Nevada to join National Popular Vote compact

[HappyJoy]

And you would NEVER accept a result that going against your attempt to game the system. States like NY and CA would revoke the law, assign the EC's via their popular vote, and chaos would begin.

Exactly right.

No "pact" would be enforceable, as such pacts aren't in the Constitution.

A far left state would back out of the pact if it didn't meet their desire to install a leftist president.

Neither are jaywalking laws. The Constitution lays bare that its up to the states.

 

[HappyJoy]

That is a very good question you should ask yourself.....what happened to states rights?
A state votes for one candidate, yet the electoral votes goes to the other candidate. Priceless.

That is what happens right now
If 49 percent of the voters vote for a candidate and 51 percent vote for another then the candidate with 51 gets ALL the EVs

The vote of the 49 percent are not counted

Is California and New York in on this? Of course eventually then the EC is moot point. Perhaps the deplorables can elect their own President and you can elect yours.

The popular vote is not moot
EVERY vote would be registered for each candidate
EVERY vote would count as one vote

I'm assuming that you want to take this country from a republic to a democracy, RW.
Five or six states can elect a president, and the rest of the states just has to pound sand?
Not being represented very well, IMO.

Do you understand what a republic is?
We the people are electing our representatives

The key to this proposal is states will cède their vote as a state in favor of the popular vote

States will not elect the president, the people will
Your vote counts as a citizen of the US not as a resident of a state

No, he obviously literally doesn't not know what a Republic is.

 

[Pogo]

Every vote should count the same, it sure does in Congress, even 1 vote.

Change the Constitution by amending it, not try to get around it.

A moot point since there is literally no article at the link anyway.

 

[bodecea]

States Move to Abolish Electoral College!

On this Wednesday transmission of The Alex Jones Show, we’ll cover the growing movement to eliminate the Electoral College, the crisis at America’s southern border, the Democrat movement to impeach and much more.



Oh this is goig to be the biggest take down of this country if these democratic ****s do this better wake up ppl your country is going bye bye you stupid mother fkrs!!

Quick OP fix: there is no movement to abolish the electoral college. That would require an amendment. The EC will continue to exist in its current form.

That must be why there was nothing at the link.

The OP should give back her paycheck from InfoWars for this week.

 

[bodecea]

Every vote should count the same, it sure does in Congress, even 1 vote.

Then it wouldn't be a constitutional REPUBLIC now would it?

"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.

ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4"

"It is sometimes claimed that the Founders wanted American governments to be "republics rather than democracies," but this claim is not quite accurate. In their linguistic usage, the Founders employed the terms "democracy" and "republic" with overlapping or even interchangeable meanings. Only one species of democracy was deemed inconsistent with republicanism. This was "pure democracy" or "simple and perfect democracy," a theoretical constitution identified by Aristotle and mentioned by John Adams and James Madison, among others. A pure democracy had no magistrates, because the "mob" made all decisions, including all executive and judicial decisions. The Founders saw this kind of democracy as inconsistent with republicanism, because it did not honor the rule of law. The Guarantee Clause's protection against domestic violence assures orderly government and the rule of law, and protects the states' legitimate magistracy against mob rule."
Guide to the Constitution



Of course if the people wish to change the Constitution they can.

Even tho there's nothing about getting rid of the EC in the OP....why would it no longer be a Republican Form of Government?

 

[Pogo]

States Move to Abolish Electoral College!

On this Wednesday transmission of The Alex Jones Show, we’ll cover the growing movement to eliminate the Electoral College, the crisis at America’s southern border, the Democrat movement to impeach and much more.



Oh this is goig to be the biggest take down of this country if these democratic ****s do this better wake up ppl your country is going bye bye you stupid mother fkrs!!

Quick OP fix: there is no movement to abolish the electoral college. That would require an amendment. The EC will continue to exist in its current form.

That must be why there was nothing at the link.

The OP should give back her paycheck from InfoWars for this week.

I don't think she gets a paycheck. I suspect she gets a discount on goat testicle pills. Or whatever Alex is hawking to the obsequiously gullible this week.

