Circumventing the electoral college won't prevent Trump from winning in 2020...

[The Original Tree]

Pretty thin since 1912.

Yeah, as that link also mentioned many states have created laws that do not allow faithless electors. But what does "pretty thin since 1912" have to do with it? The Constitution in this respect hasn't changed.

"Pretty thin since 1912" - Great argument dude,

Shrug. Not the subject anyway.

Really? Did you honestly ask me how many faithless electors there have been and you didn't find the answer first for yourself or that it would backfire on you? Pathetic. OK, on to your next point.

If 10 of 12 electors in a state vote for the candidate who loses the popular vote, the state has no authority to arbitrarily grant all 12 votes to the winner of the popular vote.

What 10 or 12 electors are you talking about? They would vote for the popular vote winner, the state is not going to override the electors, the electors are going to pledge to vote for the popular vote winner before the election, that will be the state law.

And it will become another state law struck down by the federal courts because it pertains to a federal system.

You're dreaming of something that's never going to happen.


Jo

That's the thing, J, it doesn't. The Constitution specifically gives the states the power to decide their own electors. You guys just can't seem to find away around this very crucial detail.

The Constitution does not give them the power to IGNORE that state's voters and give their EVs to a Candidate that did not win that state.

Are you are moron, or do you just lick windows for pleasure?

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, as that link also mentioned many states have created laws that do not allow faithless electors. But what does "pretty thin since 1912" have to do with it? The Constitution in this respect hasn't changed.

"Pretty thin since 1912" - Great argument dude,

Shrug. Not the subject anyway.

Really? Did you honestly ask me how many faithless electors there have been and you didn't find the answer first for yourself or that it would backfire on you? Pathetic. OK, on to your next point.

If 10 of 12 electors in a state vote for the candidate who loses the popular vote, the state has no authority to arbitrarily grant all 12 votes to the winner of the popular vote.

What 10 or 12 electors are you talking about? They would vote for the popular vote winner, the state is not going to override the electors, the electors are going to pledge to vote for the popular vote winner before the election, that will be the state law.

And it will become another state law struck down by the federal courts because it pertains to a federal system.

You're dreaming of something that's never going to happen.


Jo

That's the thing, J, it doesn't. The Constitution specifically gives the states the power to decide their own electors. You guys just can't seem to find away around this very crucial detail.

The Constitution does not give them the power to IGNORE that state's voters and give their EVs to a Candidate that did not win that state.

Are you are moron, or do you just lick windows for pleasure?

A state isn't even required to have an election by the people.

You of all people shouldn't be careful about calling others morons.

 

[The Original Tree]

Shrug. Not the subject anyway.

Really? Did you honestly ask me how many faithless electors there have been and you didn't find the answer first for yourself or that it would backfire on you? Pathetic. OK, on to your next point.

If 10 of 12 electors in a state vote for the candidate who loses the popular vote, the state has no authority to arbitrarily grant all 12 votes to the winner of the popular vote.

What 10 or 12 electors are you talking about? They would vote for the popular vote winner, the state is not going to override the electors, the electors are going to pledge to vote for the popular vote winner before the election, that will be the state law.

And it will become another state law struck down by the federal courts because it pertains to a federal system.

You're dreaming of something that's never going to happen.


Jo

That's the thing, J, it doesn't. The Constitution specifically gives the states the power to decide their own electors. You guys just can't seem to find away around this very crucial detail.

The Constitution does not give them the power to IGNORE that state's voters and give their EVs to a Candidate that did not win that state.

Are you are moron, or do you just lick windows for pleasure?

A state isn't even required to have an election by the people.

You of all people shouldn't be careful about calling others morons.

If you believe that, then convince California and New York to not have Elections in 2020.

Go back to sucking Putin's Dick. We liked it better when you kept busy that way.

Please provide proof a State can simply cancel or refuse to hold an election.

This happens in CUBA where you live. Not here.

 

[justoffal]

Shrug. Not the subject anyway.

Really? Did you honestly ask me how many faithless electors there have been and you didn't find the answer first for yourself or that it would backfire on you? Pathetic. OK, on to your next point.

If 10 of 12 electors in a state vote for the candidate who loses the popular vote, the state has no authority to arbitrarily grant all 12 votes to the winner of the popular vote.

