Nevada to join National Popular Vote compact

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I can't wait until this goes on long enough where Texas or Florida pass laws that all electoral votes will go to the GOP, regardless of the outcome.

Or, hell. Let California do it for Dems.

The result will probably not be a mere constitutional crisis.

.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

bodecea is in desperate need of a civics class. We are a Republic.

And we would still be a Republic. Maybe you need the civics class.

As such the popular vote doesn’t make sense. The states decide per state how their electoral votes are used.

I'm sorry, are we ignoring that you got that completely wrong? OK.

So, to abolish the electoral college would of course require a constitutional amendment and that's not going to happen for anything, maybe never. So the states are solving it by changing how they assign their electors, something that per the constitution is up to the states to do. Electoral college still in place, however effectively neutered.

Changing it because they are unhappy with 2016 results not because they believe it is the “right thing to do”. Being butthurt is not a reason to change rules. Next you’ll tell me that Bruce Jenner is a woman.

 

[HappyJoy]

Based on what number? What agency conducts polling and does the math for a national popular vote?

What constitutional organization certifies the results?

I swear you morons just want to do everything to take power permanently, by any means nessasary, without thinking through the mechanics.

How does the State's electors figure out who won the national popular vote when there is NO ORGANIZATION that can constitutionally certify said vote?

So....you are saying that we cannot do the math of adding up all the certified votes from all fifty states? I'm sorry, how poor in math skills do you think we are in this country?

Who certifies the math so the compact is enforced? States have, by law, or their constitutions, methods for certifying a vote.

Who does that here? This is an end run around the feds, who would by logic be the ones who would certify it, IF it was created by an Amendment to the Constitution, which is the ACTUAL way to do this.

I also added another Constitutional Issue in another post:

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

How does this not need the consent of Congress?

So...you are saying that if one adds up 50 certified votes, it doesn't count?

I am 100% saying that. Who certifies the count? Who does the math?

There is NO infrastructure to count and certify a national vote at the national level.

You are flat out saying that our country is incapable of adding up 50 certified votes.

He does have a geniune concern about "the infrastructure", I mean does Nevada even have a calculator?

 

[HappyJoy]

bodecea is in desperate need of a civics class. We are a Republic.

And we would still be a Republic. Maybe you need the civics class.

As such the popular vote doesn’t make sense. The states decide per state how their electoral votes are used.

I'm sorry, are we ignoring that you got that completely wrong? OK.

So, to abolish the electoral college would of course require a constitutional amendment and that's not going to happen for anything, maybe never. So the states are solving it by changing how they assign their electors, something that per the constitution is up to the states to do. Electoral college still in place, however effectively neutered.

Changing it because they are unhappy with 2016 results not because they believe it is the “right thing to do”. Being butthurt is not a reason to change rules. Next you’ll tell me that Bruce Jenner is a woman.

No, I and I'm sure Nevada does to feels like its the right thing to do. Most Americans want a national popular vote and this is probably the only feasible way of getting to that without jumping through impossible hurdles.

 

[HappyJoy]

I can't wait until this goes on long enough where Texas or Florida pass laws that all electoral votes will go to the GOP, regardless of the outcome.

Or, hell. Let California do it for Dems.

The result will probably not be a mere constitutional crisis.

.

I think Texas and Florida should try that. Let's find out what happens.

Giving up on that whole Republic argument then? Good for you.

 

[bodecea]

Who certifies that number? States have Election Board that Certify elections in their own State? What national level body would certify the number?

Also, I forgot another constitutional issue:

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. The Compacts Clause.

Yeah, that doesn't mean what you want it to. Here is the whole clause to put it into context:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

And here is the meaning:

Article I, Section 10, limits the power of the states. States may not enter into a treaty with a foreign nation; that power is given to the president, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate present. States cannot make their own money, nor can they grant any title of nobility.

As is Congress, states are prohibited from passing laws that assign guilt to a specific person or group without court proceedings (bills of attainder), that make something illegal retroactively(ex post facto laws) or that interfere with legal contracts.

No state, without approval from Congress, may collect taxes on imports or exports, build an army or keep warships in times of peace, nor otherwise engage in war unless invaded or in imminent danger.
Article I, Section 10

Getting desparate.

