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

[candycorn]

Nebraska and Maine award their electoral votes by, in part, who wins a congressional district in the state. If a state can (as they have) use something other than receiving an overall plurality of votes in the state, they can arguably use something different than what ME and NE utilize to award electors.

The only change I would like to see made to the system is a requirement that the President Elect win not only the electoral collage as we have it now (270) but also get a plurality of the votes cast by voters. Anything less that and the current provisions that we have if nobody gets 270 are implemented. Under this change, the small states would still enjoy their seats at the table but you'd also ensure that the voters cast more ballots for the winner than any other candidate.

You DO see the difference between Nebraska and Maine apportioning EC votes based on something that happened IN THAT ACTUAL STATE, and the proposition that a state's EC votes should be decided by PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THAT STATE, right? Or is that a higher level of sanity than you can manage, Cornball?

I was simply pointing out that states have different methodologies you dreadful bitch

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 would compel the Supreme Court to strike down such a shenanigan. In short is says no State shall "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State" without the consent of Congress. I would think this section of Clause 3 would especially apply to States trying to circumvent the Constitution.

So I wouldn't get too upset about it.

Yeah, it doesn't. There IS NO circumvention of the Constitution.

Wrong again commie, the States are given the power to allocate electors based on how their citizens vote, winner take all or proportional. They can not engage in a multi-state compact to award their electors base on the votes of other States citizens, without the consent of Congress.

NOPE. There is **NOTHING** --- ZERO --- in the Constitution requiring any state anywhere to even hold a vote at all.

Prove me wrong.

Article 2, Section 1, 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.

All States have chosen to appoint electors based on the votes of their citizens. Only two States have chosen to appoint electors in a proportional manner. In theory a State who enters into this sham compact could completely nullify the majority vote of their own State, I don't think the spremes will sign off on such a power grab.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.)

So you’d rather have New York and California vote and let the rest of the nation’s votes not count? I agree the winner take all model however dividing the EC in states would better represent the Republic.

About 130 million people voted in the last election, 16% of those were in Cali or NY. How does 16% make the rest of the nation not count?

In the 2016 election, roughly 55 million people voted in states for a candidate that had no realistic chance to win that state. That means that roughly 42% of the people cast votes knowing they would not count in the winner take all system we now have.

Please learn the difference between losing an election and "not counting" in an election.

I know the difference, if you candidate lost the state then your vote does not count in the election of the President as you have not accounted for any electoral votes.

please learn how our system works

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a state deciding how the electoral votes are apportioned. You may not like it but hey...tough shit

Good, let em do it. I'm looking forward to another civil war. This time conservatives vs liberals.

There is going to be a civil war for people doing what the Constitution allows?

There's going to be a civil war if you keep subverting the Constitution while pretending you're in line with it. You may or may not be stupid enough to believe the Constitution intended to give state legislatures unlimited power to ignore and disenfranchise their own constituents - I certainly wouldn't put any level of stupidity past you - but I doubt you can convince a majority of people that's really what they intended.

The constitution is clear on this, sorry you are too stupid to realize it.

I am betting you did not even know that it is only fairly recently that the people had any say on who the nominee from each party was going to be

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.)

So you’d rather have New York and California vote and let the rest of the nation’s votes not count? I agree the winner take all model however dividing the EC in states would better represent the Republic.

About 130 million people voted in the last election, 16% of those were in Cali or NY. How does 16% make the rest of the nation not count?

In the 2016 election, roughly 55 million people voted in states for a candidate that had no realistic chance to win that state. That means that roughly 42% of the people cast votes knowing they would not count in the winner take all system we now have.

It also means who-knows-how-many people just said "fuck it what's the point" and didn't vote at all (45% of the electorate to be exact). Because indeed when your state is predetermined, what IS the point, even if it's predetermined in the way you want?

without a doubt, our current system discourages participation in 2/3 of the states.

That's not without a doubt, because I doubt it a great deal.

but you are a partisan moron, so you do not really matter

 

[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.

The delegates must vote as their people vote not the nation as a popular contest votes. They are crushing the US Constitution without doing it lawfully by amendment. The law will be struck down by the SCOTUS as it violates the Constitutional mandate.

Unfortunately, Ohio's law doesn't explicitly require the electors to vote as the people of the state vote.

Forgive me if I end up explaining something you already know, but far too many people in this country DON'T know how this works.

What actually happens when most people think they're simply voting for this candidate or that candidate is that they are voting for one slate of electors or another slate of electors (or a third slate of electors, if there's a third party candidate on the ballot). Each party which has a candidate on the ballot chooses its slate of electors to cast that states Electoral votes if their candidate wins the state popular vote.

