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

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

If the people of Ohio vote for it, the only recourse is for a court challenge.

This isn't being done by politicians. This is a petition and ballot initiative process so it's the people who vote on it. Not politicians.

If the people of Ohio want to abolish the electoral college they have the right to vote to do so.

It's called democracy.

No, they really can't. That's like saying in Ohio, only the Republican presidential candidate can have our electoral college votes. You can't legislate that no matter who proposes it or who votes for it. You can't make a law that an entire state will have the college vote against their will.

 

[candycorn]

Strange how you guys are for State's rights....until you're not.

Like every other liberal, you are ignorant as to what "states rights" means and doesn't mean.

Like every other conservative, you just post here to show the idiocy you covet.

Pretty sure it’s a state’s right to determine how to allocate it’s electoral votes since states do it differently.

The question is what the underpinning rules are for allocation of those votes. It may be legal to do the compact…but it is (in my view) just wrong.

 

[candycorn]

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

Comrade, I doubt what you say is true. The Constitution does say that states will apportion electors according to their own rules, but the Constitution also guarantees a republican form of government. Hence if Ohio voters elect Donald Trump but the state awards the electors to Nicolas Maduro because California voted for him, that violates the guarantee of a republican government, Ohio is shitting on the votes of the people their.

You will be challenged in the courts over this. And remember, you Bolsheviks have lost your stranglehold on the courts.

Actually, I do not support this movement, I think it is the wrong way to go. But that does not make it unconstitutional.

Agree. It seems wrong so I don’t support it.

 

[candycorn]

Comrade, I doubt what you say is true. The Constitution does say that states will apportion electors according to their own rules, but the Constitution also guarantees a republican form of government. Hence if Ohio voters elect Donald Trump but the state awards the electors to Nicolas Maduro because California voted for him, that violates the guarantee of a republican government, Ohio is shitting on the votes of the people their.

You will be challenged in the courts over this. And remember, you Bolsheviks have lost your stranglehold on the courts.

Actually, I do not support this movement, I think it is the wrong way to go. But that does not make it unconstitutional.

The people not being represented is not un-constitutional? The idea your vote is worthless is un-constitutional?

This method makes a vote no more worthless than the current winner take all system.

How do you figure? We have (like most states) winner takes all. That means the people as a whole decided who they want for President. If the people decide who they want for President, and the EC is forced to vote the opposite way, then it totally disenfranchises the majority of voters in our state. That's un-constitutional.

Were how the electors voted always tied to state popular vote?

It never has been.

Faithless electors were more active than ever in 2016. Colin Powell received an electoral vote.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

All I am hearing from you is that my vote shouldn't count and that I should just accept it. Never. I understand your argument and I am not entirely unsympathetic but I fail to see how it would matter that much. The ratio of urban to rural is now so tilted that the populous states control the lion's share anyway.

If you're in Nevada, North Dakota, or New Mexico your vote isn't going to count on a nationwide popular vote anymore than it will count in the EV system. Say your candidate does win; She is going to spend 90-95% of the time talking to the voters in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago and crafting a message to get as many votes from those major metropolitan areas as possible (so will the other major party candidate as well).

You have a much better chance of having your issues spoken to in the EV than the straight popular vote.

Additionally, currently we have two major political parties. What happens if we get 3, 4 or 5 cranked up and going? Currently we have about 130M voting. And currently it's about 65M each or 50/50%. Get a 3rd Party and you may end 45/40/15%. Four parties? 35/30/20/15% You want to have a President who gets 35% of the vote? What do you do in that case? Just accept it?

I'm on the fence about the EC. I see it's advantages and disadvantages.

Right now. Very few presidential candidates come to my state.

I live in a blue state so democratic presidential candidates rarely come here because they know they will win my state. Republican candidates rarely come here because they know they won't win the state. Or if they do come here, the bush boy did, they went to the red area of the state and talked to those who they knew were going to vote for him. He made no attempt to go to rest of the state where he could have talked to Independents, liberals and conservatives but he only went to those who already were going to vote for him.

So right now, with the electoral college, my state isn't noticed by both sides of the aisle.

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

Comrade, I doubt what you say is true. The Constitution does say that states will apportion electors according to their own rules, but the Constitution also guarantees a republican form of government. Hence if Ohio voters elect Donald Trump but the state awards the electors to Nicolas Maduro because California voted for him, that violates the guarantee of a republican government, Ohio is shitting on the votes of the people their.