Wow, talk about ignoring the actual text of the document.


I can copy someone else's interpretation of it as well

The idea of allowing Congress to have say over agreements between states traces back to the numerous controversies that arose between various colonies. Eventually compromises would be created between the two colonies and these compromises would be submitted to the Crown for approval. After the American Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation allowed states to appeal to Congress to settle disputes between the states over boundaries or "any cause whatever". The Articles of Confederation also required Congressional approval for "any treaty or alliance" in which a state was one of the parties.

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

And from the one SC case related:

Virginia v. Tennessee - Wikipedia

As to what represents a compact requiring approval from Congress, it is those types of agreements that would, in some fashion, increase the power of a state. If a state, for example, wanted to send an exhibit to a World's Fair in another state, it would not have to have approval of Congress to contract to use a canal owned by another state that its exhibit or its people had to pass through along the way.

This doesn't increase the power of a state, so now what, genius?

How does it not? It increases the power of the States in the Compact vs. the ones outside the compact.

An end run is an end run, no matter how much you try to justify it.

No, the state still has the same amount of electors, where is the power grab?

Ironically, if one goes by how the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, there should be a Representative in the House for every 30,000 people....that means, instead of about 55 Reps (used for counting EC #'s) there should be over 1330 Representatives in California....assume 1330 plus 2 Senators......that means that the Founders meant for California to have 1332 Electors. Do the same math for other states.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, that doesn't mean what you want it to. Here is the whole clause to put it into context:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

And here is the meaning:

Article I, Section 10, limits the power of the states. States may not enter into a treaty with a foreign nation; that power is given to the president, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate present. States cannot make their own money, nor can they grant any title of nobility.

As is Congress, states are prohibited from passing laws that assign guilt to a specific person or group without court proceedings (bills of attainder), that make something illegal retroactively(ex post facto laws) or that interfere with legal contracts.

No state, without approval from Congress, may collect taxes on imports or exports, build an army or keep warships in times of peace, nor otherwise engage in war unless invaded or in imminent danger.
Article I, Section 10

Getting desparate.

Wow, talk about ignoring the actual text of the document.


I can copy someone else's interpretation of it as well

The idea of allowing Congress to have say over agreements between states traces back to the numerous controversies that arose between various colonies. Eventually compromises would be created between the two colonies and these compromises would be submitted to the Crown for approval. After the American Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation allowed states to appeal to Congress to settle disputes between the states over boundaries or "any cause whatever". The Articles of Confederation also required Congressional approval for "any treaty or alliance" in which a state was one of the parties.

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

And from the one SC case related:

Virginia v. Tennessee - Wikipedia

As to what represents a compact requiring approval from Congress, it is those types of agreements that would, in some fashion, increase the power of a state. If a state, for example, wanted to send an exhibit to a World's Fair in another state, it would not have to have approval of Congress to contract to use a canal owned by another state that its exhibit or its people had to pass through along the way.

This doesn't increase the power of a state, so now what, genius?

How does it not? It increases the power of the States in the Compact vs. the ones outside the compact.

An end run is an end run, no matter how much you try to justify it.

No, the state still has the same amount of electors, where is the power grab?

Ironically, if one goes by how the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, there should be a Representative in the House for every 30,000 people....that means, instead of about 55 Reps (used for counting EC #'s) there should be over 1330 Representatives in California....assume 1330 plus 2 Senators......that means that the Founders meant for California to have 1332 Electors. Do the same math for other states.

Don't do math in front of Marty.

 

[bodecea]

I can't wait until this goes on long enough where Texas or Florida pass laws that all electoral votes will go to the GOP, regardless of the outcome.

Or, hell. Let California do it for Dems.

The result will probably not be a mere constitutional crisis.

.

I think Texas and Florida should try that. Let's find out what happens.

Giving up on that whole Republic argument then? Good for you.

Yeah...noticing it's no longer about giving EC votes to the winner of the popular vote...it's about giving EC votes to the GOP.....they don't even hide it anymore, do they?