Originally, there was no legal requirement for an elector to actually cast his vote for the candidate who won in that state. It was expected that they would, but there was nothing to stop them from casting their votes however they pleased. Many states since then, including Ohio, have passed laws to restrict the independence of how electors vote. The law in Ohio specifically states that a “presidential elector . . . shall, when discharging the duties enjoined upon him by the constitution or laws of the United States, cast his electoral vote for the nominees for president and vice-president of the political party which certified him to the secretary of state as a presidential elector pursuant to law.”

In practice, depending on how this asinine "Popular Vote Compact" BS is written, that would mean that X slate of electors actually won the vote, but their win would be taken away from them and given to Y slate of electors, who would then be bound by law to vote for the political party that certified them.

At the time that this law was passed, the people of Ohio THOUGHT they were requiring their electors to vote as the people of the state voted, but THAT law is being perverted by the Democrats, too.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a state deciding how the electoral votes are apportioned. You may not like it but hey...tough shit

Good, let em do it. I'm looking forward to another civil war. This time conservatives vs liberals.

There is going to be a civil war for people doing what the Constitution allows?

There's going to be a civil war if you keep subverting the Constitution while pretending you're in line with it. You may or may not be stupid enough to believe the Constitution intended to give state legislatures unlimited power to ignore and disenfranchise their own constituents - I certainly wouldn't put any level of stupidity past you - but I doubt you can convince a majority of people that's really what they intended.

The constitution is clear on this, sorry you are too stupid to realize it.

I am betting you did not even know that it is only fairly recently that the people had any say on who the nominee from each party was going to be

Translated from Leftspeak, "The Constitution is clear on this" = "I'm quite sure that anything I want is what is correct."

Out of curiosity, do you believe that ALL delegated rights and powers mentioned in the Constitution are completely unlimited in scope, or is it just this one because right at this moment, you REALLY REALLY REALLY want it to be?

And don't even waste my time with your meaningless "I'll bet you didn't know this, because I didn't and I think I'm really clever for having learned it" crap. You have half my IQ points and less than a quarter of my education, and we both know it. Don't even try to pretend otherwise.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a state deciding how the electoral votes are apportioned. You may not like it but hey...tough shit

Good, let em do it. I'm looking forward to another civil war. This time conservatives vs liberals.

There is going to be a civil war for people doing what the Constitution allows?

There's going to be a civil war if you keep subverting the Constitution while pretending you're in line with it. You may or may not be stupid enough to believe the Constitution intended to give state legislatures unlimited power to ignore and disenfranchise their own constituents - I certainly wouldn't put any level of stupidity past you - but I doubt you can convince a majority of people that's really what they intended.

The constitution is clear on this, sorry you are too stupid to realize it.

I am betting you did not even know that it is only fairly recently that the people had any say on who the nominee from each party was going to be

Translated from Leftspeak, "The Constitution is clear on this" = "I'm quite sure that anything I want is what is correct."

Out of curiosity, do you believe that ALL delegated rights and powers mentioned in the Constitution are completely unlimited in scope, or is it just this one because right at this moment, you REALLY REALLY REALLY want it to be?

And don't even waste my time with your meaningless "I'll bet you didn't know this, because I didn't and I think I'm really clever for having learned it" crap. You have half my IQ points and less than a quarter of my education, and we both know it. Don't even try to pretend otherwise.

I do not have to pretend anything sweetheart, your post prove you have the IQ of a head of cabbage and you likely have never seen the inside of a university

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.)

I have a lot of idiot Democrat voters in MA and my vote is indeed meaningless.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Good, let em do it. I'm looking forward to another civil war. This time conservatives vs liberals.

There is going to be a civil war for people doing what the Constitution allows?

There's going to be a civil war if you keep subverting the Constitution while pretending you're in line with it. You may or may not be stupid enough to believe the Constitution intended to give state legislatures unlimited power to ignore and disenfranchise their own constituents - I certainly wouldn't put any level of stupidity past you - but I doubt you can convince a majority of people that's really what they intended.

The constitution is clear on this, sorry you are too stupid to realize it.

I am betting you did not even know that it is only fairly recently that the people had any say on who the nominee from each party was going to be

Translated from Leftspeak, "The Constitution is clear on this" = "I'm quite sure that anything I want is what is correct."

Out of curiosity, do you believe that ALL delegated rights and powers mentioned in the Constitution are completely unlimited in scope, or is it just this one because right at this moment, you REALLY REALLY REALLY want it to be?

And don't even waste my time with your meaningless "I'll bet you didn't know this, because I didn't and I think I'm really clever for having learned it" crap. You have half my IQ points and less than a quarter of my education, and we both know it. Don't even try to pretend otherwise.

