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

[g5000]

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The electoral college was born of slave owners to protect slavery from the abolitionist north. It's origins are tainted and it's original purpose no longer exists. People like to explain that it protects rural voters from irrelevance but what it really does is make minority party votes worthless. If you vote democrat in a red state or republican in a blue state your vote has probably never counted. I want my vote to count.

That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You have no understanding of this republic

The last sentence from him is correct.

In the state i live in, 2.1 million people vote for Trump and 209,000 voted for Johnson. Both voters had the same impact on the election, both groups of voters accounted for the exact same number of electrical votes...zero

In Texas 3.8 million people voted for Hillary and 283,000 voted for Johnson. Both voters had the same impact on the election, both groups of voters accounted for the exact same number of electrical votes...zero

This is an inherent weakness with the EC but more with the winner take all system that we have.

Yeah, the fact that having fewer votes means you lost and don't get to have the President you wanted isn't a "weakness with the EC"; it's actually THE INTENDED RESULT with having an election in general.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The electoral college was born of slave owners to protect slavery from the abolitionist north. It's origins are tainted and it's original purpose no longer exists. People like to explain that it protects rural voters from irrelevance but what it really does is make minority party votes worthless. If you vote democrat in a red state or republican in a blue state your vote has probably never counted. I want my vote to count.

That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You have no understanding of this republic

You must live in a state where your vote counts for something.

I did a quick calculation and I came up to about 55 million people cast votes in states for a candidate that had zero chance to win that state (I used the winner taking more than 60% of the vote as my cutoff.)

And?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is legal precedent that only agreements or compacts that challenge the supremacy of the Federal Government need the Consent of Congress.

Cite, please.

Congressional Consent and the Permission for States to Enter into Interstate Compacts | CSG Knowledge Center

This is why you have to read the cases.
Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893)

In the opinion explaining the case:
The compact or agreement will then be within the prohibition of the Constitution, or without it, according as the establishment of the boundary line may lead or not to the increase of the political power or influence of the states affected and thus encroach or not upon the full and free exercise of federal authority. If the boundary established is so run as to cut off an important and valuable portion of a state, the political power of the state enlarged would be affected by the settlement of the boundary, and to an agreement for the running of such a boundary, or rather for its adoption afterwards, the consent of Congress may well be required.

In the case of the NPV, , we have a number of states conspiring to remove something of value from other states - the power of their electoral votes- and in doing so, increase their own political power and influence -- the electoral votes of the states not party to the compact will never matter as the states within the compact will always outweigh their votes. Given the clear parallel to example, above, the consent of congress is required.

All the states have the absolute right to choose the way they select their electors. There is no constitutional method of selecting electors that Congress could impose on the states.

Aha. You see my point, you just don't want to recognize it.
The compacts and agreements clause forbids an agreement such as this, for the reasons described above.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What are we going to about it? We allow them to get away with.....everything.

Anyone executed or even arrested for their high treason or coup attempt?

No?

Let me know when that happens.

Cause we may think we won with the whole collusion shit. We have not won crap. The only thing we got is their giggles.

We want their ******* tears. Get that? Cause until we get those for their blatant treason, then we are fucked.

Many someones need to get their asses on the ball with multi-pronged attacks on this Unamerican, tyrannical bullshit.

I can tell you that if Arizona tries to sign on to this horseshit, I will not be standing still for the left to disenfranchise and enslave ME.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What are we going to about it? We allow them to get away with.....everything.

Since what they are doing is not against the Constitution, you are right, you will do nothing about it.

Since what they are doing is not only against the Constitution but a violation of the rights of their constituents and of their oaths of office thereto, you only WISH we would do nothing about it.

It never ceases to amaze me how leftists can cloak their naked grabs for unconstrained power in the Constitution with a straight face. It either speaks to their unbounded evil or their unbounded ignorance . . . or both.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Is the EC written into the Constitution?

I'm sorry to say it is;

The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. ... A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President.
U. S. Electoral College, Official - What is the Electoral College?

U. S. Electoral College, Official - What is the Electoral College?


however...It is my contention that people living to day shouldn't be bound by the mistakes of our founders.

they allowed slavery
we fixed that
women couldn't vote
we fixed that
The EC is no longer necessary and isn't allocated fairly. Time for it to go.

