- Banned
- #81
You assholes wanna **** up Roe v Wade so, I guess the other crazy bastards are gonna **** up the EC.
I call that even; what about you?
Maine Senate passes bill giving state's electoral votes to national popular vote winner
- Thread starter The Purge
- Start date
You assholes wanna **** up Roe v Wade so, I guess the other crazy bastards are gonna **** up the EC.
I call that even; what about you?
Truth2Know
Gold Member
- Dec 18, 2014
- 395
- 222
- 205
It seems that the electors from each state can vote for whatever person they choose to be president. If, however, they vote for a person not winning the popular vote in their state, they are know as "faithless electors", or in other words, Democrats.
Presidential electors in contemporary elections are expected, and, in many cases pledged, to vote for the candidates of the party that nominated them. While there is evidence that the founders assumed the electors would be independent actors, weighing the merits of competing presidential candidates, they have been regarded as agents of the public will since the first decade under the Constitution. They are expected to vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the party that nominated them. Notwithstanding this expectation, individual electors have sometimes not honored their commitment, voting for a different candidate or candidates than the ones to whom they were pledged; they are known as “faithless” or “unfaithful” electors. In fact, the balance of opinion by constitutional scholars is that, once electors have been chosen, they remain constitutionally free agents, able to vote for any candidate who meets the requirements for President and Vice President. Faithless electors have, however, been few in number (in the 20 century, one each in 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, and 2000), and have never influenced the outcome of a presidential election. https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/electoral-college
Presidential electors in contemporary elections are expected, and, in many cases pledged, to vote for the candidates of the party that nominated them. While there is evidence that the founders assumed the electors would be independent actors, weighing the merits of competing presidential candidates, they have been regarded as agents of the public will since the first decade under the Constitution. They are expected to vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the party that nominated them. Notwithstanding this expectation, individual electors have sometimes not honored their commitment, voting for a different candidate or candidates than the ones to whom they were pledged; they are known as “faithless” or “unfaithful” electors. In fact, the balance of opinion by constitutional scholars is that, once electors have been chosen, they remain constitutionally free agents, able to vote for any candidate who meets the requirements for President and Vice President. Faithless electors have, however, been few in number (in the 20 century, one each in 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, and 2000), and have never influenced the outcome of a presidential election. https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/electoral-college
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
TELLING electors that they HAVE to vote a certain way is the unconstitutional part. Because this is a cynical naked end-around to the electoral college and will be restrained by the Sup Ct.. Don't care how many TDS sufferers continue to behave like babies. This is all about DISENFRANCHISING VOTERS. And the Dem party are the experts in disenfranchising voters to force the PARTY will on their voters.
Whether it's "superdelegates" or "top 2 primaries" that only result in TWO choices on the General Election ballot to the exclusion of other parties or independents, it's all about creating ONE party states...
Youi're very proud of that -- aintcha?
Billy_Kinetta
Paladin of the Lost Hour
- Mar 4, 2013
- 52,766
- 22,286
- 2,320
How about we keep MS13 and deport the Democrats.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
What's gonna be a gas is that if THEY don't get overturned with this move to hobble the Electoral College, is that if TRUMP WINS the popular vote --- there's gonna be a massive "kiss and cry" pity party about the UNICOLOR of the election map.. Trump COULD end up getting ALL delegates from all of those deranged mental midget states...
I WANNA SEE THAT... Just for the yucks.... See them FAIL AGAIN in their shananigans to obtain uncontested power.
flacaltenn
Diamond Member
Bad move... What if TRUMP WINS the popular vote? You gonna congratulate these mental midgets for their brilliant plan when NY, Cal, DC, and MAINE turn red on election night? It's naked power grabbing..
And I don't like it. But that doesn't matter.. What matters is that states cannot PRESCRIBE voting rules like that to their electors in the Electoral College. That's why you always get a few renegade electors that DO NOT FOLLOW the vote and end up voting for people either NOT on the ballot or who were never NOMINATED to run i in the general election..
You should spend more time understanding how things work and less time wasted defending ideas that are clearly partisan power grabbing... Stupid ideas that could backfire horribly on the conspirator babies....
JustAnotherNut
Platinum Member
- Dec 31, 2015
- 12,303
- 7,873
- 1,095
- Dec 16, 2017
- 23,632
- 12,868
- 1,290
I'm curious. Does the right to vote actually exist? I mean, what is the point of the national vote?
The way the 12th ammendment reads, electors basically choose the president and vice president. It also says that votes of the states exist, but only the votes of the representation of those states. Meaning, senators and representatives.
Yes, the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendment's says our right to vote cannot be abridged, but, when you read the 12th ammendment, it makes you wonder why a national vote is even there.
Also, the 24th ammendment says the citizens are to vote for president, vice president, senators, representatives, AND ELECTORS.