I do not have to pretend anything sweetheart, your post prove you have the IQ of a head of cabbage and you likely have never seen the inside of a university

What did cabbage ever do to you? The EC is not going away but I see the flaws in it. Sort off. I also See the flaws in an 18 year old having as much voting power as I do..:

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you’d rather have New York and California vote and let the rest of the nation’s votes not count? I agree the winner take all model however dividing the EC in states would better represent the Republic.

About 130 million people voted in the last election, 16% of those were in Cali or NY. How does 16% make the rest of the nation not count?

In the 2016 election, roughly 55 million people voted in states for a candidate that had no realistic chance to win that state. That means that roughly 42% of the people cast votes knowing they would not count in the winner take all system we now have.

It also means who-knows-how-many people just said "fuck it what's the point" and didn't vote at all (45% of the electorate to be exact). Because indeed when your state is predetermined, what IS the point, even if it's predetermined in the way you want?

without a doubt, our current system discourages participation in 2/3 of the states.

That's not without a doubt, because I doubt it a great deal.

but you are a partisan moron, so you do not really matter

How very democratic of you. Nice that you freely admit that people who disagree with the leftists "do not really matter" in their world.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Good, let em do it. I'm looking forward to another civil war. This time conservatives vs liberals.

There is going to be a civil war for people doing what the Constitution allows?

There's going to be a civil war if you keep subverting the Constitution while pretending you're in line with it. You may or may not be stupid enough to believe the Constitution intended to give state legislatures unlimited power to ignore and disenfranchise their own constituents - I certainly wouldn't put any level of stupidity past you - but I doubt you can convince a majority of people that's really what they intended.

The constitution is clear on this, sorry you are too stupid to realize it.

I am betting you did not even know that it is only fairly recently that the people had any say on who the nominee from each party was going to be

Translated from Leftspeak, "The Constitution is clear on this" = "I'm quite sure that anything I want is what is correct."

Out of curiosity, do you believe that ALL delegated rights and powers mentioned in the Constitution are completely unlimited in scope, or is it just this one because right at this moment, you REALLY REALLY REALLY want it to be?

And don't even waste my time with your meaningless "I'll bet you didn't know this, because I didn't and I think I'm really clever for having learned it" crap. You have half my IQ points and less than a quarter of my education, and we both know it. Don't even try to pretend otherwise.

I do not have to pretend anything sweetheart, your post prove you have the IQ of a head of cabbage and you likely have never seen the inside of a university

Considering that your definition of "stupid and uneducated" means simply "doesn't agree with me", that means nothing.

Now, if you're done trying and failing to sound superior, perhaps you could gin up the balls to actually answer the question . . . always assuming you're literate enough to figure out what it was.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is going to be a civil war for people doing what the Constitution allows?

There's going to be a civil war if you keep subverting the Constitution while pretending you're in line with it. You may or may not be stupid enough to believe the Constitution intended to give state legislatures unlimited power to ignore and disenfranchise their own constituents - I certainly wouldn't put any level of stupidity past you - but I doubt you can convince a majority of people that's really what they intended.

The constitution is clear on this, sorry you are too stupid to realize it.

I am betting you did not even know that it is only fairly recently that the people had any say on who the nominee from each party was going to be

Translated from Leftspeak, "The Constitution is clear on this" = "I'm quite sure that anything I want is what is correct."

Out of curiosity, do you believe that ALL delegated rights and powers mentioned in the Constitution are completely unlimited in scope, or is it just this one because right at this moment, you REALLY REALLY REALLY want it to be?

And don't even waste my time with your meaningless "I'll bet you didn't know this, because I didn't and I think I'm really clever for having learned it" crap. You have half my IQ points and less than a quarter of my education, and we both know it. Don't even try to pretend otherwise.

I do not have to pretend anything sweetheart, your post prove you have the IQ of a head of cabbage and you likely have never seen the inside of a university

What did cabbage ever do to you? The EC is not going away but I see the flaws in it. Sort off. I also See the flaws in an 18 year old having as much voting power as I do..:

I see the flaw in people with an IQ of 18 having as much voting power as I do (yes, I'm looking at you, Golf).

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nebraska and Maine award their electoral votes by, in part, who wins a congressional district in the state. If a state can (as they have) use something other than receiving an overall plurality of votes in the state, they can arguably use something different than what ME and NE utilize to award electors.

The only change I would like to see made to the system is a requirement that the President Elect win not only the electoral collage as we have it now (270) but also get a plurality of the votes cast by voters. Anything less that and the current provisions that we have if nobody gets 270 are implemented. Under this change, the small states would still enjoy their seats at the table but you'd also ensure that the voters cast more ballots for the winner than any other candidate.

