11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[dblack]

The point being, it would mean that whoever did win the pop vote would also win the election. As is the case right now in every country except the United States and Pakistan. And that's the whole point here.

Why?

 

[Pogo]

The point being, it would mean that whoever did win the pop vote would also win the election. As is the case right now in every country except the United States and Pakistan. And that's the whole point here.

Why?

"Why" what?

 

[dblack]

The point being, it would mean that whoever did win the pop vote would also win the election. As is the case right now in every country except the United States and Pakistan. And that's the whole point here.

Why?

"Why" what?

Why is the popular vote the whole point?

 

[Pogo]

The point being, it would mean that whoever did win the pop vote would also win the election. As is the case right now in every country except the United States and Pakistan. And that's the whole point here.

Why?

"Why" what?

Why is the popular vote the whole point?

Because it is. What is this, some kinda trick question?

The posters I quoted, and the OP title, are laboring under the idea that this thing somehow favors a particular political party. Somebody even suggested it somehow aims for a permanent one-party control, which is impossible. And the two posts I quoted imagined a scenario that disproves exactly that canard for the roast duck it is.

So I thanked them. And not just because Frank has impeccable taste in Brazilian singers. Although it doesn't hurt.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

Here's why this is a bad idea.

Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Tennessee all agree to give their votes to the GOP, regardless of the state outcome, in perpetuity.

Electoral college, gerrymandering, voter suppression, vote theft - Its the only way the gop can win.

Why is the right so against their own country?

Why don't RWNJs just move to Russia?

Conversely, the only way Mexicrats can win is by continuing to recruit dependent illegal wetbacks to breed anchor babies like the cockroaches they are.
See how this works?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It would be a hoot watching CA electors voting for a Republican, then continually reminding CA voters that's what they wanted.

You know that if this is ever implemented a Republican will win the popular vote and Dems would have won the EC

Um yeah whatever.

The point being, it would mean that whoever did win the pop vote would also win the election. As is the case right now in every country except the United States and Pakistan. And that's the whole point here.

Anyway thanks for backing me up that the OP title is full of shit.

That's only been the rule for the last 240 years. It sucks for your party that you hate American history and culture

 

[BrokeLoser]

It would be a hoot watching CA electors voting for a Republican, then continually reminding CA voters that's what they wanted.

You know that if this is ever implemented a Republican will win the popular vote and Dems would have won the EC

Um yeah whatever.

The point being, it would mean that whoever did win the pop vote would also win the election. As is the case right now in every country except the United States and Pakistan. And that's the whole point here.

Anyway thanks for backing me up that the OP title is full of shit.

That's only been the rule for the last 240 years. It sucks for your party that you hate American history and culture

This is what we get with this new age movement of unAmericans. They hate anything and everything that represents American history, culture and tradition. They hate the words of our founders, despite those very words being the reason most are standing on this soil.
We’re in a Twilight Zone of sorts...this shit is just plain weird.

 

[Pogo]

It would be a hoot watching CA electors voting for a Republican, then continually reminding CA voters that's what they wanted.

You know that if this is ever implemented a Republican will win the popular vote and Dems would have won the EC

Um yeah whatever.

The point being, it would mean that whoever did win the pop vote would also win the election. As is the case right now in every country except the United States and Pakistan. And that's the whole point here.

Anyway thanks for backing me up that the OP title is full of shit.

That's only been the rule for the last 240 years. It sucks for your party that you hate American history and culture

Uhhhhh nnnnnnno it has not at all been the rule. Two of the last five elections prove otherwise, not to mention Cleveland '88, Tilden '76, and Jackson '24.

I don't have a "party" and if I did it wouldn't have anything to do with "hating" any kind of history or culture --- since that's not what parties do. Political parties are for consolidating political power --- not running emotional meltdowns.

 

[Pogo]

It would be a hoot watching CA electors voting for a Republican, then continually reminding CA voters that's what they wanted.

You know that if this is ever implemented a Republican will win the popular vote and Dems would have won the EC

Um yeah whatever.

The point being, it would mean that whoever did win the pop vote would also win the election. As is the case right now in every country except the United States and Pakistan. And that's the whole point here.

