The Hilarious attempt to disenfranchise the popular Vote.....so the popular vote can be elevated????

[justoffal]

The left has gone completely off the deep end with the ridiculous argument that state Electors may be unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and have it stand. What is probably the most intriguing part about this particular argument is the dichotomy between the two systems that they are trying to rig. They are trying to suppress the popular vote of each state so they can elevate the popular vote of the Republic....lol.....it's a retard's errand. In effect they are trying to say that states votes tallies are not the same as the Federal votes tallies....which is absurd in the extreme. The very same popular vote number that comprises the final Federal Tally comes from each states voting tally so in effect they are the very same vote. Using this lame argument ( which would never hold in any federal court ) the states then have the right to demand that all the electoral votes go to the winner of the state tally because it is the very same argument being used by the retards to disenfranchise the state's tally at the federal level.

Now for those who don't like the EC....that is a different matter. Right now it's there and it's what we use and I seriously doubt that you will get many of the smaller states with sparse populations ot agree to the compact..... Additionally no Federal Politician is going to agree to dismantle their own paycheck.....political party notwithstanding.

The movers and shakers of this ridiculous effort are pretending that we never had a federal bench and pretending that 200 years of final decisions in the Federal Bench ( expressly provided for in the constitution btw for those who want to argue) that all trend toward the elevation and signification of the individual vote do not exist. They do of course. So while the constitution does not specifically mention Presidential voting by the individual citizen....IT DOES MENTION THE SCOTUS....which makes it constitutional and makes it a right.

That Simple.

JO

 

[rightwinger]

Why even have Electors?

It is just a partisan appointment. If the Elector just has to go with what the popular vote says, why not just automatically assign the EV?

 

[Pogo]

The left has gone completely off the deep end with the ridiculous argument that state Electors may be unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and have it stand. What is probably the most intriguing part about this particular argument is the dichotomy between the two systems that they are trying to rig. They are trying to suppress the popular vote of each state so they can elevate the popular vote of the Republic....lol.....it's a retard's errand. In effect they are trying to say that states votes tallies are not the same as the Federal votes tallies....which is absurd in the extreme. The very same popular vote number that comprises the final Federal Tally comes from each states voting tally so in effect they are the very same vote. Using this lame argument ( which would never hold in any federal court ) the states then have the right to demand that all the electoral votes go to the winner of the state tally because it is the very same argument being used by the retards to disenfranchise the state's tally at the federal level.

Now for those who don't like the EC....that is a different matter. Right now it's there and it's what we use and I seriously doubt that you will get many of the smaller states with sparse populations ot agree to the compact..... Additionally no Federal Politician is going to agree to dismantle their own paycheck.....political party notwithstanding.

The movers and shakers of this ridiculous effort are pretending that we never had a federal bench and pretending that 200 years of final decisions in the Federal Bench ( expressly provided for in the constitution btw for those who want to argue) that all trend toward the elevation and signification of the individual vote do not exist. They do of course. So while the constitution does not specifically mention Presidential voting by the individual citizen....IT DOES MENTION THE SCOTUS....which makes it constitutional and makes it a right.

That Simple.

JO

Thanks for the invitation to clean your clock all over again. You'd think it would stay clean.

This issue has nothing in the world to do with either "the left" or with SCOTUS. This has to do with the Constitution of the United States, which NOWHERE sets up or guarantees any individual's "right to vote for President" at all. And you know it doesn't because you've been repeatedly challenged to show any evidence for that postulation, and you CAN'T because there ISN'T ANY.

Oh and these "decisions on the Federal Bench [sic] --- you just admitted you can't find them either.

YOU LOSE.

/thread

 

[Pogo]

the ridiculous argument that state Electors may be unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and have it stand

This in fact happens in most if not all of the 57 states.

My state for instance is allotred 15 electoral votes. In 2016 about 49% of the votes in the ELECTION --- which is NOWHERE mandated by the Constitution but happens --- voted for Rump. About 47% of them voted for Clinton. NO ONE was able to crack 50% of the state's vote ..... and yet ALL FIFTEEN Electoral Votes went to Rump, who could not win even half the state.

