Nevada to join National Popular Vote compact

[HappyJoy]

Seems you are the one who doesn’t know the Constitution
Show where it disallows it

Guess you aren't to bright.

What they are doing has nothing to do with The Constitution. So there is no allowing or not. However the EC is in the constitution.

That would be the 12th Amendment

As previously pointed out, the states get to decide how to distribute their EC votes and this does not violate the 12th.

That's nice. Suppose the voters all vote for one candidate and the State award the votes to the other. They would totally disenfranchise the voters in their State.

Give me a past exmaple where California's votes would have gone ot the popular vote winner even though California voted for the other candidate. Have fun.

So far all we have is the electoral college picking the loser, twice within 20 years.

Look it up yourself.

It's never happened, at least not in over 100 years. However twice the popular vote winner which California voted for lost the electoral college. But you guys don't care about that.

 

[HappyJoy]

Seems you are the one who doesn’t know the Constitution
Show where it disallows it

Guess you aren't to bright.

What they are doing has nothing to do with The Constitution. So there is no allowing or not. However the EC is in the constitution.

That would be the 12th Amendment

As previously pointed out, the states get to decide how to distribute their EC votes and this does not violate the 12th.

Where were all these CRCs crying "UNCONSTITUTIONAL!" when some states chose to split their Electoral College votes?

Good question.

When it comes down to it, why are they afraid of the will of ALL people?

Sane people know...its the "will" of the wetbacks in Mexifornia.
But, but, but...RUSSIA!

Sure buddy "sane" people like you.

 

[nat4900]

Bermie, Pocahantas and AOC are no where to be found in the republican tent......LOL!!!!

Do you mean that Jews, Native Americans and Latinos have NO place in the GOP....but folks like David Duke, Pam Geller and Steve King are warmly embraced in YOUR shrinking tent?...........LOL

 

[martybegan]

You bed wetters can't win according to the rules, so you have to change them.

It will fail as soon as it ends up in a court with non-bed wetter judges.

IF you had ever read the Constitution....Article II in particular....you would have known that it is the states that determine how to distribute Electoral College votes. IF you had ever read the Constitution, you would have known this is totally Constitutional. IF.

Dumbass.

The State cannot distribute Electoral Votes to someone that loses the election in that state.

The National Presidential Election is 50 Independent Elections.

You cannot award The Loser of a State your Electoral Votes.

Who says they can't?

Article 4, Clause 1. That goes against all forms of thought with regards the people being governed with their consent.

Their vote is their consent

Their consent would be eliminated if the State voted for another candidate and awarded their EC's to someone else.

 

[Meister]

You still haven't figured it out, darling. Make up another one of your scenarios for the win.

The Bill up for a vote won't fly in the courts and I really doubt with most level headed voters, either.

Per usual you have completely failed to make a point. Where in the constitution does it say that the states must distribute their ec votes?

Why do you have no idea how this works, mod? The NVC is not new

We'll have a wait and see in the courts, won't we? Now run along and fetch me a sammich, darling.

I'm sure there will be a court challenge. In the mean time you have completely failed to make your case. You resorted to name calling and a strawman argument.

You wouldn't know a strawman argument if it slapped you in the face.....obviously

You argued against a point someone didn't make. What do you call that?

I'm stating a result if that was to happen. A state that votes for one candidate with
the electoral vote going to the other candidate isn't a strawman argument.
It actually IS disenfranchising the voters of that particular state.

 

[bodecea]

The only thing I can take away from this is that the liberals really aren't concerned
with disenfranchising the vote of the people.
It's been a hoax all along.

The only thing I can take away from this is that the liberals really aren't concerned
with disenfranchising the vote of the people.
It's been a hoax all along.

The vote of the people went against Trump.

Each state? What a stupid ass argument you present.

Looking at the post by BlackFlag you quoted....I don't see him saying "each state"....could you point out where he made that assertion, please? ....especially if you are using that comment as the basis for your saying it's a "stupid ass argument". TIA

Classic straw man argument Meister just made. However, I've already discovered he doesn't know what a straw man argument is.

