Ohio Joins The Attempt To Shit on The Constitution and Eliminate The Electoral College

[Harpy Eagle]

Now just be honest for once when I ask this question: If you vote for a Democrat Senator, and the Republican Senator wins, did your vote not get thrown out as well? How about for the House, for the Governor?

No, they are not thrown out, they are still part of the tally of votes for the candidate. In a Senate race if I vote for person A, my vote goes into his tally.

But with the winner take all system coupled with the EC, the 4.4 million people that voted for Trump in Cali have zero impact on the tally for president, their votes account for zero EC votes. People like to say that it is a waste of a vote to vote for a 3rd party candidate, but in the current system the same was true of voting for Trump in Cali or Hillary in Wyoming.

In the last election, roughly 55 million people cast votes for a candidate that had no realistic chance to win the state, and winning the state is all that matters.

 

[Darkwind]

Ohioans might vote to ditch Electoral College. Who's behind the effort? That's a mystery

DemNazis...

If you cannot win fair, you need to change The Rules so you can cheat!

We are in a Civil War.

And The Dems are Invading this country from The Southern Border and attacking our Constitution in our courts and legislatures.

The constitution gives the states the power to choose how they select their Electors and how they will vote.

you cannot shit on the constitution by doing something it gives the power to do

So, to summarize. Ohio must still PARTICIPATE in the Electoral College.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Ohioans might vote to ditch Electoral College. Who's behind the effort? That's a mystery

DemNazis...

If you cannot win fair, you need to change The Rules so you can cheat!

We are in a Civil War.

And The Dems are Invading this country from The Southern Border and attacking our Constitution in our courts and legislatures.

The constitution gives the states the power to choose how they select their Electors and how they will vote.

you cannot shit on the constitution by doing something it gives the power to do

So, to summarize. Ohio must still PARTICIPATE in the Electoral College.

Yes, and the Constitution gives Ohio and every other state the power to choose how to assign their electors and their votes.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Darkwind]

Ohioans might vote to ditch Electoral College. Who's behind the effort? That's a mystery

DemNazis...

If you cannot win fair, you need to change The Rules so you can cheat!

We are in a Civil War.

And The Dems are Invading this country from The Southern Border and attacking our Constitution in our courts and legislatures.

The constitution gives the states the power to choose how they select their Electors and how they will vote.

you cannot shit on the constitution by doing something it gives the power to do

So, to summarize. Ohio must still PARTICIPATE in the Electoral College.

Yes, and the Constitution gives Ohio and every other state the power to choose how to assign their electors and their votes.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

In fact, in most States, the electors don't even have to vote for the popular vote winner. The Democrats were actually urging state electors to vote against the will of the state's vote in the last election as a last ditch effort to keep Congress from confirming Trump.

They [Democrats] always seem to forget that little thing when they scream about doing away with the EC in favor of the popular vote.

 

[martybegan]

It denies a Republican form of government, and violates 1 person 1 votes as imposed on the States via the 14th amendment.
It denies the will of the Majority in State for voters out of the State.

Once AGAIN --- the will of the Majority was denied in the last election in:

1. AridZona
2. Colorado
3. Florida
4. Michigan
5. Minnesota
6. Nevada
7. New Hamster
8. New Mexico
9. North Cackalackee
10. Pennsylvania
11. Utah
12. Virginia
13. Wisconsin

In ALL of which the choice of the majority was nonexistent.

And yet --- every one of these states sent 100% of their electoral votes --- 154 in total --- to a single candidate who failed to crack a majority of the state's vote.

How was the "will of the majority" denied in those States?

Oh, you are being a smarmy twat about the difference between a plurality and a majority.

Figures you have to go to semantics when you don't have a real argument.

Nope. NONE of those states recorded a vote of 50% or more for any candidate. I'm in one of them. In our case we have 15 electors, a conveniently odd number. Did we send 8 electors for Rump and 7 for Clinton? Or 7 for Rump, 6 for Clinton, one each for Johnson/Stein? No, they sent ALL FIFTEEN for Rump. Minority sweeps. THAT's the issue, nothing to do with "pluralities".

All of which means more than half of my state's voters --- as well as every other state on that list --- had their votes immediately shitcanned.

Go right ahead, look 'em up. I'm way ahead of you.

No, the plurality did sweep, and that's how it works.

