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

[Ray From Cleveland]

So what? It's winner takes all which most states exercise. The majority still wins, just like Congressional and gubernatorial elections. What this bill does is create a possible loser takes all scenario.

A state can change parties for a representative. Mass holes voted in a Republican Governor. If we in Ohio decided to become a totally red state, and this law forced us to vote blue, then it's not up to the people to select a side or candidate. The vote is over before it started. That's a disenfranchisement of voters and against the US Constitution.

Again, I'm not worried too much about this proposal as it isn't going anywhere. All our state legislatures would have to do if it passed is make a Faithless Elector law and that would be the end of it.

It's amusing you're still leaning on that crutch of "red states" and "blue states", an artificial concept that literally does not exist in the real world, as if it were something real. The only reason it even exists as an abstract is the WTA system. In actual reality there has never been, and there never will be, any state anywhere that votes unanimously for a POTUS (or for a governor or Senator either). That world literally does not exist. Yet there's the electors of 48 states going in front of Congress and lying about what their state selected, every. single. time.

You don't have a "red" state or a "blue" state. You have a purple state, same as the rest of us. The bottom line is, if WTA was not infecting the entire system, then this NPV compact would be unnecessary and would not even exist.

But when you do have an artificially "red" or "blue" state, because WTA does exist, THAT is a disenfranchisement of voters. But it's *STILL* not "against the US Constitution". AGAIN go ahead and show us that part of the COTUS that prohibits it. You can't do it. Doesn't exist.

I think "faithless elector" laws should all be struck down as unConstitutional too. If you're going to appoint an elector --- and then turn around and order them to vote a certain way ---- then what the fuck is the function of an elector at all? The whole idea of an elector was to consider and ruminate. If a state removes that function, THERE you have something against the US Constitution.

A faithless elector is one who does vote against the popular vote or for the party that nominated them regardless of the outcome. Some states do have penalties against faithless electors by fines or even nullifying their vote. Everybody should have that, perhaps even prison time.

I have no idea what a WTA is. I understand you're an American, and as such, get way too much exercise, but for once, try spelling it out.

So what are the electors lying about that the Congress is unaware of? The popular vote decided where the electoral votes will go to. Nothing dishonest about that. A majority of states use that system. It's no different than when you vote for a Senator or House representative. Majority rules. And if you think the minority are somehow not getting their vote counted, that's the way a majority system works.

But, the electors are supposed to vote with the majority of their state, not the nation. Anything less than that, then there would be no need to even choose electors, as the electoral votes would already be decided by national popular vote.

I'm actually torn on this subject because I see how both methods are good and bad.

I understand that electoral college means smaller population states have a voice. I also see that, people say if you went with popular vote that New York and California would decide every election. It's not about geographical location, it's about population density. Yes, we would probably go blue every time, but that's only because New York and California have more people that those smaller populated states.


Again, "states" dont choose presidents, people do. Under the current system, more voices go unheard, because in many states, whoever wins the majority get all of the electoral votes. Take California for example. If dems win that state where 52% of the vote was blue and the other 48% was red, all of California's 54 electoral votes go to one candidate, which means the voice of those other 48% no longer matters.

Under a popular vote, every vote matters and it would mean candidates would have to work harder to earn those votes.

One thing is for sure, I do not agree with the way the left is going about this. If they want a popular vote, they need to attempt it by going about it the right way, and not trying to side step the current system.

Well I think the founders did want states to vote and not individuals. That was the idea behind the electoral college. But remember, the President of the United States is more than the leader of the people, he is also the leader of the land as well.

Let's say the President wants to run an oil line across the US like the Keystone. He has to consider the political impact of the states that line is going to go through. Or perhaps if we start running out of places for our garbage. You wouldn't want NYC trash hauled to your state because the population there is only 700,000 people and their vote is meaningless. How about if we expand our nuclear power plants and need new space for nuclear waste?

If we had popular vote and a major war broke out where the draft had to be re-instituted, why not have the draft board take people from those lowest populated states? Don't piss off those people in New York or Texas! Let them stay at home and vote for me!

