The state's popular vote compact is dead

[Stormy Daniels]

The ruling is correct. The Electoral College is a federal institution. States have no power to dictate an elector's voting behavior.

Awesome... I think?

They should vote Their conscience as the founders intended, and the electors should be picked proportionately, by how the State popular vote comes in.... not via winner takes all..... fingers crossed, that will happen next.

As the founders intended? That claim has no basis in historical facts. Other than the elections of Washington, who was practically worshiped as a god and was elected before partisan divisions had fully ripened, the founders themselves engaged in schemes and manipulations of the electoral college system to produce the partisan results they desired. One of the earliest amendments to the constitution was ratified to ease those manipulations and prevent them from backfiring from planning mistakes or confusion.

I think electors should fulfill what they promised to do. Better yet, get rid of the electoral college and go to a popular plurality system.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The ruling is correct. The Electoral College is a federal institution. States have no power to dictate an elector's voting behavior.

Awesome... I think?

They should vote Their conscience as the founders intended, and the electors should be picked proportionately, by how the State popular vote comes in.... not via winner takes all..... fingers crossed, that will happen next.

As the founders intended? That claim has no basis in historical facts. Other than the elections of Washington, who was practically worshiped as a god and was elected before partisan divisions had fully ripened, the founders themselves engaged in schemes and manipulations of the electoral college system to produce the partisan results they desired. One of the earliest amendments to the constitution was ratified to ease those manipulations and prevent them from backfiring from planning mistakes or confusion.

I think electors should fulfill what they promised to do. Better yet, get rid of the electoral college and go to a popular plurality system.

So the only voted that count are illegals in California and New York? No thanks small States are not going to give up their voice just so large leftist controlled cities can run the country.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, the states cannot force the Electors to vote a certain way.
Can the compact by the states be used to determine which parties electors get seated?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The ruling is correct. The Electoral College is a federal institution. States have no power to dictate an elector's voting behavior.

Awesome... I think?

They should vote Their conscience as the founders intended, and the electors should be picked proportionately, by how the State popular vote comes in.... not via winner takes all..... fingers crossed, that will happen next.

As the founders intended? That claim has no basis in historical facts. Other than the elections of Washington, who was practically worshiped as a god and was elected before partisan divisions had fully ripened, the founders themselves engaged in schemes and manipulations of the electoral college system to produce the partisan results they desired. One of the earliest amendments to the constitution was ratified to ease those manipulations and prevent them from backfiring from planning mistakes or confusion.

I think electors should fulfill what they promised to do. Better yet, get rid of the electoral college and go to a popular plurality system.

So the only voted that count are illegals in California and New York? No thanks small States are not going to give up their voice just so large leftist controlled cities can run the country.

Wow, the party of Trump. Even the Republicans aren't buying that crap. If he told you to drink drano, you would guzzle it down and smile.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The ruling is correct. The Electoral College is a federal institution. States have no power to dictate an elector's voting behavior.

Awesome... I think?

They should vote Their conscience as the founders intended, and the electors should be picked proportionately, by how the State popular vote comes in.... not via winner takes all..... fingers crossed, that will happen next.

As the founders intended? That claim has no basis in historical facts. Other than the elections of Washington, who was practically worshiped as a god and was elected before partisan divisions had fully ripened, the founders themselves engaged in schemes and manipulations of the electoral college system to produce the partisan results they desired. One of the earliest amendments to the constitution was ratified to ease those manipulations and prevent them from backfiring from planning mistakes or confusion.

I think electors should fulfill what they promised to do. Better yet, get rid of the electoral college and go to a popular plurality system.

So the only voted that count are illegals in California and New York? No thanks small States are not going to give up their voice just so large leftist controlled cities can run the country.

Wow, the party of Trump. Even the Republicans aren't buying that crap. If he told you to drink drano, you would guzzle it down and smile.

Asshole small populated States will not allow their vote to be ignored. That's why the electoral college was created

 

[gallantwarrior]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Maybe it is time to get rid of it.

Completely agree, if electors are not bound to something remotely resembling the will of the people then why have it at all?

The will of which people? The people in the district represented by an elector? Or the people of a state, regardless of the will of those in a particular district? This newest plot to force mob rule on all others would appear to subvert the will of people in specific districts in favor of those in other districts. The EC was designed specifically to prevent mob rule. It was a good idea then, it's an even better idea now.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Why have elections?

That does seem to be the question at hand. According to this court our presidential election is meaningless and seems to just be a ruse to placate the people.

Wait. How so? All this court said was that electors must be selected by the state and that a state's laws cannot dictate to individual electors the candidate for whom they will vote. It has always been that way since the last time the constitution was amended on the issue.

.

So, there is nothing to stop electors from ignoring the popular vote of the state.

