Nevada to join National Popular Vote compact

[rightwinger]

You bed wetters can't win according to the rules, so you have to change them.

It will fail as soon as it ends up in a court with non-bed wetter judges.

IF you had ever read the Constitution....Article II in particular....you would have known that it is the states that determine how to distribute Electoral College votes. IF you had ever read the Constitution, you would have known this is totally Constitutional. IF.

Dumbass.

The State cannot distribute Electoral Votes to someone that loses the election in that state.

The National Presidential Election is 50 Independent Elections.

You cannot award The Loser of a State your Electoral Votes.

Where is that written?

 

[rightwinger]

The only thing I can take away from this is that the liberals really aren't concerned
with disenfranchising the vote of the people.
It's been a hoax all along.

The vote of the people has already been disenfranchised by gerrymandering and the EC

 

[Thinker101]

So If Trump Loses California, but wins the popular vote this next election California has to give Trump All of it's Electoral Votes?

Do you know how idiotic that is?

That is depriving the entire State of California Representation.

Totally Unconstitutional.

More Proof that you are an idiot.

Not unconstitutional. Ignorance may be really appealing to you, but it won’t help you.

Californians can always elect a new government that will change their stance.

WRONG

Let's say Trump loses the state of New York and wins The Popular Vote.

Exactly how is New York going to be allowed to give Trump all of it's Electoral Votes despite the fact Trump Lost that state to the DemTard Challenger?

Care to explain that?

By having their electors vote for Trump. This is not hard.

Great, so what's the plan when that happens? Whine more that it's not fair?

I will consider it fair, and the country will deserve the consequences it suffers from reelecting your fat traitor, just as we did when we reelected Dubya.

Sure, we know how well you loons keep your word.

 

[BlackFlag]

The only thing I can take away from this is that the liberals really aren't concerned
with disenfranchising the vote of the people.
It's been a hoax all along.

The only thing I can take away from this is that the liberals really aren't concerned
with disenfranchising the vote of the people.
It's been a hoax all along.

The vote of the people went against Trump.

 

[BlackFlag]

Not unconstitutional. Ignorance may be really appealing to you, but it won’t help you.

Californians can always elect a new government that will change their stance.

WRONG

Let's say Trump loses the state of New York and wins The Popular Vote.

Exactly how is New York going to be allowed to give Trump all of it's Electoral Votes despite the fact Trump Lost that state to the DemTard Challenger?

Care to explain that?

By having their electors vote for Trump. This is not hard.

Great, so what's the plan when that happens? Whine more that it's not fair?

I will consider it fair, and the country will deserve the consequences it suffers from reelecting your fat traitor, just as we did when we reelected Dubya.

Sure, we know how well you loons keep your word.

Better than America under your fat idiot has.

 

[bodecea]

Totally Illegal and Unconstitutional and will be challenged at The Supreme Court Level and be shot down.

What's wrong Lib Tards?

Can't win anything honestly?

Here is the portion of the Constitution, Article II that talks of the Electoral College.

Article II, Clause 2:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Article II, Clause 3:

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse [sic] by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse [sic] the President. But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse [sic] from them by Ballot the Vice President.
(Note: This procedure was changed by the 12th Amendment in 1804.)

Amendment XII

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.[a]

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.[1]

Now....point out the unConstitutionality of what Nevada is doing.

 

[martybegan]

You bed wetters can't win according to the rules, so you have to change them.

It will fail as soon as it ends up in a court with non-bed wetter judges.

IF you had ever read the Constitution....Article II in particular....you would have known that it is the states that determine how to distribute Electoral College votes. IF you had ever read the Constitution, you would have known this is totally Constitutional. IF.

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?

 

[bodecea]

You bed wetters can't win according to the rules, so you have to change them.

It will fail as soon as it ends up in a court with non-bed wetter judges.

IF you had ever read the Constitution....Article II in particular....you would have known that it is the states that determine how to distribute Electoral College votes. IF you had ever read the Constitution, you would have known this is totally Constitutional. IF.

Dumbass.

The State cannot distribute Electoral Votes to someone that loses the election in that state.

The National Presidential Election is 50 Independent Elections.

You cannot award The Loser of a State your Electoral Votes.

Who says they can't?

 

[martybegan]

Totally Illegal and Unconstitutional and will be challenged at The Supreme Court Level and be shot down.

What's wrong Lib Tards?

Can't win anything honestly?

Nope. States can allocate electoral votes however they want

Unless the method falls foul of Article 4, Clause 1, guaranteeing a republican form of government.

 

[martybegan]

You bed wetters can't win according to the rules, so you have to change them.

It will fail as soon as it ends up in a court with non-bed wetter judges.

IF you had ever read the Constitution....Article II in particular....you would have known that it is the states that determine how to distribute Electoral College votes. IF you had ever read the Constitution, you would have known this is totally Constitutional. IF.

Dumbass.

The State cannot distribute Electoral Votes to someone that loses the election in that state.

The National Presidential Election is 50 Independent Elections.