I hadn't thought of that before. The impact of decisions that affect states. It's a good point, and I appreciate that insight.

I think I see now what they mean when they say states choose presidents. Each state has to have a voice in the matter so they can represent their land, and the choices made about that land from a federal perspective.

More so, a voice about federal laws, and taxation and such.

It does make the popular vote less appealing when you think that cali and NY would have major role, more than a small state like RI.

Since you have a higher population of dems across the country than repubs, a popular vote would mean people living in west and east coast states would have more impact on the lives of people living in southern states and middle America.

I was just going off of a majority rule type thing. My thought process was wrapped around, if more people want candidate A, then why should fewer people be able to override them.

I can understand that sentiment, but when it comes from the left, I know it's purely about power.

Here is a map of last election by county. Keep in mind that Trump didn't sweep the country by any stretch of the imagination. He simply had more electoral votes.

Left up to the popular vote, those small blue sections would have power over the entire country red or blue.

 

[idb]

Is the EC written into the Constitution?

You're joking right?

I like to learn stuff.
You should try it.

'Unconstitutional' is thrown around as a criticism so often that it's hard to know what is and isn't.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Right wingers:

Abortion ; State's Rights!!!!!!

Elections : Fuck State's Rights

What right does a state have to ignore the Constitution as written?

Answer: They do not.

Next: Your stupid deflection in reply?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Yes, they can allocate their electoral college votes based on how they choose, not some other states' voters.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

This is a lie.

No. It’s in the amendment

Quote it!

You couldn't find your ass with both hands, much less anything in the Constitution! You flushed your copy long ago!

 

[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.

Yes, they can allocate their electoral college votes based on how they choose, not some other states' voters.

So they can't allocate their electoral college votes based on how they choose if that is the case.

Perhaps I'll buy you a mirror so you can debate yourself.

 

[candycorn]

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

This is a lie.

No. It’s in the amendment

Quote it!

You couldn't find your ass with both hands, much less anything in the Constitution! You flushed your copy long ago!

The word militia is in the amendment.
Unless you think the framers are just adding in words for shits and giggles, the word "militia" means something.
Feel free to google the amendment.

 

[skews13]

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.

Keep in mind. The Electoral College was part of a system of the original 13 colonies.

Also keep in mind that women could not vote until 1921.

The EC does not fit in 2019, with 50 states, and 325 million people, in which the population centers that make up for 3/4 of the entire GDP of a $20 trillion economy.

No historical, or Constitutional argument can be made that continues to support the Electoral College. This is no longer an ideological debate.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Yes, they can allocate their electoral college votes based on how they choose, not some other states' voters.

So they can't allocate their electoral college votes based on how they choose if that is the case.

Perhaps I'll buy you a mirror so you can debate yourself.

They cannot allocate their votes on the way people vote outside their state. The Constitution guarantees a republican form of government. That means the people elect their representatives, not people in other states.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

This is a lie.

No. It’s in the amendment

Quote it!

You couldn't find your ass with both hands, much less anything in the Constitution! You flushed your copy long ago!

The word militia is in the amendment.
Unless you think the framers are just adding in words for shits and giggles, the word "militia" means something.
Feel free to google the amendment.

Where does it say your're supposed to be in the military to own firearms?

I just want to know why you libtards refuse to learn to read? I am firmly convinced that liberalism is caused by a learning disability. Your brain wiring is all hosed up!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Keep in mind. The Electoral College was part of a system of the original 13 colonies.

Also keep in mind that women could not vote until 1921.

The EC does not fit in 2019, with 50 states, and 325 million people, in which the population centers that make up for 3/4 of the entire GDP of a $20 trillion economy.

No historical, or Constitutional argument can be made that continues to support the Electoral College. This is no longer an ideological debate.

Sure there is, your opinion just happens to be the wrong one. Don't like the system, amend the Constitution and good luck with that one. Until that time, the electoral college is here to stay be it 13 states or 57.

 

[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.

Yes, they can allocate their electoral college votes based on how they choose, not some other states' voters.

