Demented Delaware gov. signs bill awarding electoral votes to winner of national popular vote

[Harpy Eagle]

So fundamentally he just made every citizen in Del. Who votes, null and void as those citizens might as well NOT VOTE and stay home as their vote means NOTHING!!!!!.....Another DEATHRAT GREAT IDEA.... It must be the Radon gas melting their minds!

Delaware Gov. John Carney (Dingbat) signed a bill that would give the state's presidential electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, according to the Associated Press.

In signing the bill, Delaware became the 13th state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. States that belong to the compact would award their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote nationally, regardless of the results in the Electoral College.

With the addition of Delaware, states that belong to the compact hold 184 electoral votes, still well short of the 270 needed to ascend to the White House.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

It is amazing at all of these state legislatures and governors are willing to give control of the votes of their citizens to the populations of other states. But then these are DemonRAT controlled states and don’t care what their serfs may want. It would be nice to see how quickly they move to cancel it if the popular vote would go to President Trump in 2020.

I am sure if the voters are upset about this that they will find a new Gov that will fix this

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It's unconstitutional.

what part of the Constitution does it violate?

 

[martybegan]

Can't circumvent the constitution. This will be shot down.

The constitution gives the state the right to allocate its EC votes as it sees fit.

The Constitution also demands the States have a republican form of government, and allowing people outside your own State determine how you assign electors doesn't seem to republican.

It makes the exercise of voting inside the State meaningless, and could deny the majority of the people in the State their Presidential vote.

again not very Republican, and it also probably runs afoul of the whole "one person, one vote" thing forced upon the States themselves.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Can't circumvent the constitution. This will be shot down.

Have the other states who have passed it been shot down? How does it circumvent the Constitution?

Doesn't matter what these states pass the courts will shoot them down.

It's unconstitutional.

Based on what?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Can't circumvent the constitution. This will be shot down.

The constitution gives the state the right to allocate its EC votes as it sees fit.

The Constitution also demands the States have a republican form of government, and allowing people outside your own State determine how you assign electors doesn't seem to republican.

It makes the exercise of voting inside the State meaningless, and could deny the majority of the people in the State their Presidential vote.

again not very Republican, and it also probably runs afoul of the whole "one person, one vote" thing forced upon the States themselves.

It was a republican form of government that wrote the bill and signed it into law.

 

[martybegan]

Can't circumvent the constitution. This will be shot down.

The constitution gives the state the right to allocate its EC votes as it sees fit.

The Constitution also demands the States have a republican form of government, and allowing people outside your own State determine how you assign electors doesn't seem to republican.

It makes the exercise of voting inside the State meaningless, and could deny the majority of the people in the State their Presidential vote.

again not very Republican, and it also probably runs afoul of the whole "one person, one vote" thing forced upon the States themselves.

It was a republican form of government that wrote the bill and signed it into law.

So if they pass a law that says black people can't vote it's OK because it was passed by a republican form of government?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Can't circumvent the constitution. This will be shot down.

The constitution gives the state the right to allocate its EC votes as it sees fit.

The Constitution also demands the States have a republican form of government, and allowing people outside your own State determine how you assign electors doesn't seem to republican.

It makes the exercise of voting inside the State meaningless, and could deny the majority of the people in the State their Presidential vote.

again not very Republican, and it also probably runs afoul of the whole "one person, one vote" thing forced upon the States themselves.

It was a republican form of government that wrote the bill and signed it into law.

So if they pass a law that says black people can't vote it's OK because it was passed by a republican form of government?

that would be against a specific part of the Constitution.

This is not. Though I guess it could still end up at the SCOTUS

 

[martybegan]

Can't circumvent the constitution. This will be shot down.

The constitution gives the state the right to allocate its EC votes as it sees fit.

The Constitution also demands the States have a republican form of government, and allowing people outside your own State determine how you assign electors doesn't seem to republican.

It makes the exercise of voting inside the State meaningless, and could deny the majority of the people in the State their Presidential vote.

again not very Republican, and it also probably runs afoul of the whole "one person, one vote" thing forced upon the States themselves.

It was a republican form of government that wrote the bill and signed it into law.