Feel free to put that Amendment up for ratification. But stop trying to weasel around the Constitution to impose your desires onto people. Present your alleged "superiority" to the Founders honestly where everyone can laugh at you derisively as you deserve.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Bullshit, it rewrites The Constitution giving all of Ohio’s Electoral Votes to Hillary Clinton even if President Trump Wins Ohio!

IF this were in place in 2016, then it not only stabs Ohio voters in the back, but everyone not living in New York City Chicago, Miami or Los Angelos has Zero Representation in National Elections for President.

It would Completely overturn The 2016 Election and have All The States Trump won 33 of them actually cast their votes for Clinton.

Wake the Hell Up People!

It’s a big Screw You to All The State’s Voters!

These people proposing this need to be hunted down and dragged through the streets then tarred and feathered and set on fire!

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.

Read your own link Drama Llama. Nothing in it says anything about "ditching the Electoral College". It's actually entirely within the guidelines of the Constitution. Unless of course you can show the class where the COTUS dictates how the states "must" choose electors.

Rotsa ruck finding that Dumbass.

This is what happens when we allow leftists to dumb down the populace into a bunch of herdable sheep for decades.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Good. We are a 21st. Century Country voting with a 18th. Century Model. Get rid the damn Electoral College!

I think we should stick with the 18th century model until you can prove that the 21st century isn't full of devolved imbeciles. And son, you're Exhibit A in favor of that theory, so . . .

 

[Pogo]

Is the EC written into the Constitution?

I'm sorry to say it is;

The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. ... A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President.
U. S. Electoral College, Official - What is the Electoral College?

U. S. Electoral College, Official - What is the Electoral College?


however...It is my contention that people living to day shouldn't be bound by the mistakes of our founders.

they allowed slavery
we fixed that
women couldn't vote
we fixed that
The EC is no longer necessary and isn't allocated fairly. Time for it to go.

Feel free to put that Amendment up for ratification. But stop trying to weasel around the Constitution to impose your desires onto people. Present your alleged "superiority" to the Founders honestly where everyone can laugh at you derisively as you deserve.

Once AGAIN Dimwit --- there is no part of the Constitution that needs "weaseling around" under this compact.

NONE. ZERO.

I challenged you to find one, and you can't do it. All you do is sit here and whine.

 

[Siete]

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.

Tards are avoiding that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ like a case of HIV.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

It can never be done. Ratification of an amendment to the Constitution requires 3/4 of the States, and even discussing the issue to begin with and proposing the amendment takes 2/3 of the States.

Democrats would have to threaten the vastly more numerous small states with military invasion to force them into compliance...at which point...let the 2nd Amendment remedies begin.

I believe Ohio has always prided itself on being a crucial swing state. One can only imagine the howls of betrayal from their mouthbreathers who support this nonsense on the ridiculous belief that it will give them even more power and importance, when the first election comes and none of the candidates bother to pay them any attention, and then they vote and are told that their state is supporting X candidate despite the fact that they themselves voted for Y candidate.

 

[Pogo]

What are we going to about it? We allow them to get away with.....everything.

Since what they are doing is not against the Constitution, you are right, you will do nothing about it.

Since what they are doing is not only against the Constitution but a violation of the rights of their constituents and of their oaths of office thereto, you only WISH we would do nothing about it.

It never ceases to amaze me how leftists can cloak their naked grabs for unconstrained power in the Constitution with a straight face. It either speaks to their unbounded evil or their unbounded ignorance . . . or both.

"Leftists" like..............

• Newt Gingrich (link to his letter)...

• Bob Barr (link to his letter soliciting support)....

• Former Reps John B. Anderson (R-IL), John Buchanan (R-AL) and Tom Campbell (R-CA)

• Twenty-five Michigan state senators --- fifteen of whom are Republicans....

• Survey of Michigan voters --- with support from more than two-thirds of Republicans....

• Similar survey of Missouri voters -- with support from more than three-quarters or Republican respondents....

• Yet another survey in Arizona, again with over 75% Republican support....

• Republican-controlled state legislative chambers in Arizona, New York and Oklahoma having already passed it....

• Former Sens. Jake Garn (R-UT) and David Durenberger (R-MN)

• Eight former ALEC chairs....

Learn to read, DUMBASS.

I can tell you that if Arizona tries to sign on to this horseshit, I will not be standing still for the left to disenfranchise and enslave ME.

Assume the position for "slavery" in four......... three........ two...........