What 10 or 12 electors are you talking about? They would vote for the popular vote winner, the state is not going to override the electors, the electors are going to pledge to vote for the popular vote winner before the election, that will be the state law.

And it will become another state law struck down by the federal courts because it pertains to a federal system.

You're dreaming of something that's never going to happen.


Jo

That's the thing, J, it doesn't. The Constitution specifically gives the states the power to decide their own electors. You guys just can't seem to find away around this very crucial detail.

The Constitution does not give them the power to IGNORE that state's voters and give their EVs to a Candidate that did not win that state.

Are you are moron, or do you just lick windows for pleasure?

A state isn't even required to have an election by the people.

You of all people shouldn't be careful about calling others morons.

Well he has a pretty good reason for calling you a moron.

Should the state decide to forgo a federal presidential election they would not be allowed to contribute any electoral votes to the process either.

You seem to be desirous of forming an elite class that functions on a level above the voting populace. The very reason the Constitution exists is to prevent such a thing from happening.

The childish thought that a state can simply point to a candidate completely oblivious to the will of its population is something that belongs in a fairytale. Like I said to you before they may try it but they will very quickly be struck down by the federal court system.

Jo

 

[HappyJoy]

Really? Did you honestly ask me how many faithless electors there have been and you didn't find the answer first for yourself or that it would backfire on you? Pathetic. OK, on to your next point.

What 10 or 12 electors are you talking about? They would vote for the popular vote winner, the state is not going to override the electors, the electors are going to pledge to vote for the popular vote winner before the election, that will be the state law.

And it will become another state law struck down by the federal courts because it pertains to a federal system.

You're dreaming of something that's never going to happen.


Jo

That's the thing, J, it doesn't. The Constitution specifically gives the states the power to decide their own electors. You guys just can't seem to find away around this very crucial detail.

The Constitution does not give them the power to IGNORE that state's voters and give their EVs to a Candidate that did not win that state.

Are you are moron, or do you just lick windows for pleasure?

A state isn't even required to have an election by the people.

You of all people shouldn't be careful about calling others morons.

If you believe that, then convince California and New York to not have Elections in 2020.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would two of the most populous states not want their votes counted toward the popular vote?

Go back to sucking Putin's Dick. We liked it better when you kept busy that way.

Even if I wanted to I'd have to get the deranged oompa loompa's head out of Putin's chinos.

Please provide proof a State can simply cancel or refuse to hold an election.

Well, thee is no provision in the Constitution that compels a state to have a presidential election and since a negative cannot be proven it would be up to you to demonstrate that states are required to hold elections by the populace for President.

However the more important question here is are electors required to vote the same as the populace of that state for president and the answer is no. If you don't like my answer here is one from the federal government

https://www.archives.gov/federal-re...ge/resources/state-officials-instructions.pdf

E l e c t o r a l C o l l e g e Instructions to State Officials

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law requiring electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States. ... If a designated elector is unable to carry out the required duties on the day of the Electoral College meeting, the laws of each State govern the method for filling vacancies.

This happens in CUBA where you live. Not here.

Installing leaders who the general public does not support is what Cuba does. We've done that twice recently. 2000 and 2016.

 

[HappyJoy]

Really? Did you honestly ask me how many faithless electors there have been and you didn't find the answer first for yourself or that it would backfire on you? Pathetic. OK, on to your next point.

What 10 or 12 electors are you talking about? They would vote for the popular vote winner, the state is not going to override the electors, the electors are going to pledge to vote for the popular vote winner before the election, that will be the state law.

And it will become another state law struck down by the federal courts because it pertains to a federal system.

You're dreaming of something that's never going to happen.


Jo

That's the thing, J, it doesn't. The Constitution specifically gives the states the power to decide their own electors. You guys just can't seem to find away around this very crucial detail.

The Constitution does not give them the power to IGNORE that state's voters and give their EVs to a Candidate that did not win that state.

Are you are moron, or do you just lick windows for pleasure?

A state isn't even required to have an election by the people.

You of all people shouldn't be careful about calling others morons.

Well he has a pretty good reason for calling you a moron.

Should the state decide to forgo a federal presidential election they would not be allowed to contribute any electoral votes to the process either.

I don't know of any states wanting to forgo an election, this is why I called him a moron. Well, that and he doesn't understand basic math and then makes excuses for it.