Anyway thanks for backing me up that the OP title is full of shit.

That's only been the rule for the last 240 years. It sucks for your party that you hate American history and culture

This is what we get with this new age movement of unAmericans. They hate anything and everything that represents American history, culture and tradition. They hate the words of our founders, despite those very words being the reason most are standing on this soil.
We’re in a Twilight Zone of sorts...this shit is just plain weird.

See your doctor. Preferably one with a beard and a Viennese accent.

 

[candycorn]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

Just to make sure I understand...

If the John Doe gets the most popular votes in CT and Jane Doe gets the most popular votes nationwide, CT's electors will vote for Jane Doe?

Once enough states join the pact to ensure it has an impact, yes.
So obviously it can't "give permanent control" to any party. OP has his head up his ass.

How many states would it take?

Depends on who signs on. Enough to total 270 so it would guarantee the PV winner gets the EV.

Of course, they're also assuming all their Electors vote the way they're told to. That's a potential wrinkle but only in a razor-close election.

It would be a hoot watching CA electors voting for a Republican, then continually reminding CA voters that's what they wanted.

Its a monumentally dumb decision if a state agrees to do such a thing. I thought Obamacare was unconstitutional so I’m not the person to ask about what is and isn’t kosher but I cannot believe this would be constitutional.

 

[Pogo]

Just to make sure I understand...

If the John Doe gets the most popular votes in CT and Jane Doe gets the most popular votes nationwide, CT's electors will vote for Jane Doe?

Once enough states join the pact to ensure it has an impact, yes.
So obviously it can't "give permanent control" to any party. OP has his head up his ass.

How many states would it take?

Depends on who signs on. Enough to total 270 so it would guarantee the PV winner gets the EV.

Of course, they're also assuming all their Electors vote the way they're told to. That's a potential wrinkle but only in a razor-close election.

It would be a hoot watching CA electors voting for a Republican, then continually reminding CA voters that's what they wanted.

Its a monumentally dumb decision if a state agrees to do such a thing. I thought Obamacare was unconstitutional so I’m not the person to ask about what is and isn’t kosher but I cannot believe this would be constitutional.

Of course it's Constitutional. Entirely.

We've noted this dozens of times already but the Constitution leaves the method used by the several states entirely up to each state. Nobody is required to even hold an election. They could use a Ouija board if they wanted to.

 

[candycorn]

Once enough states join the pact to ensure it has an impact, yes.
So obviously it can't "give permanent control" to any party. OP has his head up his ass.

How many states would it take?

Depends on who signs on. Enough to total 270 so it would guarantee the PV winner gets the EV.

Of course, they're also assuming all their Electors vote the way they're told to. That's a potential wrinkle but only in a razor-close election.

It would be a hoot watching CA electors voting for a Republican, then continually reminding CA voters that's what they wanted.

Its a monumentally dumb decision if a state agrees to do such a thing. I thought Obamacare was unconstitutional so I’m not the person to ask about what is and isn’t kosher but I cannot believe this would be constitutional.

Of course it's Constitutional. Entirely.

We've noted this dozens of times already but the Constitution leaves the method used by the several states entirely up to each state. Nobody is required to even hold an election. They could use a Ouija board if they wanted to.

I’m not the guy to ask about the constitutionality of the topic as I mentioned. Seems to me that if DC, for example, goes 90+% for the Democrat and it’s 3 electors vote for the Republican who gets the most votes nationwide, the wishes of the voters is not being represented by the laws DC passed.

 

[OKTexas]

Once enough states join the pact to ensure it has an impact, yes.
So obviously it can't "give permanent control" to any party. OP has his head up his ass.

How many states would it take?

Depends on who signs on. Enough to total 270 so it would guarantee the PV winner gets the EV.

Of course, they're also assuming all their Electors vote the way they're told to. That's a potential wrinkle but only in a razor-close election.

It would be a hoot watching CA electors voting for a Republican, then continually reminding CA voters that's what they wanted.

Its a monumentally dumb decision if a state agrees to do such a thing. I thought Obamacare was unconstitutional so I’m not the person to ask about what is and isn’t kosher but I cannot believe this would be constitutional.