You still haven't figured it out, darling. Make up another one of your scenarios for the win.

The Bill up for a vote won't fly in the courts and I really doubt with most level headed voters, either.

How do you know that such a bill wouldn't fly in the courts? Based on what? The Constitution doesn't forbid it AND there is precedent of other states changing their Electoral vote distribution away from the "winner take all" model which is NOT required in the Constitution.

 

[martybegan]

You bed wetters can't win according to the rules, so you have to change them.

It will fail as soon as it ends up in a court with non-bed wetter judges.

IF you had ever read the Constitution....Article II in particular....you would have known that it is the states that determine how to distribute Electoral College votes. IF you had ever read the Constitution, you would have known this is totally Constitutional. IF.

How is allowing people outside the State determine the State's vote for President a "Republican Form of Government", Something that the Federal Constitution guarantees under Article 4, Clause 1?"

It probably also falls foul of the 14th amendment, requiring equal protection under the law. How does transferring a whole States vote to another voting block provide equal protection?

States Rights to determine how they distribute their Electoral Votes....if the people of that state don't like it that way, they vote in state legislators who set up the state's distribution of Electoral Votes to their liking.

And how does this go against Equal Protection Under the Law? Explain, please.

The States are still bound by the Constitution.

It's the same thing that killed things like the Board of Estimates in NYC, where each Boro had representation regardless of population. The 14th guarantees 1 person, 1 vote. Now a person's vote in a State is meaningless with regards to the IN STATE election for electors, because the outcome would be determined by people OUTSIDE the State.

 

[Claudette]

Guess you aren't to bright.

What they are doing has nothing to do with The Constitution. So there is no allowing or not. However the EC is in the constitution.

That would be the 12th Amendment

As previously pointed out, the states get to decide how to distribute their EC votes and this does not violate the 12th.

That's nice. Suppose the voters all vote for one candidate and the State award the votes to the other. They would totally disenfranchise the voters in their State.

Give me a past exmaple where California's votes would have gone ot the popular vote winner even though California voted for the other candidate. Have fun.

So far all we have is the electoral college picking the loser, twice within 20 years.

Look it up yourself.

It's never happened, at least not in over 100 years. However twice the popular vote winner which California voted for lost the electoral college. But you guys don't care about that.

I'm a firm believer in the EC.

If not for the EC all elections would be decided by California, New York and the other high population states.

Less populous states votes wouldn't count at all.

 

[bodecea]

Each state? What a stupid ass argument you present.

Looking at the post by BlackFlag you quoted....I don't see him saying "each state"....could you point out where he made that assertion, please? ....especially if you are using that comment as the basis for your saying it's a "stupid ass argument". TIA

Classic straw man argument Meister just made. However, I've already discovered he doesn't know what a straw man argument is.

You still haven't figured it out, darling. Make up another one of your scenarios for the win.

The Bill up for a vote won't fly in the courts and I really doubt with most level headed voters, either.

Per usual you have completely failed to make a point. Where in the constitution does it say that the states must distribute their ec votes?

Why do you have no idea how this works, mod? The NVC is not new

We'll have a wait and see in the courts, won't we? Now run along and fetch me a sammich, darling.

Fascinating...having a mod calling names and making misogynist comments. How nice.

 

[Meister]

The vote of the people went against Trump.

Each state? What a stupid ass argument you present.

Looking at the post by BlackFlag you quoted....I don't see him saying "each state"....could you point out where he made that assertion, please? ....especially if you are using that comment as the basis for your saying it's a "stupid ass argument". TIA

Classic straw man argument Meister just made. However, I've already discovered he doesn't know what a straw man argument is.

You still haven't figured it out, darling. Make up another one of your scenarios for the win.

The Bill up for a vote won't fly in the courts and I really doubt with most level headed voters, either.

How do you know that such a bill wouldn't fly in the courts? Based on what? The Constitution doesn't forbid it AND there is precedent of other states changing their Electoral vote distribution away from the "winner take all" model which is NOT required in the Constitution.

Hold on to your Victori....I mean Fruit of the Looms and wait and see.