 

[HappyJoy]

I can't wait until this goes on long enough where Texas or Florida pass laws that all electoral votes will go to the GOP, regardless of the outcome.

Or, hell. Let California do it for Dems.

The result will probably not be a mere constitutional crisis.

.

I think Texas and Florida should try that. Let's find out what happens.

Giving up on that whole Republic argument then? Good for you.

Yeah...noticing it's no longer about giving EC votes to the winner of the popular vote...it's about giving EC votes to the GOP.....they don't even hide it anymore, do they?

Yep. It's like they recognize that if we went by the popular vote then the Republicans are in effect going to lose a lot because of their small tent, small mind politics and all they can do on their end is cheat.

 

[bodecea]

Wow, talk about ignoring the actual text of the document.


I can copy someone else's interpretation of it as well

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

And from the one SC case related:

Virginia v. Tennessee - Wikipedia

This doesn't increase the power of a state, so now what, genius?

How does it not? It increases the power of the States in the Compact vs. the ones outside the compact.

An end run is an end run, no matter how much you try to justify it.

No, the state still has the same amount of electors, where is the power grab?

Ironically, if one goes by how the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, there should be a Representative in the House for every 30,000 people....that means, instead of about 55 Reps (used for counting EC #'s) there should be over 1330 Representatives in California....assume 1330 plus 2 Senators......that means that the Founders meant for California to have 1332 Electors. Do the same math for other states.

Don't do math in front of Marty.

Math is scary.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yeah...noticing it's no longer about giving EC votes to the winner of the popular vote...it's about giving EC votes to the GOP.....they don't even hide it anymore, do they?

I was not advocating for a particular party. It was an example of what could/will eventually happen.

How is giving EC votes to the popular vote winner any different than giving them to a particular party? It has the same effect of ignoring the votes of the people of a particular state.

 

[martybegan]

There is no such thing Constitutionally as a National Popular vote. it isn't even counted officially by any governmental agency.

Did you know that electors in the past have voted for someone other than who won their state? And it was mostly perfectly legal unless they broke a state law.

That has nothing to do with States mandating their EV's go to someone based on the vote results outside the State.

Oh, Ok. So according to your wisdom an elector can vote for someone their state didn't vote for as long as the rest of the country didn't? Now that you spell it out....you still seem to be wrong.

You seem to still be grasping at straws to validate your attempted power grab.

The electors acting is covered by both State and Federal Laws. In cases of unfaithful electors, the only issue would be if it impacted the outcome of an election. It hasn't, to my knowledge, happened so far.

What's the power grab, exactly? and where in the constitution does it set forth how a state can use it's electors? Quote it.

I quoted several parts of the Constitution that have an issue with this. that you choose to ignore them is your problem.

 

[martybegan]

Who certifies that number? States have Election Board that Certify elections in their own State? What national level body would certify the number?

Also, I forgot another constitutional issue:

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3. The Compacts Clause.

Yeah, that doesn't mean what you want it to. Here is the whole clause to put it into context:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

And here is the meaning:

Article I, Section 10, limits the power of the states. States may not enter into a treaty with a foreign nation; that power is given to the president, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate present. States cannot make their own money, nor can they grant any title of nobility.

As is Congress, states are prohibited from passing laws that assign guilt to a specific person or group without court proceedings (bills of attainder), that make something illegal retroactively(ex post facto laws) or that interfere with legal contracts.

No state, without approval from Congress, may collect taxes on imports or exports, build an army or keep warships in times of peace, nor otherwise engage in war unless invaded or in imminent danger.
Article I, Section 10

Getting desparate.

Wow, talk about ignoring the actual text of the document.


I can copy someone else's interpretation of it as well

The idea of allowing Congress to have say over agreements between states traces back to the numerous controversies that arose between various colonies. Eventually compromises would be created between the two colonies and these compromises would be submitted to the Crown for approval. After the American Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation allowed states to appeal to Congress to settle disputes between the states over boundaries or "any cause whatever". The Articles of Confederation also required Congressional approval for "any treaty or alliance" in which a state was one of the parties.