Right. The compact was FORCING them to vote a specific way. This court simply shot that down and maintained the status quo.

.

Each party submits a list of electors. I think the compact states will award the right to choose the states electors to the party based on the national vote rather than the states vote.

And how does that improve things?

 

[gallantwarrior]

We can only hope so

Electors should represent the will of the people

Oh so is that why gay marriage is Illegal in California?

After all the will of the people said NO to gay marriage

.

They also legalized Prostitution for Girls and Boys as young as 13 years old. California is a Morally, Ethically and Spiritually Ill State.

how many times are you going to repeat this lie?

you know, no matter how often you repeat it, it will never magically become the truth.

We know what The Left wants. They want our children to be their sexual play things. You cannot hide that fact any more. This is why you are for Open Borders, and Legalized Prostitution for 13 year old children, so you can have an endless supply of children to defile in our schools and then in some back alley or where you Leftist Pervs do your business.

California Democrats legalize child prostitution

Failing the children of California

i know a lot of people on the left.

every single one of them would beat the shit out of you if you abused a child.

Then why do they keep electing people who would abuse children?

 

[HappyJoy]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Maybe it is time to get rid of it.

Completely agree, if electors are not bound to something remotely resembling the will of the people then why have it at all?

The will of which people? The people in the district represented by an elector? Or the people of a state, regardless of the will of those in a particular district? This newest plot to force mob rule on all others would appear to subvert the will of people in specific districts in favor of those in other districts. The EC was designed specifically to prevent mob rule. It was a good idea then, it's an even better idea now.

Sure, bud. I love it when wingnuts describe using democracy to elect our president as "mob rule", it's not.

Maybe you missed the point of the thread, electors are not beholden to anybody, that's a problem for the EC. The OP somehow thought this is a blow to the popular vote compact, it's not but she's kind of an idiot.

 

[Rustic]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Maybe it is time to get rid of it.

Completely agree, if electors are not bound to something remotely resembling the will of the people then why have it at all?

The will of which people? The people in the district represented by an elector? Or the people of a state, regardless of the will of those in a particular district? This newest plot to force mob rule on all others would appear to subvert the will of people in specific districts in favor of those in other districts. The EC was designed specifically to prevent mob rule. It was a good idea then, it's an even better idea now.

Sure, bud. I love it when wingnuts describe using democracy to elect our president as "mob rule", it's not.

Maybe you missed the point of the thread, electors are not beholden to anybody, that's a problem for the EC. The OP somehow thought this is a blow to the popular vote compact, it's not but she's kind of an idiot.

Lol
A pure popular vote for president is mob rule, This is supposed to be a republic not shit eating democracy..

 

[Care4all]

The ruling is correct. The Electoral College is a federal institution. States have no power to dictate an elector's voting behavior.

Awesome... I think?

They should vote Their conscience as the founders intended, and the electors should be picked proportionately, by how the State popular vote comes in.... not via winner takes all..... fingers crossed, that will happen next.

As the founders intended? That claim has no basis in historical facts. Other than the elections of Washington, who was practically worshiped as a god and was elected before partisan divisions had fully ripened, the founders themselves engaged in schemes and manipulations of the electoral college system to produce the partisan results they desired. One of the earliest amendments to the constitution was ratified to ease those manipulations and prevent them from backfiring from planning mistakes or confusion.

I think electors should fulfill what they promised to do. Better yet, get rid of the electoral college and go to a popular plurality system.

I believe when Madison and Adams worked on creating the electoral college, the founders of it, they believed the electors chosen by the state, whether by the state having electors picked through the populace voting, or picked by the legislature etc, they should have the liberty to vote their conscience... yes, they should follow how the people in their state voted, but if they could not, in good conscience do so, then they should be allowed???

 

[gallantwarrior]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Maybe it is time to get rid of it.

Completely agree, if electors are not bound to something remotely resembling the will of the people then why have it at all?

The will of which people? The people in the district represented by an elector? Or the people of a state, regardless of the will of those in a particular district? This newest plot to force mob rule on all others would appear to subvert the will of people in specific districts in favor of those in other districts. The EC was designed specifically to prevent mob rule. It was a good idea then, it's an even better idea now.

Sure, bud. I love it when wingnuts describe using democracy to elect our president as "mob rule", it's not.

Maybe you missed the point of the thread, electors are not beholden to anybody, that's a problem for the EC. The OP somehow thought this is a blow to the popular vote compact, it's not but she's kind of an idiot.

Read a bit, bud. The founders designed this nation as a representative republic for a reason. They understood that more populated areas would inflict their will on less populated ones, i.e. mob rule. That would effectively leave some regions without representation. The founders were pretty adamant that individuals be provided representation of their interests. Sometimes, the mob will not prevail.
Difference Between Democracy and Republic (with Comparison Chart) - Key Differences

 

[HappyJoy]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Maybe it is time to get rid of it.