You will be challenged in the courts over this. And remember, you Bolsheviks have lost your stranglehold on the courts.

Actually, I do not support this movement, I think it is the wrong way to go. But that does not make it unconstitutional.

Agree. It seems wrong so I don’t support it.

Far better solution is to get rid of the winner take all system

 

[candycorn]

All I am hearing from you is that my vote shouldn't count and that I should just accept it. Never. I understand your argument and I am not entirely unsympathetic but I fail to see how it would matter that much. The ratio of urban to rural is now so tilted that the populous states control the lion's share anyway.

If you're in Nevada, North Dakota, or New Mexico your vote isn't going to count on a nationwide popular vote anymore than it will count in the EV system. Say your candidate does win; She is going to spend 90-95% of the time talking to the voters in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago and crafting a message to get as many votes from those major metropolitan areas as possible (so will the other major party candidate as well).

You have a much better chance of having your issues spoken to in the EV than the straight popular vote.

Additionally, currently we have two major political parties. What happens if we get 3, 4 or 5 cranked up and going? Currently we have about 130M voting. And currently it's about 65M each or 50/50%. Get a 3rd Party and you may end 45/40/15%. Four parties? 35/30/20/15% You want to have a President who gets 35% of the vote? What do you do in that case? Just accept it?

I'm on the fence about the EC. I see it's advantages and disadvantages.

Right now. Very few presidential candidates come to my state.

I live in a blue state so democratic presidential candidates rarely come here because they know they will win my state. Republican candidates rarely come here because they know they won't win the state. Or if they do come here, the bush boy did, they went to the red area of the state and talked to those who they knew were going to vote for him. He made no attempt to go to rest of the state where he could have talked to Independents, liberals and conservatives but he only went to those who already were going to vote for him.

So right now, with the electoral college, my state isn't noticed by both sides of the aisle.

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

Comrade, I doubt what you say is true. The Constitution does say that states will apportion electors according to their own rules, but the Constitution also guarantees a republican form of government. Hence if Ohio voters elect Donald Trump but the state awards the electors to Nicolas Maduro because California voted for him, that violates the guarantee of a republican government, Ohio is shitting on the votes of the people their.

You will be challenged in the courts over this. And remember, you Bolsheviks have lost your stranglehold on the courts.

Actually, I do not support this movement, I think it is the wrong way to go. But that does not make it unconstitutional.

Agree. It seems wrong so I don’t support it.

Far better solution is to get rid of the winner take all system

I disagree.

Far better solution is to do the following.

Keep the Electoral College EXACTLY as it is now. You need a majority of electors to win.

Add in the stipulation that the President elect gets the plurality of the popular vote as well. Meaning that if you win the EC but lose the popular vote, the House of Representatives decides who is the President as it does now if nobody gets a majority of the Electoral College vote.

At least this would give a wink and nod to having he people decide who sits in the Oval Office.

—

My biggest problem with the EC isn’t that Wyoming gets so much power while having so few people… It’s that the people of Wyoming get so little power. Let me explain.

If Trump wins the state of Wyoming 90-10 percent, he gets 3 EVs. If he won WY by 51-49 percent, he still gets 3 EVs. I think you should get credit for the 39 percent (90-51). The plan I detailed above does that.

 

[OKTexas]

Strange how you guys are for State's rights....until you're not.

Like every other liberal, you are ignorant as to what "states rights" means and doesn't mean.

Like every other conservative, you just post here to show the idiocy you covet.

Pretty sure it’s a state’s right to determine how to allocate it’s electoral votes since states do it differently.

The question is what the underpinning rules are for allocation of those votes. It may be legal to do the compact…but it is (in my view) just wrong.

As I posted earlier, the Constitution expressly prohibits such a compact without congressional approval, and you know that ain't gonna happen.

.

 

[candycorn]

Strange how you guys are for State's rights....until you're not.

Like every other liberal, you are ignorant as to what "states rights" means and doesn't mean.

Like every other conservative, you just post here to show the idiocy you covet.

Pretty sure it’s a state’s right to determine how to allocate it’s electoral votes since states do it differently.

