Colorado oks joining national popular vote compact to cast all electoral votes for popular winner in

[Pilot1]

I detect real fear in the conservitard's response.

Whenever there is a conspiracy to circumvent the Constitution, every American should view it as dangerous.

You mean like Mueller and the Democrats are doing ? Trump isn't

 

[Crepitus]

I detect real fear in the conservitard's response.

Whenever there is a conspiracy to circumvent the Constitution, every American should view it as dangerous.

So you're against this whole fake emergency thing then?

 

[Crepitus]

I detect real fear in the conservitard's response.

Whenever there is a conspiracy to circumvent the Constitution, every American should view it as dangerous.

You mean like Mueller and the Democrats are doing ? Trump isn't

Please, explain your reasoning.

 

[theHawk]

I detect real fear in the conservitard's response.

Everyone should fear this. It would turn us from a Republic into a lynch mob run democracy.

 

[georgephillip]

This may be a bad idea, but as I understand it the US Constitution grants the states the authority to choose their electors how they want to, and the electors can vote for whom they want.

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• The U.S. Constitution gives the states the “exclusive” and “plenary” power to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes.
• The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state.
• The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.

Imagine that.
The POTUS candidate that wins the popular vote wins the White House.
Think of it as democracy building without bombs.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This may be a bad idea, but as I understand it the US Constitution grants the states the authority to choose their electors how they want to, and the electors can vote for whom they want.

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• The U.S. Constitution gives the states the “exclusive” and “plenary” power to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes.
• The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state.
• The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.

Imagine that.
The POTUS candidate that wins the popular vote wins the White House.
Think of it as democracy building without bombs.

Think of it as mob rule by NY and California.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I detect real fear in the conservitard's response.

Whenever there is a conspiracy to circumvent the Constitution, every American should view it as dangerous.

So you're against this whole fake emergency thing then?

Not at all. The President is doing exactly what the National Emergency Act states he can do.

 

[Hossfly]

This may be a bad idea, but as I understand it the US Constitution grants the states the authority to choose their electors how they want to, and the electors can vote for whom they want.

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• The U.S. Constitution gives the states the “exclusive” and “plenary” power to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes.
• The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state.
• The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.

Imagine that.
The POTUS candidate that wins the popular vote wins the White House.
Think of it as democracy building without bombs.

Careful, George.

 

[Montrovant]

This may be a bad idea, but as I understand it the US Constitution grants the states the authority to choose their electors how they want to, and the electors can vote for whom they want.

It's a horrible idea....It disenfranchises the voters of the state....They could vote 5:1 (an absurd ratio to demonstrate the point) for candidate X, but if candidate Y gets the popular vote, their overwhelming votes for the former are nullified.

Like I said, this idiocy is almost certain to be nullified by USSC.

By what reasoning would the USSC nullify this? If the Constitution gives the states the power to choose electors how they want, how does this violate the Constitution?

 

[toomuchtime_]

This may be a bad idea, but as I understand it the US Constitution grants the states the authority to choose their electors how they want to, and the electors can vote for whom they want.

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• The U.S. Constitution gives the states the “exclusive” and “plenary” power to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes.
• The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state.
• The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.

Imagine that.
The POTUS candidate that wins the popular vote wins the White House.
Think of it as democracy building without bombs.

The clear intent of the Constitution is that the President should not be elected by the people but by the states. Conspiring to undermine the Constitution without amending it weakens the Constitution.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I detect real fear in the conservitard's response.

Whenever there is a conspiracy to circumvent the Constitution, every American should view it as dangerous.

So you're against this whole fake emergency thing then?

Explain where Trump is circumventing the Constitution, citing Article/Section/Paragraph.

 

[georgephillip]

This may be a bad idea, but as I understand it the US Constitution grants the states the authority to choose their electors how they want to, and the electors can vote for whom they want.

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• The U.S. Constitution gives the states the “exclusive” and “plenary” power to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes.
• The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state.
• The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.

Imagine that.
The POTUS candidate that wins the popular vote wins the White House.
Think of it as democracy building without bombs.

Think of it as mob rule by NY and California.

Think of it as mob rule by NY and California.

Don't think in terms of big vs small states; think about why a few battleground states should decide which candidate becomes POTUS:

9.4 Myths about the Small States

"The small states (the 13 states with only three or four electoral votes) are the most disadvantaged and ignored group of states under the current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes.

"The reason is that political power in presidential elections comes from being a closely divided battleground state, and almost all of the small states are noncompetitive states in presidential elections.

• The small states are not ignored because of their low population, but because they are not closely divided battleground states. The 12 small non-battleground states have about the same population (12 million) as the closely divided battleground state of Ohio. The 12 small states have 40 electoral votes—more than twice Ohio’s 18 electoral votes. However, Ohio received 73 of 253 post-convention campaign events in 2012, while the 12 small non-battleground states received none."

 

[Montrovant]

Lol you’re inviting me to leave because I hate how the government operates, but the states making this agreement is part of how our government operates

States are supposed to vote for who they choose. Not who California or New York chooses. Your problem is you are simply too ignorant to comment on most issues, including his one.
But you have the right to stay dumb, I suppose.

The Supreme Court should rule on the notion that states can bypass the will of their
citizens and simply cut deals with other states. Good luck with that.

Don’t like it? Move to Belgium or China, snowflake. Tyrannies by a minority never end well.

I actually approve how the Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College specifically so little morons like yourself couldn't let a small handful of states run over the rights of all the others. Start packing, monkey brains. You'll love China.

They "think" just like you do.