Of course it's Constitutional. Entirely.

We've noted this dozens of times already but the Constitution leaves the method used by the several states entirely up to each state. Nobody is required to even hold an election. They could use a Ouija board if they wanted to.

You might want to read the Constitution again, it speaks several times about who is eligible to vote for electors for the presidency. And yes the States have to hold such elections.


.

 

[Pogo]

How many states would it take?

Depends on who signs on. Enough to total 270 so it would guarantee the PV winner gets the EV.

Of course, they're also assuming all their Electors vote the way they're told to. That's a potential wrinkle but only in a razor-close election.

It would be a hoot watching CA electors voting for a Republican, then continually reminding CA voters that's what they wanted.

Its a monumentally dumb decision if a state agrees to do such a thing. I thought Obamacare was unconstitutional so I’m not the person to ask about what is and isn’t kosher but I cannot believe this would be constitutional.

Of course it's Constitutional. Entirely.

We've noted this dozens of times already but the Constitution leaves the method used by the several states entirely up to each state. Nobody is required to even hold an election. They could use a Ouija board if they wanted to.

I’m not the guy to ask about the constitutionality of the topic as I mentioned. Seems to me that if DC, for example, goes 90+% for the Democrat and it’s 3 electors vote for the Republican who gets the most votes nationwide, the wishes of the voters is not being represented by the laws DC passed.

Correct, and we've done this point over and over too, but since it's a rainy day let's do it yet again.

The "wishes of the voters" are ALREADY not being represented, and it's been going on for two centuries.

My state for an example is allotted fifteeen EVs. In 2016 the results were razor-thin where the Republican outpolled the Democrat. In 2008 it did the opposite, the D outpolled the R. In both cases our electors went to Congress and lied through their teeth, declaring "wow, it's incredible, literally everybody in our state voted for Rump/O'bama". Which has literally never happened anywhere in any election ever. Neither this state nor any other alloted 8 votes to the winner of 51 percent and seven votes to the winner of 49 --- they just dumped them all into one corner, despite the vote count.

That means everybody up to 49.999 percent of the votes in our state got flushed down the toilet and ignored. And the same thing went on in 48 other states, and it's been going on since James Madison was still around calling for that practice to be banned by Constitutional Amendment. He said it would lead to factionalism and division --- et voilà, here we sit with so-called "red" and "blue" states so he was spot-on correct about that.

This multistate pact is a plan to counter the effects of that system. Simple as that.

 

[Pogo]

How many states would it take?

Depends on who signs on. Enough to total 270 so it would guarantee the PV winner gets the EV.

Of course, they're also assuming all their Electors vote the way they're told to. That's a potential wrinkle but only in a razor-close election.

It would be a hoot watching CA electors voting for a Republican, then continually reminding CA voters that's what they wanted.

Its a monumentally dumb decision if a state agrees to do such a thing. I thought Obamacare was unconstitutional so I’m not the person to ask about what is and isn’t kosher but I cannot believe this would be constitutional.

Of course it's Constitutional. Entirely.

We've noted this dozens of times already but the Constitution leaves the method used by the several states entirely up to each state. Nobody is required to even hold an election. They could use a Ouija board if they wanted to.

You might want to read the Constitution again, it speaks several times about who is eligible to vote for electors for the presidency. And yes the States have to hold such elections.

You might want to read my post again --- it said nothing about "who is eligible to vote for electors". And NO, no state is required to hold elections for the Presidency. As late as 1860 no such thing existed in South Carolina.

 

[OKTexas]

Depends on who signs on. Enough to total 270 so it would guarantee the PV winner gets the EV.

Of course, they're also assuming all their Electors vote the way they're told to. That's a potential wrinkle but only in a razor-close election.

It would be a hoot watching CA electors voting for a Republican, then continually reminding CA voters that's what they wanted.

Its a monumentally dumb decision if a state agrees to do such a thing. I thought Obamacare was unconstitutional so I’m not the person to ask about what is and isn’t kosher but I cannot believe this would be constitutional.

Of course it's Constitutional. Entirely.

We've noted this dozens of times already but the Constitution leaves the method used by the several states entirely up to each state. Nobody is required to even hold an election. They could use a Ouija board if they wanted to.