 

[HappyJoy]

Per usual you have completely failed to make a point. Where in the constitution does it say that the states must distribute their ec votes?

Why do you have no idea how this works, mod? The NVC is not new

We'll have a wait and see in the courts, won't we? Now run along and fetch me a sammich, darling.

I'm sure there will be a court challenge. In the mean time you have completely failed to make your case. You resorted to name calling and a strawman argument.

You wouldn't know a strawman argument if it slapped you in the face.....obviously

You argued against a point someone didn't make. What do you call that?

I'm stating a result if that was to happen. A state that votes for one candidate with
the electoral vote going to the other candidate isn't a strawman argument.
It actually IS disenfranchising the voters of that particular state.

Yeah, you argued against someone's statement with an argument they weren't trying to make. You are truly clueless.

 

[bodecea]

You bed wetters can't win according to the rules, so you have to change them.

It will fail as soon as it ends up in a court with non-bed wetter judges.

Seems Nevada along with the other idiot States who approve this don't know the Constitution.

They also want to disenfranchise their voters.

Won't be approved in court so they are wasting their time and money.

Seems you are the one who doesn’t know the Constitution
Show where it disallows it

Guess you aren't to bright.

What they are doing has nothing to do with The Constitution. So there is no allowing or not. However the EC is in the constitution.

That would be the 12th Amendment

As previously pointed out, the states get to decide how to distribute their EC votes and this does not violate the 12th.

That's nice. Suppose the voters all vote for one candidate and the State awards the votes to the other. They would totally disenfranchise the voters in their State.

You mean the voters in that state would not have known that that was the state law and they would never have had a chance to tell their state legislators (by voting or petition) to change that law? If you answer yes to that, then they would indeed be disenfranchised.

 

[martybegan]

You bed wetters can't win according to the rules, so you have to change them.

It will fail as soon as it ends up in a court with non-bed wetter judges.

IF you had ever read the Constitution....Article II in particular....you would have known that it is the states that determine how to distribute Electoral College votes. IF you had ever read the Constitution, you would have known this is totally Constitutional. IF.

Dumbass.

The State cannot distribute Electoral Votes to someone that loses the election in that state.

The National Presidential Election is 50 Independent Elections.

You cannot award The Loser of a State your Electoral Votes.

Who says they can't?

Article 4, Clause 1. That goes against all forms of thought with regards the people being governed with their consent.

And the people DO consent...by voting in and out those members of their state legislature who make such laws about how to distribute Electoral Votes.

Two different level of elections, two different systems. The States are compelled to guarantee 1 person, one vote,

Board of Estimate of City of New York v. Morris - Wikipedia

Reynolds v. Sims - Wikipedia

Since the Constitution still sees the election as one of States electing electors, giving someone else control of this removes the person's vote IN THAT ELECTION from being a "whole" vote.

 

[Meister]

Looking at the post by BlackFlag you quoted....I don't see him saying "each state"....could you point out where he made that assertion, please? ....especially if you are using that comment as the basis for your saying it's a "stupid ass argument". TIA

Classic straw man argument Meister just made. However, I've already discovered he doesn't know what a straw man argument is.

You still haven't figured it out, darling. Make up another one of your scenarios for the win.

The Bill up for a vote won't fly in the courts and I really doubt with most level headed voters, either.

Per usual you have completely failed to make a point. Where in the constitution does it say that the states must distribute their ec votes?

Why do you have no idea how this works, mod? The NVC is not new

We'll have a wait and see in the courts, won't we? Now run along and fetch me a sammich, darling.

Fascinating...having a mod calling names and making misogynist comments. How nice.

I'm posting as a poster.....just like you, darling. Report the post if it's in violation of board rules.

 

[Claudette]

Each state? What a stupid ass argument you present.

Looking at the post by BlackFlag you quoted....I don't see him saying "each state"....could you point out where he made that assertion, please? ....especially if you are using that comment as the basis for your saying it's a "stupid ass argument". TIA

Classic straw man argument Meister just made. However, I've already discovered he doesn't know what a straw man argument is.

You still haven't figured it out, darling. Make up another one of your scenarios for the win.