The State can always change it to 2 EV's per statewide vote, and 1 each for each congressional district. That would be far more fair and more apt to match the popular vote (but who cares) than making your vote beholden to a plurality outside your own State.

Yeah they could do that ------ but they won't. They won't for the same reason they all caved in on WTA in the first place: state status. A state using WTA has more influence than a state apportioning proportionately. If your state gives it up, your neighboring states have more swagger. So clearly that's not going to happen because of mob mentality.

And that's where NPV comes in to undo that electoral cartel.

It's an end run around the proper procedure, amending the constitution. It should be thrown out by the SC just on that point alone.

It's amazing how far progressives will go to get their way, rules be damned.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Once AGAIN --- the will of the Majority was denied in the last election in:

1. AridZona
2. Colorado
3. Florida
4. Michigan
5. Minnesota
6. Nevada
7. New Hamster
8. New Mexico
9. North Cackalackee
10. Pennsylvania
11. Utah
12. Virginia
13. Wisconsin

In ALL of which the choice of the majority was nonexistent.

And yet --- every one of these states sent 100% of their electoral votes --- 154 in total --- to a single candidate who failed to crack a majority of the state's vote.

How was the "will of the majority" denied in those States?

Oh, you are being a smarmy twat about the difference between a plurality and a majority.

Figures you have to go to semantics when you don't have a real argument.

Nope. NONE of those states recorded a vote of 50% or more for any candidate. I'm in one of them. In our case we have 15 electors, a conveniently odd number. Did we send 8 electors for Rump and 7 for Clinton? Or 7 for Rump, 6 for Clinton, one each for Johnson/Stein? No, they sent ALL FIFTEEN for Rump. Minority sweeps. THAT's the issue, nothing to do with "pluralities".

All of which means more than half of my state's voters --- as well as every other state on that list --- had their votes immediately shitcanned.

Go right ahead, look 'em up. I'm way ahead of you.

No, the plurality did sweep, and that's how it works.

The State can always change it to 2 EV's per statewide vote, and 1 each for each congressional district. That would be far more fair and more apt to match the popular vote (but who cares) than making your vote beholden to a plurality outside your own State.

Yeah they could do that ------ but they won't. They won't for the same reason they all caved in on WTA in the first place: state status. A state using WTA has more influence than a state apportioning proportionately. If your state gives it up, your neighboring states have more swagger. So clearly that's not going to happen because of mob mentality.

And that's where NPV comes in to undo that electoral cartel.

It's an end run around the proper procedure, amending the constitution. It should be thrown out by the SC just on that point alone.

It's amazing how far progressives will go to get their way, rules be damned.

It does not violate the Constitution, why should it be thrown out other than your own butthurt?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[martybegan]

How was the "will of the majority" denied in those States?

Oh, you are being a smarmy twat about the difference between a plurality and a majority.

Figures you have to go to semantics when you don't have a real argument.

Nope. NONE of those states recorded a vote of 50% or more for any candidate. I'm in one of them. In our case we have 15 electors, a conveniently odd number. Did we send 8 electors for Rump and 7 for Clinton? Or 7 for Rump, 6 for Clinton, one each for Johnson/Stein? No, they sent ALL FIFTEEN for Rump. Minority sweeps. THAT's the issue, nothing to do with "pluralities".

All of which means more than half of my state's voters --- as well as every other state on that list --- had their votes immediately shitcanned.

Go right ahead, look 'em up. I'm way ahead of you.

No, the plurality did sweep, and that's how it works.

The State can always change it to 2 EV's per statewide vote, and 1 each for each congressional district. That would be far more fair and more apt to match the popular vote (but who cares) than making your vote beholden to a plurality outside your own State.

Yeah they could do that ------ but they won't. They won't for the same reason they all caved in on WTA in the first place: state status. A state using WTA has more influence than a state apportioning proportionately. If your state gives it up, your neighboring states have more swagger. So clearly that's not going to happen because of mob mentality.

And that's where NPV comes in to undo that electoral cartel.

It's an end run around the proper procedure, amending the constitution. It should be thrown out by the SC just on that point alone.

It's amazing how far progressives will go to get their way, rules be damned.

It does not violate the Constitution, why should it be thrown out other than your own butthurt?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

It violates the requirement for States to have a Republican form of government.