 

[martybegan]

How is allowing people outside the State determine the State's vote for President a "Republican Form of Government", Something that the Federal Constitution guarantees under Article 4, Clause 1?"

It probably also falls foul of the 14th amendment, requiring equal protection under the law. How does transferring a whole States vote to another voting block provide equal protection?

States Rights to determine how they distribute their Electoral Votes....if the people of that state don't like it that way, they vote in state legislators who set up the state's distribution of Electoral Votes to their liking.

And how does this go against Equal Protection Under the Law? Explain, please.

The States are still bound by the Constitution.

It's the same thing that killed things like the Board of Estimates in NYC, where each Boro had representation regardless of population. The 14th guarantees 1 person, 1 vote. Now a person's vote in a State is meaningless with regards to the IN STATE election for electors, because the outcome would be determined by people OUTSIDE the State.

Exactly...the states are still bound by the Constitution. Now show how this would be against the Constitution.

I pointed it out, Article 4 Clause 1, and the 14th amendment equal protection clause.

That you want to ignore both because you think this end run would suit you isn't my problem.

You talk of both but you don't show how they make what Nevada is doing against the Constitution. I can play that game too.......the 12th Amendment.....there. See?

I did explain, you just choose not to listen. be ignorant if you want.

 

[rightwinger]

What’s the point of even voting if you’re in Nevada?

Because your vote will go for the National Popular Vote total

What is the point of voting in a Red State if you are a Democrat?

 

[martybegan]

Why are Republicans so upset by this?

Don’t they think they can win the popular vote anymore?

One has to wonder.

What I am really worried about is this backfiring on progressives. Say you do get it passed, and it makes people in "Dead if Red" States vote more. So if the Republican wins the popular vote, and California and NY have to throw their EC's to them, you don't think those States are going to try to back out of the compact before the EV's are counted?

If you morons want a civil war to happen, I can't think of a better way to trigger it.

How ironic.....states rights and the CRCs have a cow against it this time.

States right's aren't absolute, nothing is absolute. Progressives claim absolutism when it suits them far more than my side.

State's rights are not absolute when they go against what the Constitution has put down as how things are done.....now show us exactly where the Constitution says that states cannot change how they distribute EC votes. Remember, it's been done before, therefore there is precedence.

All of those have been based on voters IN THE STATE voting, regardless of who was able to vote, and how the votes were allocated.

This is entirely different.

 

[Polishprince]

Why are Republicans so upset by this?

Don’t they think they can win the popular vote anymore?

One has to wonder.

What I am really worried about is this backfiring on progressives. Say you do get it passed, and it makes people in "Dead if Red" States vote more. So if the Republican wins the popular vote, and California and NY have to throw their EC's to them, you don't think those States are going to try to back out of the compact before the EV's are counted?

If you morons want a civil war to happen, I can't think of a better way to trigger it.

Yes...in other words it's totally fair because it can work both ways...............unlike the current gerrymandering being done by the GOP in many states.....

Gerrymandering has nothing to do with Presidential Elections. Try to stay on topic.

And you would NEVER accept a result that going against your attempt to game the system. States like NY and CA would revoke the law, assign the EC's via their popular vote, and chaos would begin.

Gerrymandering has everything to do with presidential elections. Do you really now know how?

How do you figger?


Presidential elections are done by state, and state lines aren't redrawn every 10years.

 

[martybegan]

What I am really worried about is this backfiring on progressives.

So no more, concern troll.

Nice dodge, dickless.

Did I dodge anything worthwhile?

Just accountability and decorum, you dime store hack.

 

[Meister]

That is a very good question you should ask yourself.....what happened to states rights?
A state votes for one candidate, yet the electoral votes goes to the other candidate. Priceless.

That is what happens right now
If 49 percent of the voters vote for a candidate and 51 percent vote for another then the candidate with 51 gets ALL the EVs

The vote of the 49 percent are not counted

Is California and New York in on this? Of course eventually then the EC is moot point. Perhaps the deplorables can elect their own President and you can elect yours.