Same thing happened in Florida.
And in Michigan.
And in Wisconsin.
And in Pennsylvania.
And in AridZona.
And even in FRICKIN' UTAH.

And in the rest of the 57 states NOWHERE -- NOT ONE STATE ANYWHERE -- reported a unanimous vote total for any candidate. ZERO. It has literally never happened, EVER. So every one of those states, in every POTUS election, IS ALREADY "being unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and having it stand". And you're too blind to see it.

So your ridiculous thread title about "attempt to disenfranchise the popular vote" is not only a reference to a popular vote that is ALREADY disenfranchised, which is a major reason for our abysmal election day turnout rate because what's the point --- it's also an "attempt to disenfranchise" a franchise that doesn't even exist fin the first place.

Read your Constitution and try to prove me wrong.

 

[toobfreak]

lol.....it's a retard's errand.

That pretty much sums it up. It's not at all about fairer or more accurate elections, everything the Left does is maneuvering to try to get to a point to where they have full control and can win elections.

If the nation were a body, the Left would be akin to a virus. In the body, you don't give viruses more room to breed, you stamp them out, crush them out of existence, drive them away and move on.

 

[justoffal]

the ridiculous argument that state Electors may be unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and have it stand

This in fact happens in most if not all of the 57 states.

My state for instance is allotred 15 electoral votes. In 2016 about 49% of the votes in the ELECTION --- which is NOWHERE mandated by the Constitution but happens --- voted for Rump. About 47% of them voted for Clinton. NO ONE was able to crack 50% of the state's vote ..... and yet ALL FIFTEEN Electoral Votes went to Rump, who could not win even half the state.

Same thing happened in Florida.
And in Michigan.
And in Wisconsin.
And in Pennsylvania.
And in AridZona.
And even in FRICKIN' UTAH.

And in the rest of the 57 states NOWHERE -- NOT ONE STATE ANYWHERE -- reported a unanimous vote total for any candidate. ZERO. It has literally never happened, EVER. So every one of those states, in every POTUS election, IS ALREADY "being unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and having it stand". And you're too blind to see it.

So your ridiculous thread title about "attempt to disenfranchise the popular vote" is not only a reference to a popular vote that is ALREADY disenfranchised, which is a major reason for our abysmal election day turnout rate because what's the point --- it's also an "attempt to disenfranchise" a franchise that doesn't even exist fin the first place.

Read your Constitution and try to prove me wrong.

Dude you're on the wrong subject. We're not talking about fracturing of electoral votes.
we are talking about the electoral procedure being used against the popular vote of the state. It has never happened and will never happen. There has always been a declared winner in each state and that winner has always carried the popular vote. Nothing you can say will change that. I don't have to show you swiss cheese in the Constitution to tell you that swiss cheese is real. However in your case that might be an exception. You can continue to ignore 200 years of federal bench decisions if you like reality will only bite you in the ass later on when it is upheld again. Don't try to tell me that the scotus is not in the Constitution. You will never see a popular vote winner in the same state that declares another person the winner of their electoral votes without a very Swift challenge from the supreme Court.

Done.... There really is nothing for you to respond with except more obfuscation, bullshit and double talk.

When it happens and it stands I'll take it all back. Ain't never gonna happen.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Why even have Electors?

It is just a partisan appointment. If the Elector just has to go with what the popular vote says, why not just automatically assign the EV?

Buddy.....you were never more right.

In my opinion it's just a position for a bunch of nieces, nephews and crazy uncles to get a paycheck.

Unless we're going to swing over to a total popular vote system the electors should be automatic.

And if it really is true that the Constitution doesn't guarantee an American citizen the right to vote in a presidential election then I suspect we are in great need of a constitutional amendment rather rapidly.

