All these blue states need to award Trump their Electoral Votes.

[para bellum]

Not so much:

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States,

This only applies if an election is held. The state can choose to not hold an election.
Doing so does not abridge anyone's rights as no one has the right to vote for President.

No, that's not true.

Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Madison describes a republican form of government in Federalist 39.

"If we resort for a criterion, to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people; and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behaviour. It is essential to such a government, that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is sufficient for such a government, that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organised or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character."
<snip>
"On comparing the constitution planned by the convention, with the standard here fixed, we perceive at once that it is in the most rigid sense conformable to it. The house of representatives, like that of one branch at least of all the state legislatures, is elected immediately by the great body of the people. The senate, like the present congress, and the senate of Maryland, derives its appointment indirectly from the people. The president is indirectly derived from the choice of the people, according to the example in most of the states."

Founders Online: The Federalist Number 39, [16 January] 1788

The Federalist Number 39, [16 January] 1788

founders.archives.gov

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, that's not true.

Article IV, Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,...

And yet, the constitution originally specified that state legislatures elect the senators - thus, a republican form of government does not necessitate the popular election of representatives.

Madison:
...we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people...The senate, like the present congress, and the senate of Maryland, derives its appointment indirectly from the people. The president is indirectly derived from the choice of the people, according to the example in most of the states."

 

[para bellum]

And yet, the constitution originally specified that state legislatures elect the senators - thus, a republican form of government does not necessitate the popular election of representatives.

Madison:
...we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people...The senate, like the present congress, and the senate of Maryland, derives its appointment indirectly from the people. The president is indirectly derived from the choice of the people, according to the example in most of the states."

Really? Is this the hill you want to die on? The choosing of Senators was an indirect method, since the Legislatures were elected by the people.

The Constitution is the Constitution in it's entirety- the amendments are as much a part of the Constitution as the Articles. The 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th and 26th all relate to voting rights and elections.

The elections clause vests in the States some control over elections, it does not permit them to suspend elections.

Every State Constitution, and the US Constitution, require States to hold elections. You will NEVER find one word anywhere that says otherwise.

Elections can be direct like in the House of Representatives, or indirect like the President, but they cannot be eliminated. That is completely abhorrent to the Constitution.

Read the entirety of Federalist 39, and if you need more proof I will provide it. I thought my previous post would be sufficient, but I guess not...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Really? Is this the hill you want to die on? The choosing of Senators was an indirect method, since the Legislatures were elected by the people.

Yep.
Which means a republican form of government does not require direct/popular election of representatives.
This is why the section of Article IV you cited does not mean states have to hold a popular election for the selection of their electors.

The elections clause vests in the States some control over elections, it does not permit them to suspend elections.

We're discussing the selection of Presidential electors.
Article II Sec 1:2
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,

Nothing here requires the states to hold a popular election.

 

[para bellum]

Yep.
Which means a republican form of government does not require direct/popular election of representatives.
This is why the Article you cited does not mean states have to hold an election for their electors.

We're discussing the selection of Presidential electors.
Article II Sec 1:2
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,

Nothing here requires the states to hold a popular election.

You are miles off base. States can choose the manner of appointing electors, but the 14th amendment takes away electors if a State doesn't choose them by direct election.

If a State does not allow it's citizens to vote for electors, it loses it's representatives (and therefore it's number of electors) in direct proportion to the disenfranchisement.

I can't believe I am even having this conversation.

The guarantee clause requires a republican form of government in every State. Every enabling act requires it. Every State Constitution has it. Federalist 39 tells you what that means. Daniel Webster described it like this:

"The American system of government, as recognizing that the people are the source of all political power, but that, as the exercise of governmental powers immediately by the people themselves is impracticable, they must be exercised by representatives of the people; that the bais of representation is suffrage; that the right of suffrage must be protected and its exercise prescribed by previous law, and the results ascertained by some certain rule; that through its regulated exercise each man's power tells in the constitution of the government and in the enactment of laws; that the people limit themselves in regard to the qualifications of electors and the qualifications of the elected, and to certain forms of the conduct of elections; that our liberty is the liberty secured by the regular action of popular power, taking place and ascertained in accordance with legal and authentic modes; and that the constitution and laws do not proceed on the ground of revolution, or any right of revolution, but on the idea of results achieved by orderly action under the authority of existing governments, proceedings outside of which are not contemplated by our institutions."

The Supreme court described it like this:

"By the constitution, a republican form of government is guarantied to every state in the Union, and the distinguishing feature of that form is the right of the people to choose their own officers for governmental administration, and pass their own laws in virtue of the legislative power reposed in representative bodies, whose legitimate acts may be said to be those of the people themselves; but, while the people are thus the source of political power, their governments, national and state, have been limited by written constitutions, and they have themselves thereby set bounds to their own power, as against the sudden impulses of mere majorities."

 

[Zebra]

lets wait and see ….

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are miles off base. The 14th amendment amended that.

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States,
-IF- there is an election, -then- when the right to vote is denied...
If your argument is sound, then it also applies to elections to the senate; the 17th amendment negates this argument.

Nothing in the text here necessitates there must be an election for p[residential electors, it only deters states from disenfranchisement of minorities in he elections it holds.

The Supreme court described it like this:
"By the constitution, a republican form of government is guarantied to every state in the Union, and the distinguishing feature of that form is the right of the people to choose their own officers for governmental administration...

This clearly does -not- necessitates direct elections for representatives , as the senate was, when Article IV was written, elected indirectly.
Thus the indirect election of electors satisfies the "republican form of government' clause.

 

[ThisIsMe]

They all signed the pact to award their EC votes to the candidate who won the popular vote.

Let’s see if the put their money where their big mouths are. Trump in a SWEEP!

