Binding electors to the popular vote is unconstitional

[scruffy]

29 states and the District of Columbia now have mob rule for federal elections.

Here's the list:

Alabama (Code of Ala. §17-19-2)
Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090)
California (Election Code §6906)
Colorado (CRS §1-4-304)
Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176)
Delaware (15 Del C §4303)
District of Columbia (§1-1312(g))
Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021(1))
Hawaii (HRS §14-28)
Maine (21-A MRS §805)
Maryland (Md Ann Code art 33, §8-505)
Massachusetts (MGL, ch. 53, §8)
Michigan (MCL §168.47)
Mississippi (Miss Code Ann §23-15-785)
Montana (MCA §13-25-104)
Nebraska (§32-714)
Nevada (NRS §298.050)
New Mexico (NM Stat Ann §1-15-9)
North Carolina (NC Gen Stat §163-212)
Ohio (ORC Ann §3505.40)
Oklahoma (26 Okl St §10-102)
Oregon (ORS §248.355)
South Carolina (SC Code Ann §7-19-80)
Tennessee (Tenn Code Ann §2-15-104(c))
Utah (Utah Code Ann §20A-13-304)
Vermont (17 VSA §2732)
Virginia (§24.2-203)
Washington (RCW §29.71.020)
Wisconsin (Wis Stat §7.75)
Wyoming (Wyo Stat §22-19-108

FairVote - States that bind electors

archive.fairvote.org

This is blatantly unconstitutional and will be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Our Constitution specifically protects us against mob rule, and guarantees that population centers don't overwhelm the rural vote

 

[Lastamender]

29 states and the District of Columbia now have mob rule for federal elections.

Here's the list:

Alabama (Code of Ala. §17-19-2)
Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090)
California (Election Code §6906)
Colorado (CRS §1-4-304)
Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176)
Delaware (15 Del C §4303)
District of Columbia (§1-1312(g))
Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021(1))
Hawaii (HRS §14-28)
Maine (21-A MRS §805)
Maryland (Md Ann Code art 33, §8-505)
Massachusetts (MGL, ch. 53, §8)
Michigan (MCL §168.47)
Mississippi (Miss Code Ann §23-15-785)
Montana (MCA §13-25-104)
Nebraska (§32-714)
Nevada (NRS §298.050)
New Mexico (NM Stat Ann §1-15-9)
North Carolina (NC Gen Stat §163-212)
Ohio (ORC Ann §3505.40)
Oklahoma (26 Okl St §10-102)
Oregon (ORS §248.355)
South Carolina (SC Code Ann §7-19-80)
Tennessee (Tenn Code Ann §2-15-104(c))
Utah (Utah Code Ann §20A-13-304)
Vermont (17 VSA §2732)
Virginia (§24.2-203)
Washington (RCW §29.71.020)
Wisconsin (Wis Stat §7.75)
Wyoming (Wyo Stat §22-19-108

FairVote - States that bind electors

archive.fairvote.org

This is blatantly unconstitutional and will be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Our Constitution specifically protects us against mob rule, and guarantees that population centers don't overwhelm the rural vote

The tyranny of the majority was a real concern with them. Fucking around with what they did to prevent that is just un-American.

 

[mamooth]

Our Constitution specifically protects us against mob rule, and guarantees that population centers don't overwhelm the rural vote

The Constitution says states run their own elections. If a state wants to bind their electors to the national popular vote, they may do so.

Why are you going against the Constitution?

I do understand your fear, being that you're part of a shrinking tyrannical minority that only clings to power by cheating.

 

[scruffy]

The Constitution says states run their own elections.

No, it doesn't.

If a state wants to bind their electors to the national popular vote, they may do so.

They may try. It is unconstitutional.

Why are you going against the Constitution?

I do understand your fear, being that you're part of a shrinking tyrannical minority that only clings to power by cheating.

Bla bla bla

You might want to read our Constitution.

For the first time, probably.

 

[Lastamender]

The Constitution says states run their own elections. If a state wants to bind their electors to the national popular vote, they may do so.

Why are you going against the Constitution?

I do understand your fear, being that you're part of a shrinking tyrannical minority that only clings to power by cheating.

Minorities are not tyrannical unless they are backed by a tyrannical government. BLM and Antifa are good examples.

 

[mamooth]

They may try. It is unconstitutional.

If you're not just making that up, surely you can quote the part of the Constitution that prohibits it.

Do it right here.

<crickets>

 

[Richard-H]

No, it doesn't.




They may try. It is unconstitutional.




Bla bla bla

You might want to read our Constitution.

For the first time, probably.

Could you please post the exact sections of the Constitution that support your arguments?

 

[bripat9643]

No, it doesn't.

Section 4​

​

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof​

 

[scruffy]

Could you please post the exact sections of the Constitution that support your arguments?

The Guarantee Clause.