So if they pass a law that says black people can't vote it's OK because it was passed by a republican form of government?

that would be against a specific part of the Constitution.

This is not. Though I guess it could still end up at the SCOTUS

I again would think it would run against the whole one man one vote thing imposed on the States (but ironically not the feds) via the 14th amendment.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The constitution gives the state the right to allocate its EC votes as it sees fit.

The Constitution also demands the States have a republican form of government, and allowing people outside your own State determine how you assign electors doesn't seem to republican.

It makes the exercise of voting inside the State meaningless, and could deny the majority of the people in the State their Presidential vote.

again not very Republican, and it also probably runs afoul of the whole "one person, one vote" thing forced upon the States themselves.

It was a republican form of government that wrote the bill and signed it into law.

So if they pass a law that says black people can't vote it's OK because it was passed by a republican form of government?

that would be against a specific part of the Constitution.

This is not. Though I guess it could still end up at the SCOTUS

I again would think it would run against the whole one man one vote thing imposed on the States (but ironically not the feds) via the 14th amendment.

They still get to vote. The state has never been required to abide by the will of the voters for their EC votes.

U. S. Electoral College: Roles and Responsibilities

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law requiring Electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States. Some States have such requirements.

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution also demands the States have a republican form of government, and allowing people outside your own State determine how you assign electors doesn't seem to republican.

It makes the exercise of voting inside the State meaningless, and could deny the majority of the people in the State their Presidential vote.

again not very Republican, and it also probably runs afoul of the whole "one person, one vote" thing forced upon the States themselves.

It was a republican form of government that wrote the bill and signed it into law.

So if they pass a law that says black people can't vote it's OK because it was passed by a republican form of government?

that would be against a specific part of the Constitution.

This is not. Though I guess it could still end up at the SCOTUS

I again would think it would run against the whole one man one vote thing imposed on the States (but ironically not the feds) via the 14th amendment.

They still get to vote. The state has never been required to abide by the will of the voters for their EC votes.

U. S. Electoral College: Roles and Responsibilities

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law requiring Electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States. Some States have such requirements.

The thing is willfully giving away your vote is what these bills do, and to me that isn't a Republican form of government. It's an end run around Constitutional requirements.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It was a republican form of government that wrote the bill and signed it into law.

So if they pass a law that says black people can't vote it's OK because it was passed by a republican form of government?

that would be against a specific part of the Constitution.

This is not. Though I guess it could still end up at the SCOTUS

I again would think it would run against the whole one man one vote thing imposed on the States (but ironically not the feds) via the 14th amendment.

They still get to vote. The state has never been required to abide by the will of the voters for their EC votes.

U. S. Electoral College: Roles and Responsibilities

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law requiring Electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States. Some States have such requirements.

The thing is willfully giving away your vote is what these bills do, and to me that isn't a Republican form of government. It's an end run around Constitutional requirements.

I do not approve of them either, but I also do not like the winner take all concept.

 

[martybegan]

So if they pass a law that says black people can't vote it's OK because it was passed by a republican form of government?

that would be against a specific part of the Constitution.

This is not. Though I guess it could still end up at the SCOTUS

I again would think it would run against the whole one man one vote thing imposed on the States (but ironically not the feds) via the 14th amendment.

They still get to vote. The state has never been required to abide by the will of the voters for their EC votes.

U. S. Electoral College: Roles and Responsibilities

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law requiring Electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their States. Some States have such requirements.

The thing is willfully giving away your vote is what these bills do, and to me that isn't a Republican form of government. It's an end run around Constitutional requirements.

I do not approve of them either, but I also do not like the winner take all concept.

I would go with 2 EV's to the statewide winner (covering the Senate EV's) and the rest based on Congressional district.

Of course that makes redistricting fights even worse, but that has to come to a head sooner or later.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Voter disenfranchisement would be a viable legal challenge. The voters of a state would be disenfranchised if their state voted for candidate A, the nation for candidate B and their states electors were ORDERED to vote for candidate B.

 

[DOTR]

These are all democrat voting states anyway. All they have done is make it possible for a Republican to win their state's votes.

LOL. True! They can vote all they like. Their governor just gave their vote away to the big states.