>> In January 2019, Representatives Powers-Hannley, Andrade, Blanc, Gabaldón, Jermaine, Peten, Rodriguez, Salman, Teller, Terán and Senator Gonzales inroduced the National Popular Vote bill (status of HB2414).

In January 2017, Representatives Salman, Alston, Andrade, Benally, Blanc, Bolding, Cardenas, Chávez, Clark, Engel, Espinoza, Fernandez, Gabaldón, Hernandez, Martinez, Navarrete, Powers Hannley, Rios, Rubalcava, Saldate, Senators Contreras, and Mendez introduced the National Popular Vote bill (Status of HB2277).

On February 4, 2016, the Arizona House of Representatives passed the National Popular Vote bill, with two-thirds of the members voting in favor of the legislation. The vote was 40 Yes, 16 No, and 4 absences or abstentions. The Arizona House is the third Republican-controlled state legislative chamber to pass the bill (the Oklahoma Senate and New York Senate being the other two).

On February 4, 2016, the House Committee of the Whole approved the National Popular Vote bill.

On February 2, 2016, the House Elections Committee gave the National Popular Vote bill a “do pass” recommendation with a 5-1 vote, and the House Rules Committee approved the bill 7-0. Arizona Capitol Times article.

In January 2016, two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the National Popular Vote bill (Status of HB 2456). The bill was sponsored by Representative J. D. Mesnard and 39 other Representatives.

In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the National Popular Vote bill (Status of SB 1218). The bill was sponsored by Senator Don Shooter and 19 other Senators.


.... In a third question, Arizona voters were asked:

"Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like the one used in Nebraska and Maine where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of the state's electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?

In this third question, 73% preferred the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states; 14% preferred that electoral votes be dispensed by congressional district; and 13% preferred that all of the state's electoral votes go to the statewide winner (the existing "winner-take-all" rule).

The survey was conducted by Public Policy Polling, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 1/2%. Details of Arizona poll << << ---- way to keep up, Dumbass
​

Oh and your state, like mine, was one of thirteen out of 48 WTA mongers in which most of your state's votes were ALREADY tossed in the shitcan since nobody won as much as 50% of the vote. So much for "disenfranchisement"

Oh the density

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

/——/ The Constitution trumps state law and the EC is the constitution

Let me type this a bit slower for you since you have such poor reading comprehension...

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

It's not as simple as you're claiming.

...States Legislatures pass laws agreeing to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, but it only kicks in when enough states sign on to add up to 270 electoral votes.

...But that still leaves a key question: If the compact ever got to that 270-threshold, could states award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, or would Congress need to sign off?

If the compact ever meets that benchmark, it’s likely that someone would file a challenge. It’s likely the U.S. Supreme Court would have to rule on whether the system is permissible.

The Compact Clause of the Constitution states that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power." The courts have ruled in the past that if federal supremacy is threatened, then congressional consent is required for a compact to be valid.

Could states overturn the electoral college?

And this one doesn't threaten federal anything. The Constitution plainly allots to the several states the decision of how they allocate their electoral votes. This is simply another way of doing it.

If it wanted a state could consult a psychic to ascertain how its votes get allocated. It could spin a wheel. It could draw names out of a hat.

/——-/ If the voters in that state went overwhelmingly for one candidate but the state forced the EC to vote for the other one it would be challenged in court

 

[Pogo]

There is legal precedent that only agreements or compacts that challenge the supremacy of the Federal Government need the Consent of Congress.

Cite, please.

Congressional Consent and the Permission for States to Enter into Interstate Compacts | CSG Knowledge Center

This is why you have to read the cases.
Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893)

In the opinion explaining the case:
The compact or agreement will then be within the prohibition of the Constitution, or without it, according as the establishment of the boundary line may lead or not to the increase of the political power or influence of the states affected and thus encroach or not upon the full and free exercise of federal authority. If the boundary established is so run as to cut off an important and valuable portion of a state, the political power of the state enlarged would be affected by the settlement of the boundary, and to an agreement for the running of such a boundary, or rather for its adoption afterwards, the consent of Congress may well be required.

In the case of the NPV, , we have a number of states conspiring to remove something of value from other states - the power of their electoral votes- and in doing so, increase their own political power and influence -- the electoral votes of the states not party to the compact will never matter as the states within the compact will always outweigh their votes. Given the clear parallel to example, above, the consent of congress is required.

All the states have the absolute right to choose the way they select their electors. There is no constitutional method of selecting electors that Congress could impose on the states.