California
New Jersey
New York
Washington
Oregon
Massachusetts
Illinois
Minnesota
Maine
DC
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Colorado
New Mexico
Delaware
Hawaii
Maryland

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nah, they are fine. If you read the text of the compact, it would only take effect if the awarding of electoral votes would change the outcome of the election.

In other words, if trump had won the popular vote but lost the election to the electoral college, but the ec votes of those 18 stated could change the election, then it would take effect.

Illegal as he'll, but if I read the wording correctly, that's how it works.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are miles off base. States can choose the manner of appointing electors, but the 14th amendment takes away electors if a State doesn't choose them by direct election.

SCotUS:

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892),that the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id.,at 35 (" '[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away norabdicated''') (quoting

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

Bush v. Gore: Despite violating the Fourteenth Amendment by using disparate vote-counting procedures in different counties, Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way within the time limit set...

supreme.justia.com

 

[para bellum]

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States,
-IF- there is an election, -then- when the right to vote is denied...
If your argument is sound, then it also applies to elections to the senate; the 17th amendment negates this argument.

The clause says:
"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state."

You can add Senators to that list after the 17th since they are also chosen by direct elections.

Nothing in the text here necessitates there must be an election for p[residential electors, it only deters states from disenfranchisement of minorities in he elections it holds.


This clearly does -not- necessitates direct elections for representatives , as the senate was, when Article IV was written, elected indirectly.
Thus the indirect election of electors satisfies the "republican form of government' clause.

Our system is a combination of direct and indirect which you would know if you read Federalist 39.

Indirect means appointments are made by the representatives elected by the people. If you take away the elected representatives, you take away the indirect election of officers.

Direct election of Representatives was always there- Article II. Section 2:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

**** oh dear, I cannot believe I am having this discussion. Please do some reading up.

 

[hadit]

No it doesn't. The Constitution allows States to allocate them however the legislature specifies, but the electors have to be chosen by the voters.

Section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Because it disenfranchises the voters of that State, by allocating electors based on the votes cast by voters in some different State.

It would only take ONE instance where CA's and NY's voters, having voted overwhelmingly for a democrat, seeing their state's votes go for a Republican to make the agreement disappear.

 

[para bellum]

It would only take ONE instance where CA's and NY's voters, having voted overwhelmingly for a democrat, seeing their state's votes go for a Republican to make the agreement disappear.

Of course. But it would be struck down anyway because it's a clear attempt to circumvent the electoral college.

 

[M14 Shooter]

**** oh dear, I cannot believe I am having this discussion. Please do some reading up.

See post # 29

 

[para bellum]

SCotUS:

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892),that the state legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28-33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id.,at 35 (" '[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away norabdicated''') (quoting

Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

Bush v. Gore: Despite violating the Fourteenth Amendment by using disparate vote-counting procedures in different counties, Florida did not need to complete a recount in the 2000 presidential election because it could not be accomplished in a constitutionally valid way within the time limit set...

supreme.justia.com

This is completely moot because no State chooses electors based on any other method than elections, or has ever attempted to eliminate the Presidential election.

Such an attempt would also go right back to the SCOTUS as a violation of the 14th.

 

[para bellum]

See post # 29

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college.

That is the means in every State, and therefore the citizen DOES have the Constitutional right as per your own cite.

And any State that decides to take away that right loses electors in proportion as per the 14th.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is completely moot....

If by moot you means it decisively proves my point, then sure.

Your statement:
The Constitution allows States to allocate them however the legislature specifies, but the electors have to be chosen by the voters.
Section 2 of the 14th amendment.
My statement:
Not so much:
This only applies if an election is held. The state can choose to not hold an election.
Doing so does not abridge anyone's rights as no one has the right to vote for President.

This post-14th amendment decision completely proves my position and completely negates yours, especially in that makes -zero- mention of invoking the penalty you cited for states which chose to not select their electors though popular election, even if they formerly did so.

Please do some reading up.

 

[Arlette]

They all signed the pact to award their EC votes to the candidate who won the popular vote.

Let’s see if the put their money where their big mouths are. Trump in a SWEEP!

California
New Jersey
New York
Washington
Oregon
Massachusetts
Illinois
Minnesota
Maine
DC
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Colorado
New Mexico
Delaware
Hawaii
Maryland

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No they don't

 

[struth]

They all signed the pact to award their EC votes to the candidate who won the popular vote.

Let’s see if the put their money where their big mouths are. Trump in a SWEEP!

California
New Jersey
New York
Washington
Oregon
Massachusetts
Illinois
Minnesota
Maine
DC
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Colorado
New Mexico
Delaware
Hawaii
Maryland

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Clearly it was a hoax and dems aren’t people that honor their pledges

 

[para bellum]

This post-14th amendment decision completely proves my position and completely negates yours, especially in that makes -zero- mention of invoking the penalty you cited for states which chose to not select their electors though popular election, even if they formerly did so.

The States that chose other means did so at a time before the 14th amendment was in effect.

The SCOTUS was not ruling on the 14th amendment, it was ruling on an election challenge.

The penalty is irrevocable post-14th. Any State that does not choose electors via election loses representatives in proportion, and therefore the electoral votes that are apportioned based on the number of representatives.

They would retain 2 EV's based on their number of Senators, but they would have no representatives in the House.

Your position is retarded.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The States that chose other means did so at a time before the 14th amendment was in effect.

Which does nothing to change the fact the cited ruling from USSC, literally, and in detail, proves your claim wrong.

The SCOTUS was not ruling on the 14th amendment, it was ruling on an election challenge.

A challenge which turned on, hinges on, and was entirely decided based on ... get ready for it.... the 14th Amendment.

Continuing your argument past this point simply means you refuse to admit you are wrong.
Man up.