Congress may regulate the means and methods of state federal elections, to ensure uniformity and guarantee fairness.

 

[bripat9643]

The Guarantee Clause.

Congress may regulate the means and methods of state federal elections, to ensure uniformity and guarantee fairness.

The guarantee clause doesn't say that.

 

[Richard-H]

The Guarantee Clause.

Congress may regulate the means and methods of state federal elections, to ensure uniformity and guarantee fairness.

That reply was so lame that I actually had to thank bripat9643 - and that's a first!

 

[scruffy]

The guarantee clause doesn't say that.

The Guarantee Clause states that the federal government shall guarantee to EACH state a Republican form of government. Which is the exact opposite of mob rule. If 45% of the voters go for the losing candidate, and the state makes 100% of the electors vote for the other guy, then 45% of the voters have been disenfranchised.

Why? Because this is a FEDERAL election. Electors in one state can offset electors in another. That's the way the system was designed. It's an essential check and balance.

 

[Rawley]

29 states and the District of Columbia now have mob rule for federal elections.

Here's the list:

Alabama (Code of Ala. §17-19-2)
Alaska (Alaska Stat. §15.30.090)
California (Election Code §6906)
Colorado (CRS §1-4-304)
Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. §9-176)
Delaware (15 Del C §4303)
District of Columbia (§1-1312(g))
Florida (Fla. Stat. §103.021(1))
Hawaii (HRS §14-28)
Maine (21-A MRS §805)
Maryland (Md Ann Code art 33, §8-505)
Massachusetts (MGL, ch. 53, §8)
Michigan (MCL §168.47)
Mississippi (Miss Code Ann §23-15-785)
Montana (MCA §13-25-104)
Nebraska (§32-714)
Nevada (NRS §298.050)
New Mexico (NM Stat Ann §1-15-9)
North Carolina (NC Gen Stat §163-212)
Ohio (ORC Ann §3505.40)
Oklahoma (26 Okl St §10-102)
Oregon (ORS §248.355)
South Carolina (SC Code Ann §7-19-80)
Tennessee (Tenn Code Ann §2-15-104(c))
Utah (Utah Code Ann §20A-13-304)
Vermont (17 VSA §2732)
Virginia (§24.2-203)
Washington (RCW §29.71.020)
Wisconsin (Wis Stat §7.75)
Wyoming (Wyo Stat §22-19-108

FairVote - States that bind electors

archive.fairvote.org

This is blatantly unconstitutional and will be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Our Constitution specifically protects us against mob rule, and guarantees that population centers don't overwhelm the rural vote

What's the unconsitutional part?

 

[scruffy]

That reply was so lame that I actually had to thank bripat9643 - and that's a first!

No one expects a dumbass leftard to be a constitutional scholar.

 

[XponentialChaos]

To my understanding, states have a lot of control in determining how they do their elections.

 

[Richard-H]

No one expects a dumbass leftard to be a constitutional scholar.

The Constitution is a short document mostly written in plain but archaic language. It does not require a 'scholar' to understand it.

It's you that have made assertions about the contents of the Constitution, but can not post the exact articles that you are referring to.

It just seems like you're making it up.

 

[scruffy]

The Constitution is a short document mostly written in plain but archaic language. It does not require a 'scholar' to understand it.

It's you that have made assertions about the contents of the Constitution, but can not post the exact articles that you are referring to.

It just seems like you're making it up.

SEEMS like?

A lot of things SEEM like something.

Tell ya what, why don't you READ the document, and maybe it'll leap out at you.

If not, I'll come back and rescue your sorry leftard ass in a few hours.

 

[Jarlaxle]

To my understanding, states have a lot of control in determining how they do their elections.

States have near-total discretion on running their elections. In fact, a state legislature could decide to NOT HAVE a presidential election, and choose electors themselves...and that would be 100% legal.

A lot of things SEEM like something.

Tell ya what, why don't you READ the document, and maybe it'll leap out at you.

If not, I'll come back and rescue your sorry leftard ass in a few hours.

You're wrong. The relevant section has already been posted.

 

[scruffy]

States have near-total discretion on running their elections. In fact, a state legislature could decide to NOT HAVE a presidential election, and choose electors themselves...and that would be 100% legal.

No it would not. There is such a thing as Federal Election Law.

The part you and the other retard are looking for is Article I Section 4, where it describes how Congress may regulate the elections for "federal officers". (And Congress does that, and the proof is federal election law exists).

The presidential portion of this has been amended several times. But it is also a "federal office", subject to the same form of Congressional regulation.

You're wrong. The relevant section has already been posted.

Let's take a look at the presidential portion. We haven't done that yet.

 

[Lastamender]

The Guarantee Clause.

Congress may regulate the means and methods of state federal elections, to ensure uniformity and guarantee fairness.

Well, they shot that to pieces in 2020.