The Bill up for a vote won't fly in the courts and I really doubt with most level headed voters, either.

How do you know that such a bill wouldn't fly in the courts? Based on what? The Constitution doesn't forbid it AND there is precedent of other states changing their Electoral vote distribution away from the "winner take all" model which is NOT required in the Constitution.

Hold on to your Victori....I mean Fruit of the Looms and wait and see.

I agree. Won't make it through the courts.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Nevada Senate approved Tuesday a National Popular Vote bill on a party-line vote, sending the legislation aimed at upending the Electoral College to the governor.

Assembly Bill 186, which passed the Senateon a 12-8 vote, would bring Nevada into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement between participating states to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote.

If signed as expected by Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak, Nevada would become the 16th jurisdiction to join the compact, along with 14 states and the District of Columbia. The compact would take effect after states totaling 270 electoral votes, and with Nevada, the total would reach 195.

Nevada Senate passes National Popular Vote bill on party-line vote

That’s 2 new states in less than 2 months. The NPV keeps chugging along.

Nevada is getting better and better. Now it also has a majority of women in its state legislature.

That means the state will be run like a local PTA.

 

[rightwinger]

You bed wetters can't win according to the rules, so you have to change them.

It will fail as soon as it ends up in a court with non-bed wetter judges.

Seems Nevada along with the other idiot States who approve this don't know the Constitution.

They also want to disenfranchise their voters.

Won't be approved in court so they are wasting their time and money.

Seems you are the one who doesn’t know the Constitution
Show where it disallows it

Guess you aren't to bright.

What they are doing has nothing to do with The Constitution. So there is no allowing or not. However the EC is in the constitution.

That would be the 12th Amendment

All I hear from Conservatives is following the Constitution to the letter

However, when asked, you seem unable to provide those letters
The 12th amendment leaves it to the states
That is what the states are doing

 

[martybegan]

Why are Republicans so upset by this?

Don’t they think they can win the popular vote anymore?

One has to wonder.

What I am really worried about is this backfiring on progressives. Say you do get it passed, and it makes people in "Dead if Red" States vote more. So if the Republican wins the popular vote, and California and NY have to throw their EC's to them, you don't think those States are going to try to back out of the compact before the EV's are counted?

If you morons want a civil war to happen, I can't think of a better way to trigger it.

 

[martybegan]

You bed wetters can't win according to the rules, so you have to change them.

It will fail as soon as it ends up in a court with non-bed wetter judges.

Seems Nevada along with the other idiot States who approve this don't know the Constitution.

They also want to disenfranchise their voters.

Won't be approved in court so they are wasting their time and money.

Seems you are the one who doesn’t know the Constitution
Show where it disallows it

Guess you aren't to bright.

What they are doing has nothing to do with The Constitution. So there is no allowing or not. However the EC is in the constitution.

That would be the 12th Amendment

All I hear from Conservatives is following the Constitution to the letter

However, when asked, you seem unable to provide those letters
The 12th amendment leaves it to the states
That is what the states are doing

The 14th forces them to guarantee "one man one vote" in their local elections and organizations.

This violates that by diluting the in State vote with people from out of the State.

 

[HappyJoy]

As previously pointed out, the states get to decide how to distribute their EC votes and this does not violate the 12th.

That's nice. Suppose the voters all vote for one candidate and the State award the votes to the other. They would totally disenfranchise the voters in their State.

Give me a past exmaple where California's votes would have gone ot the popular vote winner even though California voted for the other candidate. Have fun.

So far all we have is the electoral college picking the loser, twice within 20 years.

Look it up yourself.

It's never happened, at least not in over 100 years. However twice the popular vote winner which California voted for lost the electoral college. But you guys don't care about that.

I'm a firm believer in the EC.

If not for the EC all elections would be decided by California, New York and the other high population states.

Less populous states votes wouldn't count at all.

They would count in proportion to their population. Small sates are already over represented in the senate since they get two senators. So a state with less than a million citizens gets the same representation as a state that has 30 million. That's the way it is but how many handouts do small states need?