You seem to be desirous of forming an elite class that functions on a level above the voting populace. The very reason the Constitution exists is to prevent such a thing from happening.

No, I want to eliminate that select group of elites who make up the electoral college and and elect the president by popular vote. The NPVC achieves this. One man one vote.

The childish thought that a state can simply point to a candidate completely oblivious to the will of its population is something that belongs in a fairytale. Like I said to you before they may try it but they will very quickly be struck down by the federal court system.

Jo

Again, the Constitution leaves it to state law how to divvy up their electoral votes. I'm not concerned if you like it or not.

 

[The Original Tree]

And it will become another state law struck down by the federal courts because it pertains to a federal system.

You're dreaming of something that's never going to happen.


Jo

That's the thing, J, it doesn't. The Constitution specifically gives the states the power to decide their own electors. You guys just can't seem to find away around this very crucial detail.

The Constitution does not give them the power to IGNORE that state's voters and give their EVs to a Candidate that did not win that state.

Are you are moron, or do you just lick windows for pleasure?

A state isn't even required to have an election by the people.

You of all people shouldn't be careful about calling others morons.

If you believe that, then convince California and New York to not have Elections in 2020.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would two of the most populous states not want their votes counted toward the popular vote?

Go back to sucking Putin's Dick. We liked it better when you kept busy that way.

Even if I wanted to I'd have to get the deranged oompa loompa's head out of Putin's chinos.

Please provide proof a State can simply cancel or refuse to hold an election.

Well, thee is no provision in the Constitution that compels a state to have a presidential election and since a negative cannot be proven it would be up to you to demonstrate that states are required to hold elections by the populace for President.

However the more important question here is are electors required to vote the same as the populace of that state for president and the answer is no. If you don't like my answer here is one from the federal government

https://www.archives.gov/federal-re...ge/resources/state-officials-instructions.pdf

E l e c t o r a l C o l l e g e Instructions to State Officials

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law requiring electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States. ... If a designated elector is unable to carry out the required duties on the day of the Electoral College meeting, the laws of each State govern the method for filling vacancies.

This happens in CUBA where you live. Not here.

Installing leaders who the general public does not support is what Cuba does. We've done that twice recently. 2000 and 2016.

It doesn't make sense because you are a MORON.

Trump can win The Popular Vote but lose The State of California and New York.

Under your Idiotic Idea, you just disenfranchised The California Voters in New York and California because they would be forced to give their Electoral Votes to someone who LOST THEIR STATE.

This is why the Idiotic Suicide Pact will be shot down in The Courts as Unconstitutional.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Pretty thin since 1912.

Yeah, as that link also mentioned many states have created laws that do not allow faithless electors. But what does "pretty thin since 1912" have to do with it? The Constitution in this respect hasn't changed.

"Pretty thin since 1912" - Great argument dude,

Shrug. Not the subject anyway.

Really? Did you honestly ask me how many faithless electors there have been and you didn't find the answer first for yourself or that it would backfire on you? Pathetic. OK, on to your next point.

It's your job to support your contentions, not mine.

And I did. I'm saying you didn't support your argument, you didn't even understand the argument to begin with.

I'm not arguing anything. Merely pointing out intent, and speculating on possible results.

What 10 or 12 electors are you talking about? They would vote for the popular vote winner, the state is not going to override the electors, the electors are going to pledge to vote for the popular vote winner before the election, that will be the state law.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

Yes, and?

What part don't you understand?

 

[justoffal]

And it will become another state law struck down by the federal courts because it pertains to a federal system.

You're dreaming of something that's never going to happen.


Jo

That's the thing, J, it doesn't. The Constitution specifically gives the states the power to decide their own electors. You guys just can't seem to find away around this very crucial detail.

The Constitution does not give them the power to IGNORE that state's voters and give their EVs to a Candidate that did not win that state.

Are you are moron, or do you just lick windows for pleasure?

A state isn't even required to have an election by the people.

You of all people shouldn't be careful about calling others morons.

Well he has a pretty good reason for calling you a moron.

Should the state decide to forgo a federal presidential election they would not be allowed to contribute any electoral votes to the process either.

I don't know of any states wanting to forgo an election, this is why I called him a moron. Well, that and he doesn't understand basic math and then makes excuses for it.