You cannot award The Loser of a State your Electoral Votes.

Who says they can't?

Article 4, Clause 1. That goes against all forms of thought with regards the people being governed with their consent.

 

[bodecea]

Totally Illegal and Unconstitutional and will be challenged at The Supreme Court Level and be shot down.

What's wrong Lib Tards?

Can't win anything honestly?

Nope. States can allocate electoral votes however they want

So If Trump Loses California, but wins the popular vote this next election California has to give Trump All of it's Electoral Votes?

Do you know how idiotic that is?

That is depriving the entire State of California Representation.

Totally Unconstitutional.

More Proof that you are an idiot.

If California were to vote to distribute their Electoral Votes that way, they can. It is a state issue. And here I thought you were one of those "states rights" guys.....were you lying?

 

[bodecea]

Nope. States can allocate electoral votes however they want

So If Trump Loses California, but wins the popular vote this next election California has to give Trump All of it's Electoral Votes?

Do you know how idiotic that is?

That is depriving the entire State of California Representation.

Totally Unconstitutional.

More Proof that you are an idiot.

Not unconstitutional. Ignorance may be really appealing to you, but it won’t help you.

Californians can always elect a new government that will change their stance.

WRONG

Let's say Trump loses the state of New York and wins The Popular Vote.

Exactly how is New York going to be allowed to give Trump all of it's Electoral Votes despite the fact Trump Lost that state to the DemTard Challenger?

Care to explain that?

By having their electors vote for Trump. This is not hard.

But that violates entirely the principle of faithful electors moron, who are Constitutionally Charged with allotting their Electoral Votes to the Winner of each states election, NOT THE LOSER.

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

And like All Libtards, you are about 4 years too late.

This is Unconstitutional, but even if it holds up, Trump will win The Popular Vote this time around, and you idiots are going to be burning down the entire states of California and New York as you are forced to give your Electoral Votes to Trump, even though he lost those states.

The Liberal Radical Fanatics will destroy The DemNazi states who are forced to give their votes to Trump. You people are like that. You burn your own houses and communities to The Ground when you can't get what you want.

I'll even buy the gasoline. Go on with it, Lib Tard.

Show us in the Constitution where the Electors are Constitutionally charged with allotting their Electoral Votes to the Winner of their state. Show us where it says that.

 

[bodecea]

The only thing I can take away from this is that the liberals really aren't concerned
with disenfranchising the vote of the people.
It's been a hoax all along.

The people vote for those in State government who make these rules...they can vote them out if they don't like it.....what happened to your support for States Rights?

 

[rightwinger]

You bed wetters can't win according to the rules, so you have to change them.

It will fail as soon as it ends up in a court with non-bed wetter judges.

IF you had ever read the Constitution....Article II in particular....you would have known that it is the states that determine how to distribute Electoral College votes. IF you had ever read the Constitution, you would have known this is totally Constitutional. IF.

Dumbass.

The State cannot distribute Electoral Votes to someone that loses the election in that state.

The National Presidential Election is 50 Independent Elections.

You cannot award The Loser of a State your Electoral Votes.

Who says they can't?

Article 4, Clause 1. That goes against all forms of thought with regards the people being governed with their consent.

Their vote is their consent

 

[rightwinger]

Why are Republicans so upset by this?

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

 

[bodecea]

You bed wetters can't win according to the rules, so you have to change them.

It will fail as soon as it ends up in a court with non-bed wetter judges.

IF you had ever read the Constitution....Article II in particular....you would have known that it is the states that determine how to distribute Electoral College votes. IF you had ever read the Constitution, you would have known this is totally Constitutional. IF.

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.

 

[bodecea]

You bed wetters can't win according to the rules, so you have to change them.

It will fail as soon as it ends up in a court with non-bed wetter judges.

IF you had ever read the Constitution....Article II in particular....you would have known that it is the states that determine how to distribute Electoral College votes. IF you had ever read the Constitution, you would have known this is totally Constitutional. IF.

Dumbass.

The State cannot distribute Electoral Votes to someone that loses the election in that state.

The National Presidential Election is 50 Independent Elections.

You cannot award The Loser of a State your Electoral Votes.

Who says they can't?

Article 4, Clause 1. That goes against all forms of thought with regards the people being governed with their consent.

And the people DO consent...by voting in and out those members of their state legislature who make such laws about how to distribute Electoral Votes.

 

[Anathema]

Nevada is getting better and better. Now it also has a majority of women in its state legislature.

Wow. TEO reasons not to visit Nevada... the NPV bill and finding out they have a majority women in the legislature.

Thought the second fact makes me less surprised that they made the terrible decision to join the NPV Compact.

 

[bodecea]

Why are Republicans so upset by this?

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

One has to wonder.

 

[nat4900]

Nevada is no longer governed by old, white xenophobic and misogynistic folks....and in the next few years TX and FL will also follow suit.

Republicans have REFUSED to widen their tent........and this is the consequence; unless the GOP abandons its somewhat racist stance, a republican will only see the oval office as a tourist.