It violates one person one vote imposed on the States via the 14th.

it violates The ban on States making compacts without the consent of congress. (and congress giving it would probably violate the checks and balances between the branches)

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN --- the will of the Majority was denied in the last election in:

1. AridZona
2. Colorado
3. Florida
4. Michigan
5. Minnesota
6. Nevada
7. New Hamster
8. New Mexico
9. North Cackalackee
10. Pennsylvania
11. Utah
12. Virginia
13. Wisconsin

In ALL of which the choice of the majority was nonexistent.

And yet --- every one of these states sent 100% of their electoral votes --- 154 in total --- to a single candidate who failed to crack a majority of the state's vote.

How was the "will of the majority" denied in those States?

Oh, you are being a smarmy twat about the difference between a plurality and a majority.

Figures you have to go to semantics when you don't have a real argument.

Nope. NONE of those states recorded a vote of 50% or more for any candidate. I'm in one of them. In our case we have 15 electors, a conveniently odd number. Did we send 8 electors for Rump and 7 for Clinton? Or 7 for Rump, 6 for Clinton, one each for Johnson/Stein? No, they sent ALL FIFTEEN for Rump. Minority sweeps. THAT's the issue, nothing to do with "pluralities".

All of which means more than half of my state's voters --- as well as every other state on that list --- had their votes immediately shitcanned.

Go right ahead, look 'em up. I'm way ahead of you.

No, the plurality did sweep, and that's how it works.

The State can always change it to 2 EV's per statewide vote, and 1 each for each congressional district. That would be far more fair and more apt to match the popular vote (but who cares) than making your vote beholden to a plurality outside your own State.

Yeah they could do that ------ but they won't. They won't for the same reason they all caved in on WTA in the first place: state status. A state using WTA has more influence than a state apportioning proportionately. If your state gives it up, your neighboring states have more swagger. So clearly that's not going to happen because of mob mentality.

And that's where NPV comes in to undo that electoral cartel.

It's an end run around the proper procedure, amending the constitution. It should be thrown out by the SC just on that point alone.

It's amazing how far progressives will go to get their way, rules be damned.

It doesn't REQUIRE an Amendment. It's a simple agreement between states party to that agreement, that those states will revamp the way they choose electors. That decision --- how they choose electors --- is **COMPLETELY** up to each state, so they absolutely have standing to do that.

If by "proper procedure" you refer to WTA ---- and you must be referring to that ---- it literally DOES NOT EXIST anywhere in the Constitution, so there is nothing to "end around". The end-around is circumventing the WTA system, which is nothing but several individual states choosing that method per the above (see COTUS Article II clause 2, to wit:

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. )
​

Not a damn thing in there about what the "proper procedure" is. "Proper" my ass. So in this case the states involved direct a different manner than they had been using before. That -- the idea of changing the method -- has happened dozens of times in the past; this is simply one more. It ain't rocket surgery. Any given state can, if it wishes, LITERALLY flip a coin.

As far as "Progressives" they've been gone for a century but the fact remains this here NPV compact has broad bipartisan support.


And there's nothing you can do about any of that. But you go ahead and show the class these "rules" of "proper procedure" that somehow "require" WTA. Happy huntin'.

 

[BlindBoo]

Once AGAIN --- the will of the Majority was denied in the last election in:

1. AridZona
2. Colorado
3. Florida
4. Michigan
5. Minnesota
6. Nevada
7. New Hamster
8. New Mexico
9. North Cackalackee
10. Pennsylvania
11. Utah
12. Virginia
13. Wisconsin

In ALL of which the choice of the majority was nonexistent.

And yet --- every one of these states sent 100% of their electoral votes --- 154 in total --- to a single candidate who failed to crack a majority of the state's vote.

How was the "will of the majority" denied in those States?

Oh, you are being a smarmy twat about the difference between a plurality and a majority.

Figures you have to go to semantics when you don't have a real argument.

Nope. NONE of those states recorded a vote of 50% or more for any candidate. I'm in one of them. In our case we have 15 electors, a conveniently odd number. Did we send 8 electors for Rump and 7 for Clinton? Or 7 for Rump, 6 for Clinton, one each for Johnson/Stein? No, they sent ALL FIFTEEN for Rump. Minority sweeps. THAT's the issue, nothing to do with "pluralities".

All of which means more than half of my state's voters --- as well as every other state on that list --- had their votes immediately shitcanned.

Go right ahead, look 'em up. I'm way ahead of you.

No, the plurality did sweep, and that's how it works.

