once AGAIN --- the FEC is irrelevant to this. There's no Constitutional requirement to have an election AT ALL.

PERIOD.

That means whatever the FEC "considers' has no bearing on anything. The state legislatures have the authority to make it happen, not the FEC.

See - you seem to have a very narrow view and base your opinion off of any one thing you can find to support your bias. I realize cognitive dissonance isn't very comfortable, but you need to get a handle on that bias. There are many reasons it is unconstitutional including any one person of the state feeling their vote is misrepresented by their new fucking "buddy compacts".

Good luck with that one world one point view.

"One thing" is all that's needed when that one thing spells it out.

Roll tape.

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 1. Verbatim.

Whelp --- this is one Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct. Isn't it.

Not sure wtf that has to do with "one world" but how many "worlds" do you think there are?

It's not that simple skippy. Someone can easily argue that their rights are being violated and file a class action law suit to stop such action. IMO, their right would be violated.

States have rights but those rights cannot overrun the constitutionally protected rights of the individual or persons of the state.

See - Your one world, one point view just fucking imploded.

No citizen has the "right" to vote for a President.

Go ahead, find me one.

Yeah let's just toss out the 15th amendment. Who needs it anyways? It really wasn't necessary because Pogo says so.

These stupid Moon Bats are just as confused about the Constitution as they are confused about Economics, History, Ethics, Biology and Climate Science.

 

[BrokeLoser]

broke, what the fk is this about?

About taking great pride in Trump not appealing to the filth of American society.

 

[Pogo]

I can tell you right now that states are already in compacts with other states and have been for ages. If for example I get a traffic ticket in Virginia that counts points, those points will be hung on my North Carolina driver's license. On the other hand if I get one in Tennessee, they will not -- Tennessee isn't part of the compact.

Not only does an electoral compact not involve commerce (money), but the same Constitution already provides that each state shall choose its Electors, quote, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". That means it's up to the state, period.

Article II, Section 1.

That is a complete pile of bullshit.
it may choose its electors in any way that it chooses but it may not choose their vote.
That's what the term faithless elector means you moron. That term wouldn't even exist if what you say has any credence. If Trump wins the popular vote say in Virginia.... Then Virginia tries to take those Electors away from him in the national tally it will be reversed by the supreme Court very rapidly. If they try to hold back the results they will go to jail.

Jo

Ummmm NO IT WON'T, Sparkles. Virginia, or any other state, can EV any way it wants to. Doesn't even have to be related to the popular vote. They don't need to hold an election at all. And if they do they can ignore the results and send whoever they want.

Go look it up.

Yes, but there is a thing called precedent. There has never been a time in which the electorates voted against the will of the people of the state they represent. The SCOTUS would shoo this shit down in a heartbeat.

The SCOTUS doesn't even enter into it. If the Legislature of State X directs that its electors are awarded to Peewee Herman,. then that's it. All Constitutional.

As for "never been a time in which the electorates [sic] [you mean Electors] voted against the will of the people of the state they represent", I already cited nine states that did just that in 2016 alone, and I didn't even name all of them.

States cannot institute laws that overrun and individual's federal constitutional rights. You're out of your mind.

Once AGAIN there is no "federal Constitutional right" to vpte for a President. Never has been. And I already explained this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, which you can't do because I already know what's in the Constitution.

If there was, those nine states I mentioned, and a lot of others in other years, would have had their electoral votes tossed.

Once again, for those who must be new to this country, CITIZENS don't vote for President.
ELECTORS do.

 

[Pogo]

See - you seem to have a very narrow view and base your opinion off of any one thing you can find to support your bias. I realize cognitive dissonance isn't very comfortable, but you need to get a handle on that bias. There are many reasons it is unconstitutional including any one person of the state feeling their vote is misrepresented by their new fucking "buddy compacts".

Good luck with that one world one point view.

"One thing" is all that's needed when that one thing spells it out.

Roll tape.

>> Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. <<​

Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 1. Verbatim.

Whelp --- this is one Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct. Isn't it.

Not sure wtf that has to do with "one world" but how many "worlds" do you think there are?

It's not that simple skippy. Someone can easily argue that their rights are being violated and file a class action law suit to stop such action. IMO, their right would be violated.

States have rights but those rights cannot overrun the constitutionally protected rights of the individual or persons of the state.

See - Your one world, one point view just fucking imploded.

No citizen has the "right" to vote for a President.

Go ahead, find me one.

Yeah let's just toss out the 15th amendment. Who needs it anyways? It really wasn't necessary because Pogo says so.

These stupid Moon Bats are just as confused about the Constitution as they are confused about Economics, History, Ethics, Biology and Climate Science.