You seem to be desirous of forming an elite class that functions on a level above the voting populace. The very reason the Constitution exists is to prevent such a thing from happening.

No, I want to eliminate that select group of elites who make up the electoral college and and elect the president by popular vote. The NPVC achieves this. One man one vote.

The childish thought that a state can simply point to a candidate completely oblivious to the will of its population is something that belongs in a fairytale. Like I said to you before they may try it but they will very quickly be struck down by the federal court system.

Jo

Again, the Constitution leaves it to state law how to divvy up their electoral votes. I'm not concerned if you like it or not.

And it will become another state law struck down by the federal courts because it pertains to a federal system.

You're dreaming of something that's never going to happen.


Jo

That's the thing, J, it doesn't. The Constitution specifically gives the states the power to decide their own electors. You guys just can't seem to find away around this very crucial detail.

The Constitution does not give them the power to IGNORE that state's voters and give their EVs to a Candidate that did not win that state.

Are you are moron, or do you just lick windows for pleasure?

A state isn't even required to have an election by the people.

You of all people shouldn't be careful about calling others morons.

Well he has a pretty good reason for calling you a moron.

Should the state decide to forgo a federal presidential election they would not be allowed to contribute any electoral votes to the process either.

I don't know of any states wanting to forgo an election, this is why I called him a moron. Well, that and he doesn't understand basic math and then makes excuses for it.

You seem to be desirous of forming an elite class that functions on a level above the voting populace. The very reason the Constitution exists is to prevent such a thing from happening.

No, I want to eliminate that select group of elites who make up the electoral college and and elect the president by popular vote. The NPVC achieves this. One man one vote.

The childish thought that a state can simply point to a candidate completely oblivious to the will of its population is something that belongs in a fairytale. Like I said to you before they may try it but they will very quickly be struck down by the federal court system.

Jo

Again, the Constitution leaves it to state law how to divvy up their electoral votes. I'm not concerned if you like it or not.

Ding bat...
The state can present a basket full of jellied toast as electoral votes if they want.
I never said the state didn't have the right to do whatever it is they choose to do.
What I'm telling you is the federal government will not accept it and does not have to.

Now keep tapping the ruby slippers together
And keep repeating to yourself " there's no place like home."

I will talk to you again after this ridiculous thing is struck down by the federal court system as it most certainly will be.
I don't care if you like that or not.

Jo

 

[HappyJoy]

That's the thing, J, it doesn't. The Constitution specifically gives the states the power to decide their own electors. You guys just can't seem to find away around this very crucial detail.

The Constitution does not give them the power to IGNORE that state's voters and give their EVs to a Candidate that did not win that state.

Are you are moron, or do you just lick windows for pleasure?

A state isn't even required to have an election by the people.

You of all people shouldn't be careful about calling others morons.

If you believe that, then convince California and New York to not have Elections in 2020.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would two of the most populous states not want their votes counted toward the popular vote?

Go back to sucking Putin's Dick. We liked it better when you kept busy that way.

Even if I wanted to I'd have to get the deranged oompa loompa's head out of Putin's chinos.

Please provide proof a State can simply cancel or refuse to hold an election.

Well, thee is no provision in the Constitution that compels a state to have a presidential election and since a negative cannot be proven it would be up to you to demonstrate that states are required to hold elections by the populace for President.

However the more important question here is are electors required to vote the same as the populace of that state for president and the answer is no. If you don't like my answer here is one from the federal government

https://www.archives.gov/federal-re...ge/resources/state-officials-instructions.pdf

E l e c t o r a l C o l l e g e Instructions to State Officials

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law requiring electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States. ... If a designated elector is unable to carry out the required duties on the day of the Electoral College meeting, the laws of each State govern the method for filling vacancies.

This happens in CUBA where you live. Not here.

Installing leaders who the general public does not support is what Cuba does. We've done that twice recently. 2000 and 2016.

It doesn't make sense because you are a MORON.

Makes perfect sense and we're going to demonstrate this again below just for you.

Trump can win The Popular Vote but lose The State of California and New York.

Under your Idiotic Idea, you just disenfranchised The California Voters in New York and California because they would be forced to give their Electoral Votes to someone who LOST THEIR STATE.

Disenfranchise the California voters in New York and California? Yeah, that's about par for you.

If Trump wins the popular vote then he should be president, the point isn't to pick outcomes based on whether the Democrat or Republican wins it's that whoever wins the popular vote is elected president.