As far as I'm concerned in 200 years of sculpting original meaning from the founders the supreme Court has done a pretty damn good job of making sure the individual vote has dignity even in a presidential election. Yeah it's not perfect but until we find a better solution it's what we got.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

The left has gone completely off the deep end with the ridiculous argument that state Electors may be unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and have it stand. What is probably the most intriguing part about this particular argument is the dichotomy between the two systems that they are trying to rig. They are trying to suppress the popular vote of each state so they can elevate the popular vote of the Republic....lol.....it's a retard's errand. In effect they are trying to say that states votes tallies are not the same as the Federal votes tallies....which is absurd in the extreme. The very same popular vote number that comprises the final Federal Tally comes from each states voting tally so in effect they are the very same vote. Using this lame argument ( which would never hold in any federal court ) the states then have the right to demand that all the electoral votes go to the winner of the state tally because it is the very same argument being used by the retards to disenfranchise the state's tally at the federal level.

Now for those who don't like the EC....that is a different matter. Right now it's there and it's what we use and I seriously doubt that you will get many of the smaller states with sparse populations ot agree to the compact..... Additionally no Federal Politician is going to agree to dismantle their own paycheck.....political party notwithstanding.

The movers and shakers of this ridiculous effort are pretending that we never had a federal bench and pretending that 200 years of final decisions in the Federal Bench ( expressly provided for in the constitution btw for those who want to argue) that all trend toward the elevation and signification of the individual vote do not exist. They do of course. So while the constitution does not specifically mention Presidential voting by the individual citizen....IT DOES MENTION THE SCOTUS....which makes it constitutional and makes it a right.

That Simple.

JO

Thanks for the invitation to clean your clock all over again. You'd think it would stay clean.

This issue has nothing in the world to do with either "the left" or with SCOTUS. This has to do with the Constitution of the United States, which NOWHERE sets up or guarantees any individual's "right to vote for President" at all. And you know it doesn't because you've been repeatedly challenged to show any evidence for that postulation, and you CAN'T because there ISN'T ANY.

Oh and these "decisions on the Federal Bench [sic] --- you just admitted you can't find them either.

YOU LOSE.

/thread

Nope I don't lose...
Your dream is not going to overcome
Reality dude....

Trust me on this
Your just wrong.

Jo

 

[Pogo]

the ridiculous argument that state Electors may be unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and have it stand

This in fact happens in most if not all of the 57 states.

My state for instance is allotred 15 electoral votes. In 2016 about 49% of the votes in the ELECTION --- which is NOWHERE mandated by the Constitution but happens --- voted for Rump. About 47% of them voted for Clinton. NO ONE was able to crack 50% of the state's vote ..... and yet ALL FIFTEEN Electoral Votes went to Rump, who could not win even half the state.

Same thing happened in Florida.
And in Michigan.
And in Wisconsin.
And in Pennsylvania.
And in AridZona.
And even in FRICKIN' UTAH.

And in the rest of the 57 states NOWHERE -- NOT ONE STATE ANYWHERE -- reported a unanimous vote total for any candidate. ZERO. It has literally never happened, EVER. So every one of those states, in every POTUS election, IS ALREADY "being unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and having it stand". And you're too blind to see it.

So your ridiculous thread title about "attempt to disenfranchise the popular vote" is not only a reference to a popular vote that is ALREADY disenfranchised, which is a major reason for our abysmal election day turnout rate because what's the point --- it's also an "attempt to disenfranchise" a franchise that doesn't even exist fin the first place.

Read your Constitution and try to prove me wrong.

Dude you're on the wrong subject. We're not talking about fracturing of electoral votes.
we are talking about the electoral procedure being used against the popular vote of the state. It has never happened and will never happen. There has always been a declared winner in each state and that winner has always carried the popular vote. Nothing you can say will change that.

UTAH - vote totals 2016

Rump: 515,231 votes, 45.5%
Clinton: 310,676 votes, 27.5%
McMullin: 243,690 votes, 21.5%

WHO DA "WINNER" THERE BEEYATCH?

Know who wins in the Electrical College if a candy pulls 45% of the electoral votes? NOBODY. They throw it to the House of Reps.