You DO see the difference between Nebraska and Maine apportioning EC votes based on something that happened IN THAT ACTUAL STATE, and the proposition that a state's EC votes should be decided by PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THAT STATE, right? Or is that a higher level of sanity than you can manage, Cornball?

I was simply pointing out that states have different methodologies you dreadful bitch

And you felt the need to point out the painfully obvious and well-known because . . . ? By all means, DO amuse me by trying to pretend that you weren't drawing an incorrect parallel.

Btw, I'd rather be a dreadful bitch than a dreadful fool, but you clearly didn't make the same choice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Accepting the Founders' reasons,

If electors thought Trump would try an end run around the appropriations clause to appease a vocal minority of the masses, should they have cast their votes for him?

Depending on their state, I don't know that a lot of electors have a choice in the matter any more.

 

[Cellblock2429]

You don't have the foggiest idea what's in the Constitution and what isn't, Dumfuck. ANY state ANYWHERE can choose its Electors any way it likes. It can set up a Ouija board. It can throw darts at names. It can read tea leaves. ALL Constitutional, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Correct, they can, but not forced to by law. In this case, what's being proposed is that it doesn't matter what the electors say or think. They must give all EC votes to whoever wins the national popular vote.

You have to wonder if any of the everyday people who enthuse over this idea have actually run all the possible scenarios in their heads.

/——/ Here’s a scenario for the libtards. Red states pass a law requiring their EC votes to go to the one with the least popular votes essentially nullifying the blue state power grab.

 

[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.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 would compel the Supreme Court to strike down such a shenanigan. In short is says no State shall "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State" without the consent of Congress. I would think this section of Clause 3 would especially apply to States trying to circumvent the Constitution.

So I wouldn't get too upset about it.

.

I believe they're claiming that this doesn't require Congressional consent.

Although the Constitution’s text requires that interstate compacts be approved by Congress, NPV advocates claim congressional approval of NPV is not necessary. They observe that in U.S. Steel v. Multistate Tax Comm’n (1978) the Supreme Court held that Congress must approve a compact only when the compact increases state power at the expense of federal power.

NPV advocates may be wrong about congressional approval. It is unclear that the justices would follow U.S. Steel’s ruling now. The Constitution’s language requiring congressional approval is crystal clear, and the court today is much more respectful of the Constitution’s text and historical meaning than it was in 1978. Moreover, you can make a good argument that U.S. Steel requires congressional approval for NPV because NPV would weaken federal institutions: It would (1) abolish the role of the U.S. House of Representatives in the electoral process and (2) alter the presidential election system without congressional involvement. Furthermore, even the U.S. Steel case suggested that compacts require congressional approval whenever they “impact … our federal structure.” - Robert Natelson

 

[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.

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 problem is this is being done by democratic law makers and not the voting public. Here in Colorado Gov. Polis signed the law which was passed by the democratically controlled state legislature. The people had no input whatsoever.

Essentially what this means, that every voter in Colorado could vote for canidate A, but if canidate B won the PV, all of Colorado electoral votes would go to B. It’s possible for a state to vote heavily against a canidate, but have their electoral votes hand the election to the other canidate. It’s nuetering the small states influence. It is a long way from the spirit of the constitution IMO.

Seems like the people of Colorado need to rise up and get their politicians under control.

 

[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.

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 problem is this is being done by democratic law makers and not the voting public. Here in Colorado Gov. Polis signed the law which was passed by the democratically controlled state legislature. The people had no input whatsoever.

Essentially what this means, that every voter in Colorado could vote for canidate A, but if canidate B won the PV, all of Colorado electoral votes would go to B. It’s possible for a state to vote heavily against a canidate, but have their electoral votes hand the election to the other canidate. It’s nuetering the small states influence. It is a long way from the spirit of the constitution IMO.

The people vote for the state legislature, that is their input.

Well, so much for your vaunted - and sham - concern about democracy and empowerment and enfranchisement and whatever other blatant lies you've been spouting in favor of the popular vote. Nice of you to expose yourself as a liar so clearly.

 

[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.

Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 would compel the Supreme Court to strike down such a shenanigan. In short is says no State shall "enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State" without the consent of Congress. I would think this section of Clause 3 would especially apply to States trying to circumvent the Constitution.

So I wouldn't get too upset about it.

Yeah, it doesn't. There IS NO circumvention of the Constitution.

Wrong again commie, the States are given the power to allocate electors based on how their citizens vote, winner take all or proportional. They can not engage in a multi-state compact to award their electors base on the votes of other States citizens, without the consent of Congress.

.

One point that was made regarding the fools who want to pretend that the power of the States to choose allocation is completely unlimited is this question: if a state decided to sell its Electoral votes to the highest bidder, would you think that was Constitutional as well? Would you think the Supreme Court would uphold that as a valid exercise of the state's power?