This is why the Idiotic Suicide Pact will be shot down in The Courts as Unconstitutional.

Yet you haven't been able to demonstrate what part of the Constitution is violated.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, as that link also mentioned many states have created laws that do not allow faithless electors. But what does "pretty thin since 1912" have to do with it? The Constitution in this respect hasn't changed.

"Pretty thin since 1912" - Great argument dude,

Shrug. Not the subject anyway.

Really? Did you honestly ask me how many faithless electors there have been and you didn't find the answer first for yourself or that it would backfire on you? Pathetic. OK, on to your next point.

It's your job to support your contentions, not mine.

And I did. I'm saying you didn't support your argument, you didn't even understand the argument to begin with.

I'm not arguing anything. Merely pointing out intent, and speculating on possible results.

What 10 or 12 electors are you talking about? They would vote for the popular vote winner, the state is not going to override the electors, the electors are going to pledge to vote for the popular vote winner before the election, that will be the state law.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

Yes, and?

What part don't you understand?

Your point. You should make one.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Shrug. Not the subject anyway.

Really? Did you honestly ask me how many faithless electors there have been and you didn't find the answer first for yourself or that it would backfire on you? Pathetic. OK, on to your next point.

It's your job to support your contentions, not mine.

And I did. I'm saying you didn't support your argument, you didn't even understand the argument to begin with.

I'm not arguing anything. Merely pointing out intent, and speculating on possible results.

What 10 or 12 electors are you talking about? They would vote for the popular vote winner, the state is not going to override the electors, the electors are going to pledge to vote for the popular vote winner before the election, that will be the state law.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

Yes, and?

What part don't you understand?

Your point. You should make one.

Try reading. It's not hard once you know how.

 

[The Original Tree]

The Constitution does not give them the power to IGNORE that state's voters and give their EVs to a Candidate that did not win that state.

Are you are moron, or do you just lick windows for pleasure?

A state isn't even required to have an election by the people.

You of all people shouldn't be careful about calling others morons.

If you believe that, then convince California and New York to not have Elections in 2020.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would two of the most populous states not want their votes counted toward the popular vote?

Go back to sucking Putin's Dick. We liked it better when you kept busy that way.

Even if I wanted to I'd have to get the deranged oompa loompa's head out of Putin's chinos.

Please provide proof a State can simply cancel or refuse to hold an election.

Well, thee is no provision in the Constitution that compels a state to have a presidential election and since a negative cannot be proven it would be up to you to demonstrate that states are required to hold elections by the populace for President.

However the more important question here is are electors required to vote the same as the populace of that state for president and the answer is no. If you don't like my answer here is one from the federal government

https://www.archives.gov/federal-re...ge/resources/state-officials-instructions.pdf

E l e c t o r a l C o l l e g e Instructions to State Officials

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law requiring electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States. ... If a designated elector is unable to carry out the required duties on the day of the Electoral College meeting, the laws of each State govern the method for filling vacancies.

This happens in CUBA where you live. Not here.

Installing leaders who the general public does not support is what Cuba does. We've done that twice recently. 2000 and 2016.

It doesn't make sense because you are a MORON.

Makes perfect sense and we're going to demonstrate this again below just for you.

Trump can win The Popular Vote but lose The State of California and New York.

Under your Idiotic Idea, you just disenfranchised The California Voters in New York and California because they would be forced to give their Electoral Votes to someone who LOST THEIR STATE.

Disenfranchise the California voters in New York and California? Yeah, that's about par for you.

If Trump wins the popular vote then he should be president, the point isn't to pick outcomes based on whether the Democrat or Republican wins it's that whoever wins the popular vote is elected president.

This is why the Idiotic Suicide Pact will be shot down in The Courts as Unconstitutional.

Yet you haven't been able to demonstrate what part of the Constitution is violated.

If you do not know, nor can understand what the fuck a Republic is, No amount of my schooling your deeply retarded self is going to help you. You'll just keep licking windows, testing your helmet out on the back of the short bus seat, and babbling incoherently about The Popular Vote.

Again you are a moron, and there is no way you are an American Citizen because you do not understand how our elections work.

Federal Elections are 50 Separate State Elections.

We are a FUCKING REPUBLIC DUMB ASS Cum Guzzling Homosexual Commie.