Completely agree, if electors are not bound to something remotely resembling the will of the people then why have it at all?

The will of which people? The people in the district represented by an elector? Or the people of a state, regardless of the will of those in a particular district? This newest plot to force mob rule on all others would appear to subvert the will of people in specific districts in favor of those in other districts. The EC was designed specifically to prevent mob rule. It was a good idea then, it's an even better idea now.

Sure, bud. I love it when wingnuts describe using democracy to elect our president as "mob rule", it's not.

Maybe you missed the point of the thread, electors are not beholden to anybody, that's a problem for the EC. The OP somehow thought this is a blow to the popular vote compact, it's not but she's kind of an idiot.

Read a bit, bud. The founders designed this nation as a representative republic for a reason. They understood that more populated areas would inflict their will on less populated ones, i.e. mob rule. That would effectively leave some regions without representation. The founders were pretty adamant that individuals be provided representation of their interests. Sometimes, the mob will not prevail.
Difference Between Democracy and Republic (with Comparison Chart) - Key Differences

They designed the electoral college so that the powers that be could prevent the population from electing an undesirable. They had no way of knowing that a state like California or Texas would vastly outnumber states like Montana, Wyoming or either of the Dakotas.

BTW, we are a representitive democracy where we vote (democracy part) politicians to represent us (Republic part). There are very, very few direct democracies in the world, only one I can think of.

From your link:

The Republic is the representative democracy where there is an elected chief of the state, who serves the state for a certain period, known as the President. In this political system, the government cannot take away the inalienable rights of the individual. In other words, the right of an individual cannot be overridden by the masses.

No mention of an electoral college being necessary either, cuz it has nothing to do with our form of government.

 

[Votto]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Wait, wut?

A judge has openly defied the Constitution?

Oh, this is a Progressive judge.

Never mind, carry on.

Look at the bright side, this will make campaigning for President far easier as now they only have to worry about getting elected in New York and California which are the most populated states.

As for the rest of the country, it sucks to be you, but I'm sure you figured that out long ago.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Maybe it is time to get rid of it.

Completely agree, if electors are not bound to something remotely resembling the will of the people then why have it at all?

The will of which people? The people in the district represented by an elector? Or the people of a state, regardless of the will of those in a particular district? This newest plot to force mob rule on all others would appear to subvert the will of people in specific districts in favor of those in other districts. The EC was designed specifically to prevent mob rule. It was a good idea then, it's an even better idea now.

Sure, bud. I love it when wingnuts describe using democracy to elect our president as "mob rule", it's not.

Maybe you missed the point of the thread, electors are not beholden to anybody, that's a problem for the EC. The OP somehow thought this is a blow to the popular vote compact, it's not but she's kind of an idiot.

Thing is we aren't a democracy

 

[Wyatt earp]

Maybe it is time to get rid of it.

Completely agree, if electors are not bound to something remotely resembling the will of the people then why have it at all?

The will of which people? The people in the district represented by an elector? Or the people of a state, regardless of the will of those in a particular district? This newest plot to force mob rule on all others would appear to subvert the will of people in specific districts in favor of those in other districts. The EC was designed specifically to prevent mob rule. It was a good idea then, it's an even better idea now.

Sure, bud. I love it when wingnuts describe using democracy to elect our president as "mob rule", it's not.

Maybe you missed the point of the thread, electors are not beholden to anybody, that's a problem for the EC. The OP somehow thought this is a blow to the popular vote compact, it's not but she's kind of an idiot.

Read a bit, bud. The founders designed this nation as a representative republic for a reason. They understood that more populated areas would inflict their will on less populated ones, i.e. mob rule. That would effectively leave some regions without representation. The founders were pretty adamant that individuals be provided representation of their interests. Sometimes, the mob will not prevail.
Difference Between Democracy and Republic (with Comparison Chart) - Key Differences

They designed the electoral college so that the powers that be could prevent the population from electing an undesirable. They had no way of knowing that a state like California or Texas would vastly outnumber states like Montana, Wyoming or either of the Dakotas.

BTW, we are a representitive democracy where we vote (democracy part) politicians to represent us (Republic part). There are very, very few direct democracies in the world, only one I can think of.

From your link:

The Republic is the representative democracy where there is an elected chief of the state, who serves the state for a certain period, known as the President. In this political system, the government cannot take away the inalienable rights of the individual. In other words, the right of an individual cannot be overridden by the masses.

No mention of an electoral college being necessary either, cuz it has nothing to do with our form of government.

And they didn't think stupid liberals would allow illegal rapist killer Mexicans to vote either.

.

 

[BlindBoo]

That does seem to be the question at hand. According to this court our presidential election is meaningless and seems to just be a ruse to placate the people.