The question is what the underpinning rules are for allocation of those votes. It may be legal to do the compact…but it is (in my view) just wrong.

As I posted earlier, the Constitution expressly prohibits such a compact without congressional approval, and you know that ain't gonna happen.

.

Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

It’s all in how the document is interpreted. If Utah says, “We will award Utah’s votes based on the national popular vote winner” how is that a “compact” between the states?

I’m not sure how you can tell a state that you can’t award your electors based on any criteria. There seems to be no mechanism to do that.

At the same time, such awarding based on anything other than the popular vote IN THAT STATE seems wrong to me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

No, it sure doesn't, retard.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It’s all in how the document is interpreted. If Utah says, “We will award Utah’s votes based on the national popular vote winner” how is that a “compact” between the states?

I’m not sure how you can tell a state that you can’t award your electors based on any criteria. There seems to be no mechanism to do that.

Creating a law that says you MUST award the votes according to the popular vote is placing a restriction on those electors. They might as not be there at all. Simply put, the popular vote wins your state even if your state voted the opposite of the popular vote.

Again, if the EC has virtually no restrictions as to how they can vote, what's stopping us from legislating that from now on, all EC votes in Ohio go to the Republican candidate no matter how the people voted?

 

[OKTexas]

Strange how you guys are for State's rights....until you're not.

Like every other liberal, you are ignorant as to what "states rights" means and doesn't mean.

Like every other conservative, you just post here to show the idiocy you covet.

Pretty sure it’s a state’s right to determine how to allocate it’s electoral votes since states do it differently.

The question is what the underpinning rules are for allocation of those votes. It may be legal to do the compact…but it is (in my view) just wrong.

As I posted earlier, the Constitution expressly prohibits such a compact without congressional approval, and you know that ain't gonna happen.

.

Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

It’s all in how the document is interpreted. If Utah says, “We will award Utah’s votes based on the national popular vote winner” how is that a “compact” between the states?

I’m not sure how you can tell a state that you can’t award your electors based on any criteria. There seems to be no mechanism to do that.

At the same time, such awarding based on anything other than the popular vote IN THAT STATE seems wrong to me.

You're always a reliable liar candyass, the Constitution says a militia is necessary to ensure a free State, and the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No where does in say the right of MILITIA members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But hey nice deflection, even if it was a lie.

.

 

[candycorn]

It’s all in how the document is interpreted. If Utah says, “We will award Utah’s votes based on the national popular vote winner” how is that a “compact” between the states?

I’m not sure how you can tell a state that you can’t award your electors based on any criteria. There seems to be no mechanism to do that.

Creating a law that says you MUST award the votes according to the popular vote is placing a restriction on those electors.

Seems like it to me. I’m not sure that is unconstitutional though.

They might as not be there at all. Simply put, the popular vote wins your state even if your state voted the opposite of the popular vote.

Again, seems like it to me .

Again, if the EC has virtually no restrictions as to how they can vote, what's stopping us from legislating that from now on, all EC votes in Ohio go to the Republican candidate no matter how the people voted?

Colin Powell received an EV this past go-round. There EC has no restrictions now.

Again, I’m not for this but I don’t see where it is unconstitutional.

 

[candycorn]

Strange how you guys are for State's rights....until you're not.

Like every other liberal, you are ignorant as to what "states rights" means and doesn't mean.

Like every other conservative, you just post here to show the idiocy you covet.

Pretty sure it’s a state’s right to determine how to allocate it’s electoral votes since states do it differently.

The question is what the underpinning rules are for allocation of those votes. It may be legal to do the compact…but it is (in my view) just wrong.

As I posted earlier, the Constitution expressly prohibits such a compact without congressional approval, and you know that ain't gonna happen.

.

Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

It’s all in how the document is interpreted. If Utah says, “We will award Utah’s votes based on the national popular vote winner” how is that a “compact” between the states?

I’m not sure how you can tell a state that you can’t award your electors based on any criteria. There seems to be no mechanism to do that.

At the same time, such awarding based on anything other than the popular vote IN THAT STATE seems wrong to me.

You're always a reliable liar candyass, the Constitution says a militia is necessary to ensure a free State, and the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No where does in say the right of MILITIA members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But hey nice deflection, even if it was a lie.

.

The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Your interpretation of what that means is noted.