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

And from the one SC case related:

Virginia v. Tennessee - Wikipedia

As to what represents a compact requiring approval from Congress, it is those types of agreements that would, in some fashion, increase the power of a state. If a state, for example, wanted to send an exhibit to a World's Fair in another state, it would not have to have approval of Congress to contract to use a canal owned by another state that its exhibit or its people had to pass through along the way.

This doesn't increase the power of a state, so now what, genius?

How does it not? It increases the power of the States in the Compact vs. the ones outside the compact.

An end run is an end run, no matter how much you try to justify it.

No, the state still has the same amount of electors, where is the power grab?

It's States banding together to pool their EV's to the detriment of States not in the compact.

Power grab. At least admit it.

 

[HappyJoy]

Did you know that electors in the past have voted for someone other than who won their state? And it was mostly perfectly legal unless they broke a state law.

That has nothing to do with States mandating their EV's go to someone based on the vote results outside the State.

Oh, Ok. So according to your wisdom an elector can vote for someone their state didn't vote for as long as the rest of the country didn't? Now that you spell it out....you still seem to be wrong.

You seem to still be grasping at straws to validate your attempted power grab.

The electors acting is covered by both State and Federal Laws. In cases of unfaithful electors, the only issue would be if it impacted the outcome of an election. It hasn't, to my knowledge, happened so far.

What's the power grab, exactly? and where in the constitution does it set forth how a state can use it's electors? Quote it.

I quoted several parts of the Constitution that have an issue with this. that you choose to ignore them is your problem.

No, you didn't. You seemed to have misunderstood several parts of it though.

 

[martybegan]

Based on what number? What agency conducts polling and does the math for a national popular vote?

What constitutional organization certifies the results?

I swear you morons just want to do everything to take power permanently, by any means nessasary, without thinking through the mechanics.

How does the State's electors figure out who won the national popular vote when there is NO ORGANIZATION that can constitutionally certify said vote?

So....you are saying that we cannot do the math of adding up all the certified votes from all fifty states? I'm sorry, how poor in math skills do you think we are in this country?

Who certifies the math so the compact is enforced? States have, by law, or their constitutions, methods for certifying a vote.

Who does that here? This is an end run around the feds, who would by logic be the ones who would certify it, IF it was created by an Amendment to the Constitution, which is the ACTUAL way to do this.

I also added another Constitutional Issue in another post:

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

How does this not need the consent of Congress?

So...you are saying that if one adds up 50 certified votes, it doesn't count?

I am 100% saying that. Who certifies the count? Who does the math?

There is NO infrastructure to count and certify a national vote at the national level.

You are flat out saying that our country is incapable of adding up 50 certified votes.

There is no method of certifying it. Counting is not the issue, and the fact you have to play coy about it means you don't have an actual answer.

 

[martybegan]

So....you are saying that we cannot do the math of adding up all the certified votes from all fifty states? I'm sorry, how poor in math skills do you think we are in this country?

Who certifies the math so the compact is enforced? States have, by law, or their constitutions, methods for certifying a vote.

Who does that here? This is an end run around the feds, who would by logic be the ones who would certify it, IF it was created by an Amendment to the Constitution, which is the ACTUAL way to do this.

I also added another Constitutional Issue in another post:

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

How does this not need the consent of Congress?

So...you are saying that if one adds up 50 certified votes, it doesn't count?

I am 100% saying that. Who certifies the count? Who does the math?

There is NO infrastructure to count and certify a national vote at the national level.

You are flat out saying that our country is incapable of adding up 50 certified votes.

He does have a geniune concern about "the infrastructure", I mean does Nevada even have a calculator?

That you have to joke about it shows you don't have an answer to the mechanism of certification that would force the States to send the electors of the national winner vs the electors for their State winner.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

bodecea is in desperate need of a civics class. We are a Republic.

And we would still be a Republic. Maybe you need the civics class.

As such the popular vote doesn’t make sense. The states decide per state how their electoral votes are used.

I'm sorry, are we ignoring that you got that completely wrong? OK.

So, to abolish the electoral college would of course require a constitutional amendment and that's not going to happen for anything, maybe never. So the states are solving it by changing how they assign their electors, something that per the constitution is up to the states to do. Electoral college still in place, however effectively neutered.