Someone help me understand, as the 12th amendment seems to conflict with the rest of them.
The way the 12th ammendment reads, electors basically choose the president and vice president. It also says that votes of the states exist, but only the votes of the representation of those states. Meaning, senators and representatives.
Yes, the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendment's says our right to vote cannot be abridged, but, when you read the 12th ammendment, it makes you wonder why a national vote is even there.
Also, the 24th ammendment says the citizens are to vote for president, vice president, senators, representatives, AND ELECTORS.
Someone help me understand, as the 12th amendment seems to conflict with the rest of them.
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
True, when it is based on their voters! This bases the electors on results from outside the state. It is unConstitutional from the very first letter.
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
Just exactly who would tell them, dumbass? You? Me? The lady who collects my garbage on Friday mornings?
Who do you want to tell them?
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
The voters of Maine could overwhelming vote for a Democrat, and then have Republican win the popular vote. Their votes would be suppressed in favor of voters outside of their state.
Also:
"A provision contained in Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "No State shall, without the consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."
There is a direct violation of the Constitution right there!
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
A provision contained in Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution, which states, "No State shall, without the consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."
Admiral Rockwell Tory
Diamond Member
Actually, if they use proportional voting, like Maine normally does, he would win all 10 electoral votes as two for the state popular vote win and 8 more for each Congressional district, assuming he won every district 60/40.
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 38,701
- 31,695
- 2,905
Yeah either way it represents what the majority of the people want....what lefty wants to do is cancel the actual polling and leave the decision up to a handful of people who may or may not agree with their voting populous. Then of course we are heading for mob rule.... California, New York, Texas and Florida will be the only places worth campaigning in. There's no way a Scotus decision is going to allow a small body of handpicked dupes to disenfranchise the larger body of voters.
Jo
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 38,701
- 31,695
- 2,905
They Never learn....rule changes cannot be controlled once they're let loose.
Jo
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
This is the worst way to try to fix the problem.
The best way I can see is to split the Electoral Votes
where they are divided proportionally per candidate.
I would further support the Third Party members to sue or petition
to revise this to be more effective in INCLUDING other parties as well.
For example, expanding the Electoral College reps so that all parties
are represented proportionally per District. So when votes are divided,
all the parties participating receive Electors and Votes proportionally.
That would be more fair, and prevent discrimination by creed.
If only the party that gets the majority votes gets representation,
this isn't treating citizens of other creeds with equal inclusion, representation and protection.
So this is even more unconstitutional in further oppressing and denying
equal representation,
because it makes the problem of partisan dominance in govt even WORSE!
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear Lesh not if it is argued that certain methods "discriminate by creed"
thus violating Equal Civil Rights of people of other beliefs besides the two major parties,
and that proportional representation would better ensure equal protection of the laws
under the Fourteenth Amendment for ALL citizens REGARDLESS of creed or party affiliation.
justoffal
Diamond Member
- Jun 29, 2013
- 38,701
- 31,695
- 2,905
Exactly.... We should just let California have it's part POTUS....maybe they will shut up.
Jo
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Dear justoffal
As a Democrat who identifies Constitutionalist first,
I advocate for followers of Clinton, Sanders, etc. to go ahead and use the
Democratic Party to set up statewide and national programs for party members
to fund, follow and access the programs they believe in, from health care
to welfare benefits, educational credits and worker owned coops and internship/mentorship programs.
Why should this depend on pushing such programs nationally on everyone else, especially of opposing creeds to pay for?
Why not follow the model of religious organizations such as the Catholic Church
and fund schools, social programs, health care and other benefits
through the taxes contributed by party members who BELIEVE in providing these as fundamental rights.
This would ensure people only pay for the terms and conditions they believe in,
by organizing it by party, at local, state and national levels, without interfering
with any other person or group and their right to fund and follow their OWN policies by THEIR beliefs!
If all parties organized benefit for their members under terms they agree to pay into,
we could finally shift social programs and benefits off federal govt and back
to people to manage either through their States or their Parties as needed to
access either a localized or a centralized national collective pool for all participating members.
I propose this solution to end fighting and discrimination over conflicting beliefs and creeds
(regarding right to life and right to health care, school policies, LGBT vs. Christian practices
in marriage laws and benefits, etc.) while still enabling people of likeminded beliefs
to organize resources by local or centralized national collective pools under terms they
agree to pay into, without forcing any such beliefs on the rest of the state or nation.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Ex-CBSA employee improperly passed on data to potential real estate clients- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0
-
-
Tucker Carlson Says He’s ‘Tormented’ By Backing Trump: ‘I’m Sorry’- Started by EvilEyeFleegle
- Replies: 3
-
Even anti Trump reject Tucker's "apology" he is all about money and clicks
- Started by Thethingsz
- Replies: 0
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
A prayer room and foot-washing stations are being added to MN High School- Latest: Concerned American