The State can always change it to 2 EV's per statewide vote, and 1 each for each congressional district. That would be far more fair and more apt to match the popular vote (but who cares) than making your vote beholden to a plurality outside your own State.

Yeah they could do that ------ but they won't. They won't for the same reason they all caved in on WTA in the first place: state status. A state using WTA has more influence than a state apportioning proportionately. If your state gives it up, your neighboring states have more swagger. So clearly that's not going to happen because of mob mentality.

And that's where NPV comes in to undo that electoral cartel.

It's an end run around the proper procedure, amending the constitution. It should be thrown out by the SC just on that point alone.

It's amazing how far progressives will go to get their way, rules be damned.

There is nothing in the Constitution that deprives the States the right to choose the manner in which they select their electors.

If it ever does come to pass in enough states, I bet it will only take one victory by the other side, thus giving a new meaning to the term Landslide(!), to force a quick change back.

 

[Edgetho]

I haven't looked it into this a whole lot (mostly because I just don't care) but I can tell you this for a fucking FACT --

If dimocrap scum are behind it, it's sleazy as hell.

never fails

 

[Pogo]

I haven't looked it into this a whole lot (mostly because I just don't care) but I can tell you this for a fucking FACT --

If dimocrap scum are behind it, it's sleazy as hell.

never fails

Once again ---- it has broad bipartisan support. We've mentioned Newt Gingrich. John B. Anderson. Jake Garn. Some others I'd have to look up. Has nothing to do with political parties.

 

[martybegan]

How was the "will of the majority" denied in those States?

Oh, you are being a smarmy twat about the difference between a plurality and a majority.

Figures you have to go to semantics when you don't have a real argument.

Nope. NONE of those states recorded a vote of 50% or more for any candidate. I'm in one of them. In our case we have 15 electors, a conveniently odd number. Did we send 8 electors for Rump and 7 for Clinton? Or 7 for Rump, 6 for Clinton, one each for Johnson/Stein? No, they sent ALL FIFTEEN for Rump. Minority sweeps. THAT's the issue, nothing to do with "pluralities".

All of which means more than half of my state's voters --- as well as every other state on that list --- had their votes immediately shitcanned.

Go right ahead, look 'em up. I'm way ahead of you.

No, the plurality did sweep, and that's how it works.

The State can always change it to 2 EV's per statewide vote, and 1 each for each congressional district. That would be far more fair and more apt to match the popular vote (but who cares) than making your vote beholden to a plurality outside your own State.

Yeah they could do that ------ but they won't. They won't for the same reason they all caved in on WTA in the first place: state status. A state using WTA has more influence than a state apportioning proportionately. If your state gives it up, your neighboring states have more swagger. So clearly that's not going to happen because of mob mentality.

And that's where NPV comes in to undo that electoral cartel.

It's an end run around the proper procedure, amending the constitution. It should be thrown out by the SC just on that point alone.

It's amazing how far progressives will go to get their way, rules be damned.

It doesn't REQUIRE an Amendment. It's a simple agreement between states party to that agreement, that those states will revamp the way they choose electors. That decision --- how they choose electors --- is **COMPLETELY** up to each state, so they absolutely have standing to do that.

If by "proper procedure" you refer to WTA ---- and you must be referring to that ---- it literally DOES NOT EXIST anywhere in the Constitution, so there is nothing to "end around". The end-around is circumventing the WTA system, which is nothing but several individual states choosing that method per the above (see COTUS Article II clause 2, to wit:

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. )
​

Not a damn thing in there about what the "proper procedure" is. "Proper" my ass. So in this case the states involved direct a different manner than they had been using before. That -- the idea of changing the method -- has happened dozens of times in the past; this is simply one more. It ain't rocket surgery. Any given state can, if it wishes, LITERALLY flip a coin.

As far as "Progressives" they've been gone for a century but the fact remains this here NPV compact has broad bipartisan support.


And there's nothing you can do about any of that. But you go ahead and show the class these "rules" of "proper procedure" that somehow "require" WTA. Happy huntin'.

To do that you have to ignore my 3 points made about OTHER parts of the constitution that seem to say this type of agreement doesn't work.

Bipartisan support?

BULLSHIT. It's a dem move only. Stop lying, oxygen thief.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nope. NONE of those states recorded a vote of 50% or more for any candidate. I'm in one of them. In our case we have 15 electors, a conveniently odd number. Did we send 8 electors for Rump and 7 for Clinton? Or 7 for Rump, 6 for Clinton, one each for Johnson/Stein? No, they sent ALL FIFTEEN for Rump. Minority sweeps. THAT's the issue, nothing to do with "pluralities".