Didn't the Electoral College originally often ignore the will of the citizens, in the sense that citizens did not get to vote for president? Citizens were to vote for electors, but then the electors were to vote for president based on their own discretion, wasn't that the way? The current system of electors voting for whichever candidates the voters of the state choose was not, at least from my reading, the original plan.

Certainly the EC has changed from its inception.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Lol you’re inviting me to leave because I hate how the government operates, but the states making this agreement is part of how our government operates

States are supposed to vote for who they choose. Not who California or New York chooses. Your problem is you are simply too ignorant to comment on most issues, including his one.
But you have the right to stay dumb, I suppose.

The Supreme Court should rule on the notion that states can bypass the will of their
citizens and simply cut deals with other states. Good luck with that.

Don’t like it? Move to Belgium or China, snowflake. Tyrannies by a minority never end well.

I actually approve how the Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College specifically so little morons like yourself couldn't let a small handful of states run over the rights of all the others. Start packing, monkey brains. You'll love China.

They "think" just like you do.

Didn't the Electoral College originally often ignore the will of the citizens, in the sense that citizens did not get to vote for president? Citizens were to vote for electors, but then the electors were to vote for president based on their own discretion, wasn't that the way? The current system of electors voting for whichever candidates the voters of the state choose was not, at least from my reading, the original plan.

Certainly the EC has changed from its inception.

The idea of the electoral college was that the President was to be chosen by the states, not by the people, and the Constitution leaves it to the states to determine the method of choosing electors. In some state electors were at first chosen by the state legislature and in some states they were chosen by voters. The United States was intended to be a union of nearly sovereign states that were joined together only for certain purposes such as defense, foreign relations and to facilitate commerce among the states.

 

[bripat9643]

Colorado OKs joining National Popular Vote compact to cast all electoral votes for popular winner in presidential elections
Under a bill passed Thursday by the Colorado House, Colorado has agreed to join 12 other states in a compact system that aims to cast all its electoral votes for the winner of the national popular presidential vote.


This is what you try to do when your retard who doesn't understand the system, is told ffalse information by democratic ****s who only have their best interest at hand not yours assholes theirs.

What are the 12 states?

 

[georgephillip]

This may be a bad idea, but as I understand it the US Constitution grants the states the authority to choose their electors how they want to, and the electors can vote for whom they want.

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• The U.S. Constitution gives the states the “exclusive” and “plenary” power to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes.
• The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state.
• The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.

Imagine that.
The POTUS candidate that wins the popular vote wins the White House.
Think of it as democracy building without bombs.

Careful, George.

View attachment 247570

You talking to me?

 

[georgephillip]

This may be a bad idea, but as I understand it the US Constitution grants the states the authority to choose their electors how they want to, and the electors can vote for whom they want.

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• The U.S. Constitution gives the states the “exclusive” and “plenary” power to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes.
• The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state.
• The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.

Imagine that.
The POTUS candidate that wins the popular vote wins the White House.
Think of it as democracy building without bombs.

The clear intent of the Constitution is that the President should not be elected by the people but by the states. Conspiring to undermine the Constitution without amending it weakens the Constitution.

The clear intent of the Constitution is that the President should not be elected by the people but by the states. Conspiring to undermine the Constitution without amending it weakens the Constitution.

Do you believe the Constitution specifically requires winner-take-all elections?

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• "The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.
• The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (all of which abandoned it by 1800). The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became the predominant method of awarding electoral votes.
• Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district—a reminder that the method of awarding electoral votes is a state decision."

 

[Crepitus]

I detect real fear in the conservitard's response.

Whenever there is a conspiracy to circumvent the Constitution, every American should view it as dangerous.

So you're against this whole fake emergency thing then?

Not at all. The President is doing exactly what the National Emergency Act states he can do.

Ah, so you're a flaming hypocrite then.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[toomuchtime_]

This may be a bad idea, but as I understand it the US Constitution grants the states the authority to choose their electors how they want to, and the electors can vote for whom they want.

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• The U.S. Constitution gives the states the “exclusive” and “plenary” power to choose the method of awarding their electoral votes.
• The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes within each separate state.
• The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.

Imagine that.
The POTUS candidate that wins the popular vote wins the White House.
Think of it as democracy building without bombs.

The clear intent of the Constitution is that the President should not be elected by the people but by the states. Conspiring to undermine the Constitution without amending it weakens the Constitution.

The clear intent of the Constitution is that the President should not be elected by the people but by the states. Conspiring to undermine the Constitution without amending it weakens the Constitution.

Do you believe the Constitution specifically requires winner-take-all elections?

9.1 Myths about the U.S. Constitution

• "The state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It was not discussed in the Federalist Papers.
• The winner-take-all rule was used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 (all of which abandoned it by 1800). The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became the predominant method of awarding electoral votes.
• Maine and Nebraska currently award electoral votes by congressional district—a reminder that the method of awarding electoral votes is a state decision."

The Constitution clearly intends for the states, not the people, to elect the president, and this bizarre compact says, that even if the voters in Colorado overwhelmingly vote for the candidate with fewer total votes the state will award its votes to the candidate the people of Colorado did not want. This is certainly not democracy and it is not what the Constitution intended. It is simply a temper tantrum by Democrats.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I detect real fear in the conservitard's response.

Whenever there is a conspiracy to circumvent the Constitution, every American should view it as dangerous.

So you're against this whole fake emergency thing then?

Not at all. The President is doing exactly what the National Emergency Act states he can do.

Ah, so you're a flaming hypocrite then.

Thanks for clearing that up.

We'll talk again if you can get your brain back in working order.