Virginia: Clinton gets 49.7% of the votes, gets 100% of the electors.
Florida: Rump gets 49% of the votes, gets 100% of the electors.

Michigan. Minnesota. Wisconsin. Pennsylvania. Nevada. Arizona. Same thing, every one. That's just from 2016. In EVERY case most of the state voted for somebody OTHER THAN the winner of its Electoral Vote. Every damn one.

Arizona 1992: Bush gets 38.5% of the votes, gets 100% of the electors.
Montana, same year: Clinton gets 37.6% of the votes, 100% of the electors.

In 1968 more than half of all states had NOBODY winning a majority of their vote, yet ALL of them awarded 100% of their EVs to a single candidate.

Lincoln in 1860 got less than a third of California's votes, got 100% of its electors.

DO NOT sit on this board and try to sell this shit about "SCOTUS" and how its mystery decisions over 200 years that you can't find somehow "protected" some representation that doesnt'exist OR that the EC doesn't already pervert its own election totals.

 

[Pogo]

The left has gone completely off the deep end with the ridiculous argument that state Electors may be unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and have it stand. What is probably the most intriguing part about this particular argument is the dichotomy between the two systems that they are trying to rig. They are trying to suppress the popular vote of each state so they can elevate the popular vote of the Republic....lol.....it's a retard's errand. In effect they are trying to say that states votes tallies are not the same as the Federal votes tallies....which is absurd in the extreme. The very same popular vote number that comprises the final Federal Tally comes from each states voting tally so in effect they are the very same vote. Using this lame argument ( which would never hold in any federal court ) the states then have the right to demand that all the electoral votes go to the winner of the state tally because it is the very same argument being used by the retards to disenfranchise the state's tally at the federal level.

Now for those who don't like the EC....that is a different matter. Right now it's there and it's what we use and I seriously doubt that you will get many of the smaller states with sparse populations ot agree to the compact..... Additionally no Federal Politician is going to agree to dismantle their own paycheck.....political party notwithstanding.

The movers and shakers of this ridiculous effort are pretending that we never had a federal bench and pretending that 200 years of final decisions in the Federal Bench ( expressly provided for in the constitution btw for those who want to argue) that all trend toward the elevation and signification of the individual vote do not exist. They do of course. So while the constitution does not specifically mention Presidential voting by the individual citizen....IT DOES MENTION THE SCOTUS....which makes it constitutional and makes it a right.

That Simple.

JO

Thanks for the invitation to clean your clock all over again. You'd think it would stay clean.

This issue has nothing in the world to do with either "the left" or with SCOTUS. This has to do with the Constitution of the United States, which NOWHERE sets up or guarantees any individual's "right to vote for President" at all. And you know it doesn't because you've been repeatedly challenged to show any evidence for that postulation, and you CAN'T because there ISN'T ANY.

Oh and these "decisions on the Federal Bench [sic] --- you just admitted you can't find them either.

YOU LOSE.

/thread

Nope I don't lose...
Your dream is not going to overcome
Reality dude....

Trust me on this
Your just wrong.

Jo

Hey, you're the one who can't come up with a shred of Constitution to prove his case, so no, YOU'RE wrong.

 

[Pogo]

lol.....it's a retard's errand.

That pretty much sums it up. It's not at all about fairer or more accurate elections, everything the Left does is maneuvering to try to get to a point to where they have full control and can win elections.

If the nation were a body, the Left would be akin to a virus. In the body, you don't give viruses more room to breed, you stamp them out, crush them out of existence, drive them away and move on.

"The left" isn't even a character here. This is about what is and what is not in the United States Constitution, and the OP's blithering blind ignorance of it.

 

[B. Kidd]

So.
Pete Buttplug wants to abolish the electoral college.
He must believe that's the only way a homo can win.
That's enough right there to keep the EC in place!

Identity Politics and identity politicians no like the EC.

 

[Pogo]

So.
Pete Buttplug wants to abolish the electoral college.
He must believe that's the only way a homo can win.
That's enough right there to keep the EC in place!