That means each state is treated like a separate entity as if they are their own country.

We are a UNION OF STATES, not a vast Stateless Continent.

There is no stateless "Mobocracy" that you keep speaking of.

 

[justoffal]

Shrug. Not the subject anyway.

Really? Did you honestly ask me how many faithless electors there have been and you didn't find the answer first for yourself or that it would backfire on you? Pathetic. OK, on to your next point.

It's your job to support your contentions, not mine.

And I did. I'm saying you didn't support your argument, you didn't even understand the argument to begin with.

I'm not arguing anything. Merely pointing out intent, and speculating on possible results.

What 10 or 12 electors are you talking about? They would vote for the popular vote winner, the state is not going to override the electors, the electors are going to pledge to vote for the popular vote winner before the election, that will be the state law.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

Yes, and?

What part don't you understand?

Your point. You should make one.

The point is you don't like the currently legally established election system.

The electoral college is there to prevent elitism not to encourage it.

You will never get all of the states to agree to a popular vote system.

Now if you want to erase all of the state boundaries and just create one huge Province maybe you'd have a point.

Good luck convincing each and every governor to step down and become irrelevant.

Now sit down before you hurt yourself you're an amateur.

Jo

 

[HappyJoy]

That's the thing, J, it doesn't. The Constitution specifically gives the states the power to decide their own electors. You guys just can't seem to find away around this very crucial detail.

The Constitution does not give them the power to IGNORE that state's voters and give their EVs to a Candidate that did not win that state.

Are you are moron, or do you just lick windows for pleasure?

A state isn't even required to have an election by the people.

You of all people shouldn't be careful about calling others morons.

Well he has a pretty good reason for calling you a moron.

Should the state decide to forgo a federal presidential election they would not be allowed to contribute any electoral votes to the process either.

I don't know of any states wanting to forgo an election, this is why I called him a moron. Well, that and he doesn't understand basic math and then makes excuses for it.

You seem to be desirous of forming an elite class that functions on a level above the voting populace. The very reason the Constitution exists is to prevent such a thing from happening.

No, I want to eliminate that select group of elites who make up the electoral college and and elect the president by popular vote. The NPVC achieves this. One man one vote.

The childish thought that a state can simply point to a candidate completely oblivious to the will of its population is something that belongs in a fairytale. Like I said to you before they may try it but they will very quickly be struck down by the federal court system.

Jo

Again, the Constitution leaves it to state law how to divvy up their electoral votes. I'm not concerned if you like it or not.

That's the thing, J, it doesn't. The Constitution specifically gives the states the power to decide their own electors. You guys just can't seem to find away around this very crucial detail.

The Constitution does not give them the power to IGNORE that state's voters and give their EVs to a Candidate that did not win that state.

Are you are moron, or do you just lick windows for pleasure?

A state isn't even required to have an election by the people.

You of all people shouldn't be careful about calling others morons.

Well he has a pretty good reason for calling you a moron.

Should the state decide to forgo a federal presidential election they would not be allowed to contribute any electoral votes to the process either.

I don't know of any states wanting to forgo an election, this is why I called him a moron. Well, that and he doesn't understand basic math and then makes excuses for it.

You seem to be desirous of forming an elite class that functions on a level above the voting populace. The very reason the Constitution exists is to prevent such a thing from happening.

No, I want to eliminate that select group of elites who make up the electoral college and and elect the president by popular vote. The NPVC achieves this. One man one vote.

The childish thought that a state can simply point to a candidate completely oblivious to the will of its population is something that belongs in a fairytale. Like I said to you before they may try it but they will very quickly be struck down by the federal court system.

Jo

Again, the Constitution leaves it to state law how to divvy up their electoral votes. I'm not concerned if you like it or not.

Ding bat...
The state can present a basket full of jellied toast as electoral votes if they want.
I never said the state didn't have the right to do whatever it is they choose to do.
What I'm telling you is the federal government will not accept it and does not have to.

I've already quoted from the feds that they don't require the electors to vote based on their states popular vote.

Now keep tapping the ruby slippers together
And keep repeating to yourself " there's no place like home."

I will talk to you again after this ridiculous thing is struck down by the federal court system as it most certainly will be.
I don't care if you like that or not.