Aha. You see my point, you just don't want to recognize it.
The compacts and agreements clause forbids an agreement such as this, for the reasons described above.

No Sprinkles, it doesn't.

 

[DOTR]

This is just another power play by the elites. Ohio could vote 98% GOP and the votes of Ohio be awarded to the Democrat because that’s the way the natiinal vote trended.
An uneducated public, more familiar with grievance than the constitution, will give away their own voice.

 

[Pogo]

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

/——/ The Constitution trumps state law and the EC is the constitution

Let me type this a bit slower for you since you have such poor reading comprehension...

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

It's not as simple as you're claiming.

...States Legislatures pass laws agreeing to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, but it only kicks in when enough states sign on to add up to 270 electoral votes.

...But that still leaves a key question: If the compact ever got to that 270-threshold, could states award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, or would Congress need to sign off?

If the compact ever meets that benchmark, it’s likely that someone would file a challenge. It’s likely the U.S. Supreme Court would have to rule on whether the system is permissible.

The Compact Clause of the Constitution states that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power." The courts have ruled in the past that if federal supremacy is threatened, then congressional consent is required for a compact to be valid.

Could states overturn the electoral college?

And this one doesn't threaten federal anything. The Constitution plainly allots to the several states the decision of how they allocate their electoral votes. This is simply another way of doing it.

If it wanted a state could consult a psychic to ascertain how its votes get allocated. It could spin a wheel. It could draw names out of a hat.

/——-/ If the voters in that state went overwhelmingly for one candidate but the state forced the EC to vote for the other one it would be challenged in court

It would have no basis to be challenged in court. AGAIN, a state can throw darts at pictures of candidates if it wants. It isn't even required to hold an election AT ALL.

 

[Edgetho]

I missed almost all of this thread because it's just anther dimocrap wet dream but, Enquiring Minds Wants to know --

Who makes the decision who to award the State's Electoral Votes to??

I mean, fer instance, let's say a State votes by a 60-40 majority to award its EV's to a dimocrap but the Republican won the National Popular Vote.......

Who makes the decision to go against the Will Of The People??

And let's say it's a tight race. And those 20 EV's will toss the election to the Republican.

You're gonna tell me that a dimocrap governor, a dimocrap legislature and a dimocrap population is going to give its EV's to a Republican and hand him the Presidency??

Are you really that stupid?

Yes, you are.

But I also know that dimocrap scum would find a way around doing something they'd already agreed to do.

Because. Well......... Because they're scum.

Always have been. Always will be

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ The Constitution trumps state law and the EC is the constitution

Let me type this a bit slower for you since you have such poor reading comprehension...

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

It's not as simple as you're claiming.

...States Legislatures pass laws agreeing to award their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, but it only kicks in when enough states sign on to add up to 270 electoral votes.

...But that still leaves a key question: If the compact ever got to that 270-threshold, could states award their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, or would Congress need to sign off?

If the compact ever meets that benchmark, it’s likely that someone would file a challenge. It’s likely the U.S. Supreme Court would have to rule on whether the system is permissible.

The Compact Clause of the Constitution states that "no state shall, without the consent of Congress enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power." The courts have ruled in the past that if federal supremacy is threatened, then congressional consent is required for a compact to be valid.

Could states overturn the electoral college?

And this one doesn't threaten federal anything. The Constitution plainly allots to the several states the decision of how they allocate their electoral votes. This is simply another way of doing it.

If it wanted a state could consult a psychic to ascertain how its votes get allocated. It could spin a wheel. It could draw names out of a hat.

/——-/ If the voters in that state went overwhelmingly for one candidate but the state forced the EC to vote for the other one it would be challenged in court

It would have no basis to be challenged in court. AGAIN, a state can throw darts at pictures of candidates if it wants. It isn't even required to hold an election AT ALL.

/—-/ When this backfires on democRATs you wait and see how quickly they run to court to stop it.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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

/——/ The Constitution trumps state law and the EC is the constitution

Let me type this a bit slower for you since you have such poor reading comprehension...

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

Are you familiar with the concept of "reserved and delegated powers"?

/——/ If an elector fails to cast a ballot for the presidential or vice presidential candidate of the party under whose name the elector was chosen, the elector's vote or abstention is invalidated and an alternate presidential elector, chosen by lot from among the alternates, shall cast a ballot in the name of the elector for the presidential and vice presidential candidate of the party under whose name the elector was chosen. Are state laws restricting electors' votes constitutional?