Changing it because they are unhappy with 2016 results not because they believe it is the “right thing to do”. Being butthurt is not a reason to change rules. Next you’ll tell me that Bruce Jenner is a woman.

No, I and I'm sure Nevada does to feels like its the right thing to do. Most Americans want a national popular vote and this is probably the only feasible way of getting to that without jumping through impossible hurdles.

Most Americans also want a 0% tax rate. Doesn’t make it right.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yeah, that doesn't mean what you want it to. Here is the whole clause to put it into context:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

And here is the meaning:

Article I, Section 10, limits the power of the states. States may not enter into a treaty with a foreign nation; that power is given to the president, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate present. States cannot make their own money, nor can they grant any title of nobility.

As is Congress, states are prohibited from passing laws that assign guilt to a specific person or group without court proceedings (bills of attainder), that make something illegal retroactively(ex post facto laws) or that interfere with legal contracts.

No state, without approval from Congress, may collect taxes on imports or exports, build an army or keep warships in times of peace, nor otherwise engage in war unless invaded or in imminent danger.
Article I, Section 10

Getting desparate.

Wow, talk about ignoring the actual text of the document.


I can copy someone else's interpretation of it as well

The idea of allowing Congress to have say over agreements between states traces back to the numerous controversies that arose between various colonies. Eventually compromises would be created between the two colonies and these compromises would be submitted to the Crown for approval. After the American Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation allowed states to appeal to Congress to settle disputes between the states over boundaries or "any cause whatever". The Articles of Confederation also required Congressional approval for "any treaty or alliance" in which a state was one of the parties.

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

And from the one SC case related:

Virginia v. Tennessee - Wikipedia

As to what represents a compact requiring approval from Congress, it is those types of agreements that would, in some fashion, increase the power of a state. If a state, for example, wanted to send an exhibit to a World's Fair in another state, it would not have to have approval of Congress to contract to use a canal owned by another state that its exhibit or its people had to pass through along the way.

This doesn't increase the power of a state, so now what, genius?

How does it not? It increases the power of the States in the Compact vs. the ones outside the compact.

An end run is an end run, no matter how much you try to justify it.

No, the state still has the same amount of electors, where is the power grab?

It's States banding together to pool their EV's to the detriment of States not in the compact.

Power grab. At least admit it.

That's not a power grab, the state individually has not gotten any stronger.

 

[martybegan]

Wow, talk about ignoring the actual text of the document.


I can copy someone else's interpretation of it as well

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

And from the one SC case related:

Virginia v. Tennessee - Wikipedia

This doesn't increase the power of a state, so now what, genius?

How does it not? It increases the power of the States in the Compact vs. the ones outside the compact.

An end run is an end run, no matter how much you try to justify it.

No, the state still has the same amount of electors, where is the power grab?

Ironically, if one goes by how the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, there should be a Representative in the House for every 30,000 people....that means, instead of about 55 Reps (used for counting EC #'s) there should be over 1330 Representatives in California....assume 1330 plus 2 Senators......that means that the Founders meant for California to have 1332 Electors. Do the same math for other states.

Don't do math in front of Marty.

Show me a certified national presidential vote count from any previous election.

 

[HappyJoy]

Who certifies the math so the compact is enforced? States have, by law, or their constitutions, methods for certifying a vote.

Who does that here? This is an end run around the feds, who would by logic be the ones who would certify it, IF it was created by an Amendment to the Constitution, which is the ACTUAL way to do this.

I also added another Constitutional Issue in another post:

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3.

How does this not need the consent of Congress?

So...you are saying that if one adds up 50 certified votes, it doesn't count?

I am 100% saying that. Who certifies the count? Who does the math?

There is NO infrastructure to count and certify a national vote at the national level.

You are flat out saying that our country is incapable of adding up 50 certified votes.

He does have a geniune concern about "the infrastructure", I mean does Nevada even have a calculator?

That you have to joke about it shows you don't have an answer to the mechanism of certification that would force the States to send the electors of the national winner vs the electors for their State winner.

Of course I joke, bodecea aleady answered this. Every state certifies their vote counts. You...add....those....up.