Jo

J, the burdon of proof is on you. You claim the federal government won't except state electors if they cast their votes different from the state election results. I've posted a link of electors doing just that. I've posted a link from the federal government that shows the same thing. It's on you to prove otherwise and "nuh-uh" isn't an answer.

 

[HappyJoy]

Really? Did you honestly ask me how many faithless electors there have been and you didn't find the answer first for yourself or that it would backfire on you? Pathetic. OK, on to your next point.

It's your job to support your contentions, not mine.

And I did. I'm saying you didn't support your argument, you didn't even understand the argument to begin with.

I'm not arguing anything. Merely pointing out intent, and speculating on possible results.

What 10 or 12 electors are you talking about? They would vote for the popular vote winner, the state is not going to override the electors, the electors are going to pledge to vote for the popular vote winner before the election, that will be the state law.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

Yes, and?

What part don't you understand?

Your point. You should make one.

I didn't, you didn't make a point, you quoted something and that was about it. Without you putting context behind what you think the meaning is then you're not making a point. We can go back and forth about whether you made a point or not, I'm just not seeing it so just tell me again what it is, I think I've shown that I'm more than happy to reply.

Try reading. It's not hard once you know how.

 

[basquebromance]

it would be better for Trump's sake to lose in 2020. he's going broke in this damn white house job. he needs to go back to NY and make some money!

 

[justoffal]

The Constitution does not give them the power to IGNORE that state's voters and give their EVs to a Candidate that did not win that state.

Are you are moron, or do you just lick windows for pleasure?

A state isn't even required to have an election by the people.

You of all people shouldn't be careful about calling others morons.

Well he has a pretty good reason for calling you a moron.

Should the state decide to forgo a federal presidential election they would not be allowed to contribute any electoral votes to the process either.

I don't know of any states wanting to forgo an election, this is why I called him a moron. Well, that and he doesn't understand basic math and then makes excuses for it.

You seem to be desirous of forming an elite class that functions on a level above the voting populace. The very reason the Constitution exists is to prevent such a thing from happening.

No, I want to eliminate that select group of elites who make up the electoral college and and elect the president by popular vote. The NPVC achieves this. One man one vote.

The childish thought that a state can simply point to a candidate completely oblivious to the will of its population is something that belongs in a fairytale. Like I said to you before they may try it but they will very quickly be struck down by the federal court system.

Jo

Again, the Constitution leaves it to state law how to divvy up their electoral votes. I'm not concerned if you like it or not.

The Constitution does not give them the power to IGNORE that state's voters and give their EVs to a Candidate that did not win that state.

Are you are moron, or do you just lick windows for pleasure?

A state isn't even required to have an election by the people.

You of all people shouldn't be careful about calling others morons.

Well he has a pretty good reason for calling you a moron.

Should the state decide to forgo a federal presidential election they would not be allowed to contribute any electoral votes to the process either.

I don't know of any states wanting to forgo an election, this is why I called him a moron. Well, that and he doesn't understand basic math and then makes excuses for it.

You seem to be desirous of forming an elite class that functions on a level above the voting populace. The very reason the Constitution exists is to prevent such a thing from happening.

No, I want to eliminate that select group of elites who make up the electoral college and and elect the president by popular vote. The NPVC achieves this. One man one vote.

The childish thought that a state can simply point to a candidate completely oblivious to the will of its population is something that belongs in a fairytale. Like I said to you before they may try it but they will very quickly be struck down by the federal court system.

Jo

Again, the Constitution leaves it to state law how to divvy up their electoral votes. I'm not concerned if you like it or not.

Ding bat...
The state can present a basket full of jellied toast as electoral votes if they want.
I never said the state didn't have the right to do whatever it is they choose to do.
What I'm telling you is the federal government will not accept it and does not have to.

I've already quoted from the feds that they don't require the electors to vote based on their states popular vote.

Now keep tapping the ruby slippers together
And keep repeating to yourself " there's no place like home."

I will talk to you again after this ridiculous thing is struck down by the federal court system as it most certainly will be.
I don't care if you like that or not.

Jo

J, the burdon of proof is on you. You claim the federal government won't except state electors if they cast their votes different from the state election results. I've posted a link of electors doing just that. I've posted a link from the federal government that shows the same thing. It's on you to prove otherwise and "nuh-uh" isn't an answer.