You might want to read the Constitution again, it speaks several times about who is eligible to vote for electors for the presidency. And yes the States have to hold such elections.

You might want to read my post again --- it said nothing about "who is eligible to vote for electors". And NO, no state is required to hold elections for the Presidency. As late as 1860 no such thing existed in South Carolina.

Learn something new every day.


.

 

[Circe]

Well, if they kill the Electoral College, the flyover country will secede and we'll have civil war, and none too soon, either. That would do it.

 

[candycorn]

Depends on who signs on. Enough to total 270 so it would guarantee the PV winner gets the EV.

Of course, they're also assuming all their Electors vote the way they're told to. That's a potential wrinkle but only in a razor-close election.

It would be a hoot watching CA electors voting for a Republican, then continually reminding CA voters that's what they wanted.

Its a monumentally dumb decision if a state agrees to do such a thing. I thought Obamacare was unconstitutional so I’m not the person to ask about what is and isn’t kosher but I cannot believe this would be constitutional.

Of course it's Constitutional. Entirely.

We've noted this dozens of times already but the Constitution leaves the method used by the several states entirely up to each state. Nobody is required to even hold an election. They could use a Ouija board if they wanted to.

I’m not the guy to ask about the constitutionality of the topic as I mentioned. Seems to me that if DC, for example, goes 90+% for the Democrat and it’s 3 electors vote for the Republican who gets the most votes nationwide, the wishes of the voters is not being represented by the laws DC passed.

Correct, and we've done this point over and over too, but since it's a rainy day let's do it yet again.

The “wishes of the voters" are ALREADY not being represented, and it's been going on for two centuries.

That is opinion. The wishes of the voters are reflected in every election… I mean, you do vote for someone. If you don’t like the candidates…well….I would imagine that in 1808, 1908, and 2008, there were people who voted for the nominees who would rather have voted for someone else.

What I propose is that we only have 4 election days in the primaries; one in early February of each election year, one in late April, one in early July and one in late August. Each date will have a regional primary with 10-12 states. This would give voters and candidates more time to find both their candidate and their candidates to find their footing; perfect their messaging, etc…

My state for an example is allotted fifteeen EVs. In 2016 the results were razor-thin where the Republican outpolled the Democrat. In 2008 it did the opposite, the D outpolled the R. In both cases our electors went to Congress and lied through their teeth, declaring "wow, it's incredible, literally everybody in our state voted for Rump/O'bama". Which has literally never happened anywhere in any election ever. Neither this state nor any other alloted 8 votes to the winner of 51 percent and seven votes to the winner of 49 --- they just dumped them all into one corner, despite the vote count.

That means everybody up to 49.999 percent of the votes in our state got flushed down the toilet and ignored. And the same thing went on in 48 other states, and it's been going on since James Madison was still around calling for that practice to be banned by Constitutional Amendment. He said it would lead to factionalism and division --- et voilà, here we sit with so-called "red" and "blue" states so he was spot-on correct about that.

This multistate pact is a plan to counter the effects of that system. Simple as that.

Okay, maybe I’m not understanding it then.

As I understand it, if the voters of CT vote for John Doe who is a D and then the national popular vote is won by Jane Doe who is an R, the electors of CT would vote for Jane Doe. Please enlighten me if that is not the case.

 

[Pogo]

It would be a hoot watching CA electors voting for a Republican, then continually reminding CA voters that's what they wanted.

Its a monumentally dumb decision if a state agrees to do such a thing. I thought Obamacare was unconstitutional so I’m not the person to ask about what is and isn’t kosher but I cannot believe this would be constitutional.

Of course it's Constitutional. Entirely.

We've noted this dozens of times already but the Constitution leaves the method used by the several states entirely up to each state. Nobody is required to even hold an election. They could use a Ouija board if they wanted to.

I’m not the guy to ask about the constitutionality of the topic as I mentioned. Seems to me that if DC, for example, goes 90+% for the Democrat and it’s 3 electors vote for the Republican who gets the most votes nationwide, the wishes of the voters is not being represented by the laws DC passed.