All of which means more than half of my state's voters --- as well as every other state on that list --- had their votes immediately shitcanned.

Go right ahead, look 'em up. I'm way ahead of you.

No, the plurality did sweep, and that's how it works.

The State can always change it to 2 EV's per statewide vote, and 1 each for each congressional district. That would be far more fair and more apt to match the popular vote (but who cares) than making your vote beholden to a plurality outside your own State.

Yeah they could do that ------ but they won't. They won't for the same reason they all caved in on WTA in the first place: state status. A state using WTA has more influence than a state apportioning proportionately. If your state gives it up, your neighboring states have more swagger. So clearly that's not going to happen because of mob mentality.

And that's where NPV comes in to undo that electoral cartel.

It's an end run around the proper procedure, amending the constitution. It should be thrown out by the SC just on that point alone.

It's amazing how far progressives will go to get their way, rules be damned.

It does not violate the Constitution, why should it be thrown out other than your own butthurt?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

It violates the requirement for States to have a Republican form of government.

It violates one person one vote imposed on the States via the 14th.

it violates The ban on States making compacts without the consent of congress. (and congress giving it would probably violate the checks and balances between the branches)

It has nothing to do with the State's form of Government.

It stops no one from voting.

They probably don't need the consent of Congress, but I understand they will ask for it if/when there are enough states in agreement.

 

[martybegan]

How was the "will of the majority" denied in those States?

Oh, you are being a smarmy twat about the difference between a plurality and a majority.

Figures you have to go to semantics when you don't have a real argument.

Nope. NONE of those states recorded a vote of 50% or more for any candidate. I'm in one of them. In our case we have 15 electors, a conveniently odd number. Did we send 8 electors for Rump and 7 for Clinton? Or 7 for Rump, 6 for Clinton, one each for Johnson/Stein? No, they sent ALL FIFTEEN for Rump. Minority sweeps. THAT's the issue, nothing to do with "pluralities".

All of which means more than half of my state's voters --- as well as every other state on that list --- had their votes immediately shitcanned.

Go right ahead, look 'em up. I'm way ahead of you.

No, the plurality did sweep, and that's how it works.

The State can always change it to 2 EV's per statewide vote, and 1 each for each congressional district. That would be far more fair and more apt to match the popular vote (but who cares) than making your vote beholden to a plurality outside your own State.

Yeah they could do that ------ but they won't. They won't for the same reason they all caved in on WTA in the first place: state status. A state using WTA has more influence than a state apportioning proportionately. If your state gives it up, your neighboring states have more swagger. So clearly that's not going to happen because of mob mentality.

And that's where NPV comes in to undo that electoral cartel.

It's an end run around the proper procedure, amending the constitution. It should be thrown out by the SC just on that point alone.

It's amazing how far progressives will go to get their way, rules be damned.

There is nothing in the Constitution that deprives the States the right to choose the manner in which they select their electors.

If it ever does come to pass in enough states, I bet it will only take one victory by the other side, thus giving a new meaning to the term Landslide(!), to force a quick change back.

I listed the three parts of the constitution that there are issues with a compact like this.

1. Guarantee of a Republican form of government
2. Equal protection (one person one vote)
3. No state-state compacts without the approval of congress.

 

[martybegan]

No, the plurality did sweep, and that's how it works.

The State can always change it to 2 EV's per statewide vote, and 1 each for each congressional district. That would be far more fair and more apt to match the popular vote (but who cares) than making your vote beholden to a plurality outside your own State.

Yeah they could do that ------ but they won't. They won't for the same reason they all caved in on WTA in the first place: state status. A state using WTA has more influence than a state apportioning proportionately. If your state gives it up, your neighboring states have more swagger. So clearly that's not going to happen because of mob mentality.

And that's where NPV comes in to undo that electoral cartel.

It's an end run around the proper procedure, amending the constitution. It should be thrown out by the SC just on that point alone.

It's amazing how far progressives will go to get their way, rules be damned.

It does not violate the Constitution, why should it be thrown out other than your own butthurt?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

It violates the requirement for States to have a Republican form of government.

It violates one person one vote imposed on the States via the 14th.

it violates The ban on States making compacts without the consent of congress. (and congress giving it would probably violate the checks and balances between the branches)

It has nothing to do with the State's form of Government.