No you did not post any links that relate to the subject that is being discussed.
Faithless electors is a completely different subject from an enmasse award of a state's electoral votes by the gubernatorial arm.

It is strictly illegal and will be struck down very rapidly.

Sorry to burst you burst your bubble but the next time you quote an example try to make sure it's the right one.

Jo

 

[The Original Tree]

The Constitution does not give them the power to IGNORE that state's voters and give their EVs to a Candidate that did not win that state.

Are you are moron, or do you just lick windows for pleasure?

A state isn't even required to have an election by the people.

You of all people shouldn't be careful about calling others morons.

Well he has a pretty good reason for calling you a moron.

Should the state decide to forgo a federal presidential election they would not be allowed to contribute any electoral votes to the process either.

I don't know of any states wanting to forgo an election, this is why I called him a moron. Well, that and he doesn't understand basic math and then makes excuses for it.

You seem to be desirous of forming an elite class that functions on a level above the voting populace. The very reason the Constitution exists is to prevent such a thing from happening.

No, I want to eliminate that select group of elites who make up the electoral college and and elect the president by popular vote. The NPVC achieves this. One man one vote.

The childish thought that a state can simply point to a candidate completely oblivious to the will of its population is something that belongs in a fairytale. Like I said to you before they may try it but they will very quickly be struck down by the federal court system.

Jo

Again, the Constitution leaves it to state law how to divvy up their electoral votes. I'm not concerned if you like it or not.

The Constitution does not give them the power to IGNORE that state's voters and give their EVs to a Candidate that did not win that state.

Are you are moron, or do you just lick windows for pleasure?

A state isn't even required to have an election by the people.

You of all people shouldn't be careful about calling others morons.

Well he has a pretty good reason for calling you a moron.

Should the state decide to forgo a federal presidential election they would not be allowed to contribute any electoral votes to the process either.

I don't know of any states wanting to forgo an election, this is why I called him a moron. Well, that and he doesn't understand basic math and then makes excuses for it.

You seem to be desirous of forming an elite class that functions on a level above the voting populace. The very reason the Constitution exists is to prevent such a thing from happening.

No, I want to eliminate that select group of elites who make up the electoral college and and elect the president by popular vote. The NPVC achieves this. One man one vote.

The childish thought that a state can simply point to a candidate completely oblivious to the will of its population is something that belongs in a fairytale. Like I said to you before they may try it but they will very quickly be struck down by the federal court system.

Jo

Again, the Constitution leaves it to state law how to divvy up their electoral votes. I'm not concerned if you like it or not.

Ding bat...
The state can present a basket full of jellied toast as electoral votes if they want.
I never said the state didn't have the right to do whatever it is they choose to do.
What I'm telling you is the federal government will not accept it and does not have to.

I've already quoted from the feds that they don't require the electors to vote based on their states popular vote.

Now keep tapping the ruby slippers together
And keep repeating to yourself " there's no place like home."

I will talk to you again after this ridiculous thing is struck down by the federal court system as it most certainly will be.
I don't care if you like that or not.

Jo

J, the burdon of proof is on you. You claim the federal government won't except state electors if they cast their votes different from the state election results. I've posted a link of electors doing just that. I've posted a link from the federal government that shows the same thing. It's on you to prove otherwise and "nuh-uh" isn't an answer.

So There is NO SUCH THING AS A FAITHLESS ELECTOR?

You are a FUCKING LIAR & Piece of SHIT Propagandist.

What the Hell is a "Faithless Elector", Jizz Juggler?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It's your job to support your contentions, not mine.

And I did. I'm saying you didn't support your argument, you didn't even understand the argument to begin with.

I'm not arguing anything. Merely pointing out intent, and speculating on possible results.

What 10 or 12 electors are you talking about? They would vote for the popular vote winner, the state is not going to override the electors, the electors are going to pledge to vote for the popular vote winner before the election, that will be the state law.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

Yes, and?

What part don't you understand?

Your point. You should make one.

I didn't, you didn't make a point, you quoted something and that was about it. Without you putting context behind what you think the meaning is then you're not making a point. We can go back and forth about whether you made a point or not, I'm just not seeing it so just tell me again what it is, I think I've shown that I'm more than happy to reply.

Try reading. It's not hard once you know how.

Check your quote. You're ascribing something to me that I did not write. Careful reading will help with that.