So they can't allocate their electoral college votes based on how they choose if that is the case.

Perhaps I'll buy you a mirror so you can debate yourself.

They cannot allocate their votes on the way people vote outside their state.

Quote where the constitution says that.

The Constitution guarantees a republican form of government. That means the people elect their representatives, not people in other states.

ok.

Lets see the quote that expressly says that.

• Meanwhile back in reality, nothing in the Constitution mentions political parties being able to install their own slate of electors to cast the electoral votes. That has been the norm for generations.

Also this dispatch from reality.

• Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral votes based on the congressional district popular votes. Meaning that the PV winner in the state may not get all of the state's electoral votes.

Again, I think it should be winner take all. I think awarding the votes based on anything other than that is wrong by any modern standard. I just don't see where the Constitution forbids it directly unless you want to start interpreting the document based on your own political leanings. You don't want to do that...do you?

 

[candycorn]

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

This is a lie.

No. It’s in the amendment

Quote it!

You couldn't find your ass with both hands, much less anything in the Constitution! You flushed your copy long ago!

The word militia is in the amendment.
Unless you think the framers are just adding in words for shits and giggles, the word "militia" means something.
Feel free to google the amendment.

Where does it say your're supposed to be in the military to own firearms?

I just want to know why you libtards refuse to learn to read? I am firmly convinced that liberalism is caused by a learning disability. Your brain wiring is all hosed up!

The word militia is in the amendment.
Unless you think the framers are just adding in words for shits and giggles, the word "militia" means something.
Feel free to google the amendment.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

This is a lie.

No. It’s in the amendment

Quote it!

You couldn't find your ass with both hands, much less anything in the Constitution! You flushed your copy long ago!

The word militia is in the amendment.
Unless you think the framers are just adding in words for shits and giggles, the word "militia" means something.
Feel free to google the amendment.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

 

[candycorn]

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

This is a lie.

No. It’s in the amendment

Quote it!

You couldn't find your ass with both hands, much less anything in the Constitution! You flushed your copy long ago!

The word militia is in the amendment.
Unless you think the framers are just adding in words for shits and giggles, the word "militia" means something.
Feel free to google the amendment.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

LOL

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.)

Lol
With pure popular vote, Small population states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Would have no reason to vote in an presidential election, It would be pointless . They would lose every presidential election everytime… That’s just a fact

Without the EC, California and New York decide EVERY election. No other state need bother to vote.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.)

Lol
With pure popular vote, Small population states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Would have no reason to vote in an presidential election, It would be pointless . They would lose every presidential election everytime… That’s just a fact

As it stands now voting for one party or the other in at least 30 states is pointless because their party has zero chance to win the state so their vote is meaningless. In the last election 55 million people voted knowing the person they voted for would not win the state, thus rendering their vote useless.

As I said, I do not wish to get rid of the EC, I want to get rid of the winner take all system.

It's winner take all in every election. Why not the presidency?

it is pure democracy in every other election, why not the presidency?

Why do you seek to disenfranchise voters in 47 states, Comrade?

Oh that's right, you're a Communist, you support authoritarian dictatorship.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This is a lie.

No. It’s in the amendment

Quote it!

You couldn't find your ass with both hands, much less anything in the Constitution! You flushed your copy long ago!

The word militia is in the amendment.
Unless you think the framers are just adding in words for shits and giggles, the word "militia" means something.
Feel free to google the amendment.

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

LOL

Typical lame-ass libtard response! I hope you are laughing at your own ineptitude.

 

[Flash]

Greedy Liberals will do anything they can to turn the US into a Socialist shithole so they can get their free stuff.

The EC is just another obstacle to satisfying their greed.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.)

Lol
With pure popular vote, Small population states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Would have no reason to vote in an presidential election, It would be pointless . They would lose every presidential election everytime… That’s just a fact

Without the EC, California and New York decide EVERY election. No other state need bother to vote.

In the last election, Cali and New York accounted for only 16% of the votes cast, that is not enough to overcome the rest of the states