The popular vote is not moot
EVERY vote would be registered for each candidate
EVERY vote would count as one vote

I'm assuming that you want to take this country from a republic to a democracy, RW.
Five or six states can elect a president, and the rest of the states just has to pound sand?
Not being represented very well, IMO.

No one is saying that. In fact some of us have made it VERY clear that it is thru our representative form of government at the state level that these changes are occurring WITH the consent of state citizens. If they did not approve of these changes, their legistators would be voted out. That is a representative form of government.

Just because you're not saying that, that is the end result, Bodie.
What do you think one person one vote would be?
That is a democracy.

 

[martybegan]

Why are Republicans so upset by this?

Don’t they think they can win the popular vote anymore?

One has to wonder.

What I am really worried about is this backfiring on progressives. Say you do get it passed, and it makes people in "Dead if Red" States vote more. So if the Republican wins the popular vote, and California and NY have to throw their EC's to them, you don't think those States are going to try to back out of the compact before the EV's are counted?

If you morons want a civil war to happen, I can't think of a better way to trigger it.

Yes...in other words it's totally fair because it can work both ways...............unlike the current gerrymandering being done by the GOP in many states.....

Gerrymandering has nothing to do with Presidential Elections. Try to stay on topic.

And you would NEVER accept a result that going against your attempt to game the system. States like NY and CA would revoke the law, assign the EC's via their popular vote, and chaos would begin.

Gerrymandering has everything to do with presidential elections. Do you really now know how?

How so? It impact's the house, and State legislatures. But is has nothing to do with the Senate, or State governors, or the Presidential Election.

 

[martybegan]

One has to wonder.

What I am really worried about is this backfiring on progressives. Say you do get it passed, and it makes people in "Dead if Red" States vote more. So if the Republican wins the popular vote, and California and NY have to throw their EC's to them, you don't think those States are going to try to back out of the compact before the EV's are counted?

If you morons want a civil war to happen, I can't think of a better way to trigger it.

How ironic.....states rights and the CRCs have a cow against it this time.

Conservatives only protect states rights for very specific circumstances, they usually involve taking away peoples' rights.

When it is mandated by the Constitution, or when the Constitution is mute on a subject.

It's called being consistent, something progressives can't handle.

The Constitution doesn't stipulate how sates assign their ec votes, that's up to the states. States rights...maybe conservatives should be consistent on that.

All of those allowable methods involved people IN THE STATE voting, be it only property owners, then white men, then all men, then women, then everyone over 18.

Show me where a State has outsourced it's EV's to another voting bloc OUTSIDE the State in question.

 

[Penelope]

Every vote should count the same, it sure does in Congress, even 1 vote.

Then it wouldn't be a constitutional REPUBLIC now would it?

"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.

ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4"

"It is sometimes claimed that the Founders wanted American governments to be "republics rather than democracies," but this claim is not quite accurate. In their linguistic usage, the Founders employed the terms "democracy" and "republic" with overlapping or even interchangeable meanings. Only one species of democracy was deemed inconsistent with republicanism. This was "pure democracy" or "simple and perfect democracy," a theoretical constitution identified by Aristotle and mentioned by John Adams and James Madison, among others. A pure democracy had no magistrates, because the "mob" made all decisions, including all executive and judicial decisions. The Founders saw this kind of democracy as inconsistent with republicanism, because it did not honor the rule of law. The Guarantee Clause's protection against domestic violence assures orderly government and the rule of law, and protects the states' legitimate magistracy against mob rule."
Guide to the Constitution



Of course if the people wish to change the Constitution they can.

Even tho there's nothing about getting rid of the EC in the OP....why would it no longer be a Republican Form of Government?

Yes more like just a commercial for Alex Jones.

 

[HappyJoy]

You progs are too young and/or stupid to understand what this means. It's the beginnings of the end of our Republic, as we're going to let metro. Ca., NY City and Seattle DICTATE how this country is run. Your dumb asses call it "popular vote democracy".

Still a Republic.