Identity Politics and identity politicians no like the EC.

ummmmmmmmmmmmmyyyyyyyyeaaaahhhh. WHO just sat here and tried to tie sexuality into a political campaign, Bozo?

 

[B. Kidd]

So.
Pete Buttplug wants to abolish the electoral college.
He must believe that's the only way a homo can win.
That's enough right there to keep the EC in place!

Identity Politics and identity politicians no like the EC.

ummmmmmmmmmmmmyyyyyyyyeaaaahhhh. WHO just sat here and tried to tie sexuality into a political campaign, Bozo?

It really is not sexuality; it is sexual identity!
Big difference.

 

[Pogo]

So.
Pete Buttplug wants to abolish the electoral college.
He must believe that's the only way a homo can win.
That's enough right there to keep the EC in place!

Identity Politics and identity politicians no like the EC.

ummmmmmmmmmmmmyyyyyyyyeaaaahhhh. WHO just sat here and tried to tie sexuality into a political campaign, Bozo?

It really is not sexuality; it is sexual identity!
Big difference.

And yet they are exactly the same in that NEITHER is relevant. Not to a political campaign, and certainly not to this thread?

Yet there it is, in your post.

Ashamed? Embarrassed? Humiliated? Understandable, but well deserved.

 

[B. Kidd]

So.
Pete Buttplug wants to abolish the electoral college.
He must believe that's the only way a homo can win.
That's enough right there to keep the EC in place!

Identity Politics and identity politicians no like the EC.

ummmmmmmmmmmmmyyyyyyyyeaaaahhhh. WHO just sat here and tried to tie sexuality into a political campaign, Bozo?

It really is not sexuality; it is sexual identity!
Big difference.

And yet they are exactly the same in that NEITHER is relevant. Not to a political campaign, and certainly not to this thread?

Yet there it is, in your post.

Ashamed? Embarrassed? Humiliated? Understandable, but well deserved.

Not at all.
You confuse sexuality with sexual deviance.

 

[Pogo]

So.
Pete Buttplug wants to abolish the electoral college.
He must believe that's the only way a homo can win.
That's enough right there to keep the EC in place!

Identity Politics and identity politicians no like the EC.

ummmmmmmmmmmmmyyyyyyyyeaaaahhhh. WHO just sat here and tried to tie sexuality into a political campaign, Bozo?

It really is not sexuality; it is sexual identity!
Big difference.

And yet they are exactly the same in that NEITHER is relevant. Not to a political campaign, and certainly not to this thread?

Yet there it is, in your post.

Ashamed? Embarrassed? Humiliated? Understandable, but well deserved.

Not at all.
You confuse sexuality with sexual deviance.

Yyyyyyeeaahh ummmmm........ you already confused both of them with politics, soooooooooooo...........

 

[hadit]

the ridiculous argument that state Electors may be unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and have it stand

This in fact happens in most if not all of the 57 states.

My state for instance is allotred 15 electoral votes. In 2016 about 49% of the votes in the ELECTION --- which is NOWHERE mandated by the Constitution but happens --- voted for Rump. About 47% of them voted for Clinton. NO ONE was able to crack 50% of the state's vote ..... and yet ALL FIFTEEN Electoral Votes went to Rump, who could not win even half the state.

Same thing happened in Florida.
And in Michigan.
And in Wisconsin.
And in Pennsylvania.
And in AridZona.
And even in FRICKIN' UTAH.

And in the rest of the 57 states NOWHERE -- NOT ONE STATE ANYWHERE -- reported a unanimous vote total for any candidate. ZERO. It has literally never happened, EVER. So every one of those states, in every POTUS election, IS ALREADY "being unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and having it stand". And you're too blind to see it.

So your ridiculous thread title about "attempt to disenfranchise the popular vote" is not only a reference to a popular vote that is ALREADY disenfranchised, which is a major reason for our abysmal election day turnout rate because what's the point --- it's also an "attempt to disenfranchise" a franchise that doesn't even exist fin the first place.

Read your Constitution and try to prove me wrong.