Correct, and we've done this point over and over too, but since it's a rainy day let's do it yet again.

The “wishes of the voters" are ALREADY not being represented, and it's been going on for two centuries.

That is opinion. The wishes of the voters are reflected in every election… I mean, you do vote for someone. If you don’t like the candidates…well….I would imagine that in 1808, 1908, and 2008, there were people who voted for the nominees who would rather have voted for someone else.

No, it's not "opinion" --- it's the way the system works ("works" in the sense of "operates").

Of the 51 states (DC counting as one for this purpose), no fewer than 49 of them use the "winner take all" (WTA) model exactly as I just described. And that means in a so-called "battleground" state like mine --- a bullshit term which would not even exist without this bullshit system --- every vote that did not align with plurality in that state, is dropped into the shredder and utterly ignored. And in every so-called "red" or "blue" state --- two more bullshit terms which would not exist without the same bullshit system --- NOBODY has any reason to go vote at all, since that state's ENTIRE Electoral Vote is predetermined. A given voter in Massachusetts or in Idaho can vote with their state, vote against their state, or stay home and watch reruns of "F Troop" and all three produce exactly the same result. There's no point in them going to vote at all--- which is a major reason our turnout rate is the embarrassment it is. Because what's the point?

My state for an example is allotted fifteeen EVs. In 2016 the results were razor-thin where the Republican outpolled the Democrat. In 2008 it did the opposite, the D outpolled the R. In both cases our electors went to Congress and lied through their teeth, declaring "wow, it's incredible, literally everybody in our state voted for Rump/O'bama". Which has literally never happened anywhere in any election ever. Neither this state nor any other alloted 8 votes to the winner of 51 percent and seven votes to the winner of 49 --- they just dumped them all into one corner, despite the vote count.

That means everybody up to 49.999 percent of the votes in our state got flushed down the toilet and ignored. And the same thing went on in 48 other states, and it's been going on since James Madison was still around calling for that practice to be banned by Constitutional Amendment. He said it would lead to factionalism and division --- et voilà, here we sit with so-called "red" and "blue" states so he was spot-on correct about that.

This multistate pact is a plan to counter the effects of that system. Simple as that.

Okay, maybe I’m not understanding it then.

As I understand it, if the voters of CT vote for John Doe who is a D and then the national popular vote is won by Jane Doe who is an R, the electors of CT would vote for Jane Doe. Please enlighten me if that is not the case.

Correct, that's what they would do. Looked at from the state's perspective only, that state's electoral vote would not in this case represent how the people of Connecticut voted. On the other hand if the majority in Connecticut voted the other way -- for the same candy who won nationally, it STILL would not represent how the state's voters voted, since there is always a significant portion who want the other candy. So either way people are getting cut out. No difference.

That's not the fault of this pact --- it's the fault of WTA. Every time a state goes to Congress and lies that their state vote was unanimous --- that's what happens. And unless some state's electorate some day actually votes unanimously, it will always happen.

So this pact would not change that --- in fact it depends on keeping the WTA system to work. It simply means that those blue voters in Idaho and those red voters in Massachusetts would finally have a reason to go vote, since their vote WOULD be counted in the national PV count that would determine how the states in this pact cast their electoral votes.

In the current scheme, once your vote is shit-canned within the state because not enough voters in your state voted the same way -- you're done, you lost and you have no voice. In the proposed plan you still have a chance for your vote to count since it would affect the overall national vote, even if it was a minority in your state.

That alone could and should improve turnout above the pathetic 55%. It would also creak the door open just a bit for third party candies, since as it is now the EC-WTA system shuts them out.

It's clearly not the best fix but it's seems to be the most practical band-aid that can be easily applied without amending the Constitution.

 

[dblack]

The point being, it would mean that whoever did win the pop vote would also win the election. As is the case right now in every country except the United States and Pakistan. And that's the whole point here.

Why?

"Why" what?

Why is the popular vote the whole point?

Because it is. What is this, some kinda trick question?

Not at all. I'm questioning the, largely unquestioned, premise that the will of the majority is an inherently good thing; that accurately reflecting the will of the majority at any given time should be the goal. I don't think it should be. The goal should be good government.