 

[OKTexas]

Like every other liberal, you are ignorant as to what "states rights" means and doesn't mean.

Like every other conservative, you just post here to show the idiocy you covet.

Pretty sure it’s a state’s right to determine how to allocate it’s electoral votes since states do it differently.

The question is what the underpinning rules are for allocation of those votes. It may be legal to do the compact…but it is (in my view) just wrong.

As I posted earlier, the Constitution expressly prohibits such a compact without congressional approval, and you know that ain't gonna happen.

.

Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

It’s all in how the document is interpreted. If Utah says, “We will award Utah’s votes based on the national popular vote winner” how is that a “compact” between the states?

I’m not sure how you can tell a state that you can’t award your electors based on any criteria. There seems to be no mechanism to do that.

At the same time, such awarding based on anything other than the popular vote IN THAT STATE seems wrong to me.

You're always a reliable liar candyass, the Constitution says a militia is necessary to ensure a free State, and the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No where does in say the right of MILITIA members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But hey nice deflection, even if it was a lie.

.

The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Your interpretation of what that means is noted.

The two phrases are NOT interdependent. SCOTUS already said your interpretation is BS.

.

 

[candycorn]

Like every other conservative, you just post here to show the idiocy you covet.

Pretty sure it’s a state’s right to determine how to allocate it’s electoral votes since states do it differently.

The question is what the underpinning rules are for allocation of those votes. It may be legal to do the compact…but it is (in my view) just wrong.

As I posted earlier, the Constitution expressly prohibits such a compact without congressional approval, and you know that ain't gonna happen.

.

Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

It’s all in how the document is interpreted. If Utah says, “We will award Utah’s votes based on the national popular vote winner” how is that a “compact” between the states?

I’m not sure how you can tell a state that you can’t award your electors based on any criteria. There seems to be no mechanism to do that.

At the same time, such awarding based on anything other than the popular vote IN THAT STATE seems wrong to me.

You're always a reliable liar candyass, the Constitution says a militia is necessary to ensure a free State, and the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No where does in say the right of MILITIA members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But hey nice deflection, even if it was a lie.

.

The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Your interpretation of what that means is noted.

The two phrases are NOT interdependent. SCOTUS already said your interpretation is BS.

.

\
The word militia is mentioned in the amendment. Their interpretation of what that means is noted

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, I’m not for this but I don’t see where it is unconstitutional

You don't think that your vote not counting is un-constitutional? After all, this last election we voted Trump, and if this law was in place giving Hillary all our EC votes, then we Trump voters were disenfranchised of our vote.

Compare that to the court decisions on Voter-ID in some states. The courts ruled that the voter ID laws were too discriminatory and disenfranchised some voters. Therefore the law was un-constitutional.

So if electors have that power, what's wrong with us saying that blacks are allowed to vote, but we just won't count them?

 

[candycorn]

Again, I’m not for this but I don’t see where it is unconstitutional

You don't think that your vote not counting is un-constitutional? After all, this last election we voted Trump, and if this law was in place giving Hillary all our EC votes, then we Trump voters were disenfranchised of our vote.

Compare that to the court decisions on Voter-ID in some states. The courts ruled that the voter ID laws were too discriminatory and disenfranchised some voters. Therefore the law was un-constitutional.

So if electors have that power, what's wrong with us saying that blacks are allowed to vote, but we just won't count them?

I’ll let you take it up with him:

States elect Presidents, not PEOPLE.

I don’t think it’s unconstitutional. But I do think it is wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Right wingers:
Abortion ; State's Rights!!!!!!
Elections : Fuck Staste's Rights

Oh look - another liberal that doe snot understand the 'state's rights' argument.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Strange how you guys are for State's rights....until you're not.

Like every other liberal, you are ignorant as to what "states rights" means and doesn't mean.

Like every other conservative, you just post here to show the idiocy you covet.
Pretty sure it’s a state’s right to determine how to allocate it’s electoral votes since states do it differently.
The question is what the underpinning rules are for allocation of those votes. It may be legal to do the compact…but it is (in my view) just wrong.

The right of the states to allocate their electors is limited by the constitutionally specified limits on the states in Article I.
Somehow, the left managed to come up with the ONE way the Constitution could limit the right of the states to allocate its electors however they want.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Doubtful. The Constitution also says you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms.

This is a lie.