It stops no one from voting.

They probably don't need the consent of Congress, but I understand they will ask for it if/when there are enough states in agreement.

It eliminates a person's vote for president, effectively giving control of it to people in other States.

A majority in the State could vote for person X, but the compact gives electors to person Y.

It's amazing how short sighted partisan idiots get when they think they may get an advantage.

 

[Edgetho]

Once again ---- it has broad bipartisan support. We've mentioned Newt Gingrich. John B. Anderson. Jake Garn. Some others I'd have to look up. Has nothing to do with political parties.

I love it.

One thing we can always count on with dims --

You're always campaigning to win the last election......

I'm telling you right now, a popular vote (which is what you're really going for here) might just surprise the hell out of you.

Untold MILLIONS of Patriotic Conservatives in places like Kalifornication, New Yawk, Illinoisy, The People's Republic of Massachusetts, etc, etc, etc just don't bother to vote.

dimocrap scum have managed to disenfranchise them to the point of realizing that voting in those States is utterly futile. No matter what, the dimocrap is gonna win.

And Conservatives know it.

I would welcome a National Popular Vote.

You people would get thrown from office so fast, it wouldn't even be funny.

And, if not....... If you retain your criminal ways........ Do you remember the quote from Jefferson about ''The Tree of Liberty...."?

You really should keep that in mind. It's getting much, much closer to realization than you can possibly imagine

 

[BlindBoo]

Yeah they could do that ------ but they won't. They won't for the same reason they all caved in on WTA in the first place: state status. A state using WTA has more influence than a state apportioning proportionately. If your state gives it up, your neighboring states have more swagger. So clearly that's not going to happen because of mob mentality.

And that's where NPV comes in to undo that electoral cartel.

It's an end run around the proper procedure, amending the constitution. It should be thrown out by the SC just on that point alone.

It's amazing how far progressives will go to get their way, rules be damned.

It does not violate the Constitution, why should it be thrown out other than your own butthurt?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

It violates the requirement for States to have a Republican form of government.

It violates one person one vote imposed on the States via the 14th.

it violates The ban on States making compacts without the consent of congress. (and congress giving it would probably violate the checks and balances between the branches)

It has nothing to do with the State's form of Government.

It stops no one from voting.

They probably don't need the consent of Congress, but I understand they will ask for it if/when there are enough states in agreement.

It eliminates a person's vote for president, effectively giving control of it to people in other States.

A majority in the State could vote for person X, but the compact gives electors to person Y.

It's amazing how short sighted partisan idiots get when they think they may get an advantage.

No, it puts everyone's vote across all 50 states on the same equal footing.

I agree it is short sighted and can (if ever passed) easily be overturned by a single State legislature. The best solution is for an Amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is nothing in the Constitution that deprives the States the right to choose the manner in which they select their electors.

Since you refused to understand the information I gave you previously, I'll repeat it here.

Article 1 Sec 10:3
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress....enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote
Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

This agreement violates the constitution, verbatim.

 

[martybegan]

It's an end run around the proper procedure, amending the constitution. It should be thrown out by the SC just on that point alone.

It's amazing how far progressives will go to get their way, rules be damned.

It does not violate the Constitution, why should it be thrown out other than your own butthurt?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

It violates the requirement for States to have a Republican form of government.

It violates one person one vote imposed on the States via the 14th.

it violates The ban on States making compacts without the consent of congress. (and congress giving it would probably violate the checks and balances between the branches)

It has nothing to do with the State's form of Government.

It stops no one from voting.

They probably don't need the consent of Congress, but I understand they will ask for it if/when there are enough states in agreement.

It eliminates a person's vote for president, effectively giving control of it to people in other States.

A majority in the State could vote for person X, but the compact gives electors to person Y.

It's amazing how short sighted partisan idiots get when they think they may get an advantage.

No, it puts everyone's vote across all 50 states on the same equal footing.

I agree it is short sighted and can (if ever passed) easily be overturned by a single State legislature. The best solution is for an Amendment.

That is against the concept of the EC and presidential elections. And I still think it violates all 3 of the constitutional issues I listed, but it only has to violate 1 to be stomped by the SC.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Democrats intend that the country be under the control of the coastal megacities. That's why they are shoehorning third world illegal immigrants into Los Angeles and New York and giving them the vote.