States should go to proportional electors. That way, California Republicans would actually have a voice.

 

[Pogo]

the ridiculous argument that state Electors may be unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and have it stand

This in fact happens in most if not all of the 57 states.

My state for instance is allotred 15 electoral votes. In 2016 about 49% of the votes in the ELECTION --- which is NOWHERE mandated by the Constitution but happens --- voted for Rump. About 47% of them voted for Clinton. NO ONE was able to crack 50% of the state's vote ..... and yet ALL FIFTEEN Electoral Votes went to Rump, who could not win even half the state.

Same thing happened in Florida.
And in Michigan.
And in Wisconsin.
And in Pennsylvania.
And in AridZona.
And even in FRICKIN' UTAH.

And in the rest of the 57 states NOWHERE -- NOT ONE STATE ANYWHERE -- reported a unanimous vote total for any candidate. ZERO. It has literally never happened, EVER. So every one of those states, in every POTUS election, IS ALREADY "being unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and having it stand". And you're too blind to see it.

So your ridiculous thread title about "attempt to disenfranchise the popular vote" is not only a reference to a popular vote that is ALREADY disenfranchised, which is a major reason for our abysmal election day turnout rate because what's the point --- it's also an "attempt to disenfranchise" a franchise that doesn't even exist fin the first place.

Read your Constitution and try to prove me wrong.

States should go to proportional electors. That way, California Republicans would actually have a voice.

That way EVERYBODY would have at least a limited voice. How many would-be Rump voters didn't even bother to go vote because they knew their state was going for Clinton regardless what they did? How many Clinton voters did the same thing in the Alabamas and Kansases? For that matter how many Clinton voters in blue states or Rump voters in red states didn't bother, for the same reason? We can never know as it works now. Nobody in a "red" or a "blue" state has any reason to go out on election day at all. Their state is already predetermined. Their vote is not needed and if it doesn't go the way the state is already going, it will be ignored.

James Madison, who was a major architect of the Electoral College, wanted a Constitutional Amendment to ban the WTA practice. He could already see where it was going.

 

[hadit]

the ridiculous argument that state Electors may be unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and have it stand

This in fact happens in most if not all of the 57 states.

My state for instance is allotred 15 electoral votes. In 2016 about 49% of the votes in the ELECTION --- which is NOWHERE mandated by the Constitution but happens --- voted for Rump. About 47% of them voted for Clinton. NO ONE was able to crack 50% of the state's vote ..... and yet ALL FIFTEEN Electoral Votes went to Rump, who could not win even half the state.

Same thing happened in Florida.
And in Michigan.
And in Wisconsin.
And in Pennsylvania.
And in AridZona.
And even in FRICKIN' UTAH.

And in the rest of the 57 states NOWHERE -- NOT ONE STATE ANYWHERE -- reported a unanimous vote total for any candidate. ZERO. It has literally never happened, EVER. So every one of those states, in every POTUS election, IS ALREADY "being unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and having it stand". And you're too blind to see it.

So your ridiculous thread title about "attempt to disenfranchise the popular vote" is not only a reference to a popular vote that is ALREADY disenfranchised, which is a major reason for our abysmal election day turnout rate because what's the point --- it's also an "attempt to disenfranchise" a franchise that doesn't even exist fin the first place.

Read your Constitution and try to prove me wrong.

States should go to proportional electors. That way, California Republicans would actually have a voice.

That way EVERYBODY would have at least a limited voice. How many would-be Rump voters didn't even bother to go vote because they knew their state was going for Clinton regardless what they did? How many Clinton voters did the same thing in the Alabamas and Kansases? For that matter how many Clinton voters in blue states or Rump voters in red states didn't bother, for the same reason? We can never know as it works now. Nobody in a "red" or a "blue" state has any reason to go out on election day at all. Their state is already predetermined. Their vote is not needed and if it doesn't go the way the state is already going, it will be ignored.

James Madison, who was a major architect of the Electoral College, wanted a Constitutional Amendment to ban the WTA practice. He could already see where it was going.

I think we agree.