Fact is numb nuts, this is a DIRECT result of California powers penetrating Nevada up the ass for California power.....WTF else would it be? We've gone from the "Battle Born State" to "California's *****-state". It's so stupid.

Probably has to do with a state voting for the popular vote winner twice and still losing.

Imagine that 100% of Californians voted for A and 100% of Nevadans voted for B......In a nutshell this means get fucked Nevada, you voted with California.

That's a scenario that will never happen. But if the results were that extreme then I guess California would probably win that one either way.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Every vote should count the same, it sure does in Congress, even 1 vote.

Then it wouldn't be a constitutional REPUBLIC now would it?

"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.

ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4"

"It is sometimes claimed that the Founders wanted American governments to be "republics rather than democracies," but this claim is not quite accurate. In their linguistic usage, the Founders employed the terms "democracy" and "republic" with overlapping or even interchangeable meanings. Only one species of democracy was deemed inconsistent with republicanism. This was "pure democracy" or "simple and perfect democracy," a theoretical constitution identified by Aristotle and mentioned by John Adams and James Madison, among others. A pure democracy had no magistrates, because the "mob" made all decisions, including all executive and judicial decisions. The Founders saw this kind of democracy as inconsistent with republicanism, because it did not honor the rule of law. The Guarantee Clause's protection against domestic violence assures orderly government and the rule of law, and protects the states' legitimate magistracy against mob rule."
Guide to the Constitution



Of course if the people wish to change the Constitution they can.

Even tho there's nothing about getting rid of the EC in the OP....why would it no longer be a Republican Form of Government?

The Electoral College is required per the Constitution. Bypassing it would ignore the XII Amendment. States cannot simply vote their way around it as it is mandated as a function of the federal government. The same as states cannot simply vote to ignore a woman's right to vote (example)...I think you can figure it out.

 

[Flash]

The intent of the electoral college is to give states with lower populations an equal voice in presidential elections. Since Nevada ranks 32 in population it seems that they would be cutting their own throats if their obvious political stunt became a reality.

I wonder if the morons even know that they just outsourced their Presidential vote?

Of course it was the filthy ass Democrats in the state that did it. The idiots that were butt hurt because their girl didn't win.

You can always depend upon Democrats to be assholes.

 

[HappyJoy]

What I am really worried about is this backfiring on progressives. Say you do get it passed, and it makes people in "Dead if Red" States vote more. So if the Republican wins the popular vote, and California and NY have to throw their EC's to them, you don't think those States are going to try to back out of the compact before the EV's are counted?

If you morons want a civil war to happen, I can't think of a better way to trigger it.

How ironic.....states rights and the CRCs have a cow against it this time.

Conservatives only protect states rights for very specific circumstances, they usually involve taking away peoples' rights.

When it is mandated by the Constitution, or when the Constitution is mute on a subject.

It's called being consistent, something progressives can't handle.

The Constitution doesn't stipulate how sates assign their ec votes, that's up to the states. States rights...maybe conservatives should be consistent on that.

All of those allowable methods involved people IN THE STATE voting, be it only property owners, then white men, then all men, then women, then everyone over 18.

Show me where a State has outsourced it's EV's to another voting bloc OUTSIDE the State in question.

It's not a "voting bloc" it's the national popular vote, most Americans are in favor of that.

 

[HappyJoy]

The intent of the electoral college is to give states with lower populations an equal voice in presidential elections. Since Nevada ranks 32 in population it seems that they would be cutting their own throats if their obvious political stunt became a reality.

I wonder if the morons even know that they just outsourced their Presidential vote?

Of course it was the filthy ass Democrats in the state that did it. The idiots that were butt hurt because their girl didn't win.

You can always depend upon Democrats to be assholes.

The intent of the electoral college is to give states with lower populations an equal voice in presidential elections. Since Nevada ranks 32 in population it seems that they would be cutting their own throats if their obvious political stunt became a reality.

I wonder if the morons even know that they just outsourced their Presidential vote?

Of course it was the filthy ass Democrats in the state that did it. The idiots that were butt hurt because their girl didn't win.

You can always depend upon Democrats to be assholes.

Need a tissue?