That's fascinating since I've never posted on most of those topics. But I do know what's in the Constitution. You on the other hand can't even get a grip on what I post about.

 

[justoffal]

I think it is a strong possibility.

Those 12 or so states that have backed giving all of their Electoral College votes to the Popular vote of the US would have a complete and utter meltdown when they had to give their electoral votes to Trump. California, Illinois and NY are included in that pact. That is 104 ECV's going to trump if he won the popular vote. Many other liberal states have signed up as well.

Loading up on popcorn for the likely meltdown of that travesty. Maybe trying to subvert the constitution isn't such a good idea.

Note: The pact only goes into effect when enough states that represent the 270 E

Number one, the NPVC doesn't kick in unless and until there are enough states in the Compact to effect the result, i.e. add up to 270.

And number two, there's no "subversion of the Constitution" in it anyway. The COTUS says that each state shall pick its electors any way it wants. And this is one of the ways.

Go ahead, look any of that up.

I already know that and pointed it out. There are already lawsuits in the courts about this shit. If it goes to the Scotus - I think they will scuttle it.

There are a lot more issues than what you're pointing out:

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".[41] In a report released in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981),[42] as stating that the words "agreement" and "compact" are synonyms, that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with", while explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is required when the underlying compact is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" — meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments.[43]

The Federal election commission will never consider it unless it is a change made legally by two-thirds of the elected officials as an amendment. The states can do whatever they want if the electoral votes are improperly cast they will be corrected.

Jo

The Federal Election Commission has nothing to do with it.

The Constitution doesn't even REQUIRE an election. On the contrary it specifically prescribes that the several states shall pick their electors any way they want to pick them. That means if they want to put pictures on a wall and have the Governor put on a blindfold and throw darts, that's the system. They can pick random names out of a phone book. Whatever they want.

Good luck with that. The FEC is well established and will be upheld by SCOTUS.
Remember what happened the last time your side change some rules? We are now 195 conservative justices in to that calamitous mistake. Begging for more are you?

Jo

Once AGAIN --- the FEC is irrelevant to this. There's no Constitutional requirement to have an election AT ALL.

PERIOD.

That means whatever the FEC "considers' has no bearing on anything. The state legislatures have the authority to make it happen, not the FEC.

You're just flat-out wrong. Just because the FEC isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean you can sweep them aside.
Not only are they relevant they will eat your theory alive and spit it right back out at you.

Trust me it will be the FEC that will disappoint you in this matter completely supported by scotus. Electoral votes will be assigned correctly by scotus should they be rouged by the states.

The other point of hilarity here is your assumption that Trump will not win the popular vote. It is that assumption alone that causes you to wave pom-poms for this ridiculous motion. Imagine California having to assign all 55 electoral votes to Trump? you can be damn sure they would call an emergency legislative session and reverse their decision to suit the moment.

Do try to grow up and stop being a creature of the moment. Ask Harry Reid about its results.


Jo

 

[Ken Mac]

That is a complete pile of bullshit.
it may choose its electors in any way that it chooses but it may not choose their vote.
That's what the term faithless elector means you moron. That term wouldn't even exist if what you say has any credence. If Trump wins the popular vote say in Virginia.... Then Virginia tries to take those Electors away from him in the national tally it will be reversed by the supreme Court very rapidly. If they try to hold back the results they will go to jail.

Jo

Ummmm NO IT WON'T, Sparkles. Virginia, or any other state, can EV any way it wants to. Doesn't even have to be related to the popular vote. They don't need to hold an election at all. And if they do they can ignore the results and send whoever they want.

Go look it up.

Yes, but there is a thing called precedent. There has never been a time in which the electorates voted against the will of the people of the state they represent. The SCOTUS would shoo this shit down in a heartbeat.

The SCOTUS doesn't even enter into it. If the Legislature of State X directs that its electors are awarded to Peewee Herman,. then that's it. All Constitutional.

As for "never been a time in which the electorates [sic] [you mean Electors] voted against the will of the people of the state they represent", I already cited nine states that did just that in 2016 alone, and I didn't even name all of them.

States cannot institute laws that overrun and individual's federal constitutional rights. You're out of your mind.

Once AGAIN there is no "federal Constitutional right" to vpte for a President. Never has been. And I already explained this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, which you can't do because I already know what's in the Constitution.

If there was, those nine states I mentioned, and a lot of others in other years, would have had their electoral votes tossed.

Once again, for those who must be new to this country, CITIZENS don't vote for President.
ELECTORS do.

You're playing games with semantics and trying to whittle the argument down to the system in which we vote caries out that task. But, you are conflating that technicality.
If you truly believe this then why vote at all. Just let the electors take care of it. That's essentially the case you are making.