Wait. How so? All this court said was that electors must be selected by the state and that a state's laws cannot dictate to individual electors the candidate for whom they will vote. It has always been that way since the last time the constitution was amended on the issue.

.

So, there is nothing to stop electors from ignoring the popular vote of the state.

Right. The compact was FORCING them to vote a specific way. This court simply shot that down and maintained the status quo.

.

Each party submits a list of electors. I think the compact states will award the right to choose the states electors to the party based on the national vote rather than the states vote.

And how does that improve things?

Depends on your point of view.

 

[BlindBoo]

Electoral College members not bound by popular vote, court rules

A state may not direct the votes of electors.

Maybe it is time to get rid of it.

Completely agree, if electors are not bound to something remotely resembling the will of the people then why have it at all?

The will of which people? The people in the district represented by an elector? Or the people of a state, regardless of the will of those in a particular district? This newest plot to force mob rule on all others would appear to subvert the will of people in specific districts in favor of those in other districts. The EC was designed specifically to prevent mob rule. It was a good idea then, it's an even better idea now.

Sure, bud. I love it when wingnuts describe using democracy to elect our president as "mob rule", it's not.

Maybe you missed the point of the thread, electors are not beholden to anybody, that's a problem for the EC. The OP somehow thought this is a blow to the popular vote compact, it's not but she's kind of an idiot.

Read a bit, bud. The founders designed this nation as a representative republic for a reason. They understood that more populated areas would inflict their will on less populated ones, i.e. mob rule. That would effectively leave some regions without representation. The founders were pretty adamant that individuals be provided representation of their interests. Sometimes, the mob will not prevail.
Difference Between Democracy and Republic (with Comparison Chart) - Key Differences

How does electing a president via a national vote make us any less of a Republic?

 

[HappyJoy]

Maybe it is time to get rid of it.

Completely agree, if electors are not bound to something remotely resembling the will of the people then why have it at all?

The will of which people? The people in the district represented by an elector? Or the people of a state, regardless of the will of those in a particular district? This newest plot to force mob rule on all others would appear to subvert the will of people in specific districts in favor of those in other districts. The EC was designed specifically to prevent mob rule. It was a good idea then, it's an even better idea now.

Sure, bud. I love it when wingnuts describe using democracy to elect our president as "mob rule", it's not.

Maybe you missed the point of the thread, electors are not beholden to anybody, that's a problem for the EC. The OP somehow thought this is a blow to the popular vote compact, it's not but she's kind of an idiot.

Read a bit, bud. The founders designed this nation as a representative republic for a reason. They understood that more populated areas would inflict their will on less populated ones, i.e. mob rule. That would effectively leave some regions without representation. The founders were pretty adamant that individuals be provided representation of their interests. Sometimes, the mob will not prevail.
Difference Between Democracy and Republic (with Comparison Chart) - Key Differences

How does electing a president via a national vote make us any less of a Republic?

I'm sure the response will be well thought out.

 

[HappyJoy]

Completely agree, if electors are not bound to something remotely resembling the will of the people then why have it at all?

The will of which people? The people in the district represented by an elector? Or the people of a state, regardless of the will of those in a particular district? This newest plot to force mob rule on all others would appear to subvert the will of people in specific districts in favor of those in other districts. The EC was designed specifically to prevent mob rule. It was a good idea then, it's an even better idea now.

Sure, bud. I love it when wingnuts describe using democracy to elect our president as "mob rule", it's not.

Maybe you missed the point of the thread, electors are not beholden to anybody, that's a problem for the EC. The OP somehow thought this is a blow to the popular vote compact, it's not but she's kind of an idiot.

Read a bit, bud. The founders designed this nation as a representative republic for a reason. They understood that more populated areas would inflict their will on less populated ones, i.e. mob rule. That would effectively leave some regions without representation. The founders were pretty adamant that individuals be provided representation of their interests. Sometimes, the mob will not prevail.
Difference Between Democracy and Republic (with Comparison Chart) - Key Differences

They designed the electoral college so that the powers that be could prevent the population from electing an undesirable. They had no way of knowing that a state like California or Texas would vastly outnumber states like Montana, Wyoming or either of the Dakotas.

BTW, we are a representitive democracy where we vote (democracy part) politicians to represent us (Republic part). There are very, very few direct democracies in the world, only one I can think of.

From your link:

The Republic is the representative democracy where there is an elected chief of the state, who serves the state for a certain period, known as the President. In this political system, the government cannot take away the inalienable rights of the individual. In other words, the right of an individual cannot be overridden by the masses.

No mention of an electoral college being necessary either, cuz it has nothing to do with our form of government.

And they didn't think stupid liberals would allow illegal rapist killer Mexicans to vote either.

.

You're the guy that supports Gabbard, right?