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

[Pogo]

Trump isn't popular, can't get the popular vote. Sad!

Leftists aren't popular outside of their own communes, can't figure out how to win without cheating. SAD!

Three years ago you and I were proverbial 'strange bedfellows' in both calling out Rump for the asshole he is. Now you've devolved into mimicking his Twits. One of us was consistently honest in his argument, the other was not. THAT's what's 'sad'.

 

[Pogo]

There is a democrat representative in Ohio who also threw his hat in the ring to run for Prez in 2020. Getting rid of the EC is his idea and not the majority of Ohioans. DeWine is the new GOP governor of Ohio and Ohio remains solid GOP.

Maybe, but DeWine is also a RINO. I'm sure he wouldn't approve of this, but he's hardly what I would call a conservatives conservative.

You can deposit the term "RINO" into the same Bullshit Bin with the "red states" and "blue states". The job of a Governor is to govern a state; the job of a Congresscritter is to represent constituents. NONE of them have the job of representing a damn political party.

Still yet more Dichotomy Disease. Fer fuxsake open your damn mind.

(/offtopic)

You really live in your own little make up world, don’t cha?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Hey, feel free to post from your made-up world where the Governor of Ohio (or any state anywhere) is required to preserve, protect and defend his political party.

Maybe it's in the oath of office. Go fetch.

 

[Pogo]

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?

Nothing in this thread has suggested "ignoring the Constitution".

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.

You just disproved your own point. The second half of your post IS part of the first half. Ain't rocket surgery.

 

[Cecilie1200]

CNN, NBC/MSNBC (Comcast), ABC, CBS, PBS, NYT, Washpo, AP, Reuters and others bet the farm on the fake Russia narrative. Some, like CNN and MSNBC a bit more than the others but if you watched or read one, you pretty much saw them all as they were pushing the same theme.

Fox, Breitbart, some opt Talk Radio were they only, relatively SMALL voices that were reporting it, but not concluding Trump was guilty up front. So, maybe 95% were pulling for the removal of Trump due to Russian collusion. Now they are paying for it.

can you actually quote an actual source where any of those news sites said they knew the Mueller Report would say anything, since there were no leaks of any kind coming from Mueller or his team? Where do you get this shit? From a dream you had?

The audience is very small yet CNN is on everywhere. Who pours money into CNN so they can keep pumping out their disinformation and propaganda?
Nobody asks to see it yet you can't get away from it.

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.

States agreed to the Constitution when they became states. So what is specifically written in the Constitution is not for the States to ignore. The Constitution trumps states rights only on those issues specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The Electoral College is specifically enumerated, and thus not up to the states to ignore or MODIFY.

And as leftists love to prattle at us in regards to the 2nd Amendment, no right is unlimited.

 

[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

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.

Only to spoiled, ignorant children who think "My vote is worthless if I don't always win!"

 

[Pogo]

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.

Two corrections, to the first and last parts of your post.

The first:
"But the electors are supposed to vote with the majority of their state, not the nation."

Actually there literally IS NO thing the electors are 'supposed to' do. Again, any state can allocate its electors any way it wants. No state is required to hold an election at all, for all the noise we make about it, plus even if a state does hold an election it's in no way required to follow that vote in any way whatsoever. A state can literally say "that's nice", ignore the election altogether and throw darts at a board. This is completely up to each state.

The second:
"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."

This is neither "the left" nor is it 'sidestepping' any system except the WTA system, which is NOT Constitutionally required in any way, nor was it the intention of the Electoral College's designers. First thing to understand is that the title of this thread is complete made-up crap. The plan it refers to, dates back to 2005 and includes a plethora of support from both parties as well as both Democratic and Republican state legislative bodies. We spelled all this out upthread with names, yet the liars yammer on as if they didn't hear.

Brought forth here from 260 posts ago, a partial list of supporters:

• 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....

And ---- Rump.

"I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play."

You're correct, there are no laws except current state laws that dictate how a state must cast its electoral votes, however, we know that the left has been wanting a popular vote for some time, and the changes these states are making will definitely play more favorably into the left's hands.

This is why I say "the left", because my initial hunch is that this push to alter the states electoral laws is being driven by the left.

No actually "we know" no such thing, and I just gave you a stack of exceptions to this impression above pertaining to the specific NPVIC project. Which is only the current one of a continuous stream of advocacy that has included proponents from Richard Nixon to James Madison.

"Everybody knows" has never been valid argument, no more than the false title of this thread is. Dishonest arguments fuel on establishing these fake "impressions" as a "conventional wisdom" starting point. Critical thought requires such CW be questioned for its validity.

 

[Lesh]

Only in America can the candidate who wins fewer votes can get elected.

Doesn't that seem like a bad way to run a democratic republic?

Yes! It prevents New York and California from deciding every presidential election.

By diluting individual votes. Where every vote is scared and must weigh equally.

It does not do that. The number of electoral votes is determined by the number of representatives in Congress. That is not specified in the Constitution and can be changed by a simple act of Congress signed by the President.

The population of Wyoming with one congressional district is roughly 586,000 while in the Brooklyn, NY 1st congressional district alone there are more than 684.000. 101,000 votes diluted by the EC

. . . In a popular vote, which we don't currently have, so I for one don't find a compelling argument in "If we count the votes this special way that isn't actually the law, it doesn't look fair!!!"

Votes are not counted nationally, except by asswipe leftists trying to look for leverage, so comparing Wyoming to NY is as valid as comparing it to New Zealand. Who gives a fuck whether or not something is "fair" under a system that exists nowhere but in leftists' drug-addled imaginations?

In the ACTUAL election, under the ACTUAL laws of the United States, votes are cast and counted in states. A vote in Wyoming is worth exactly as much as any other vote in Wyoming, which is what matters. And Wyoming has fewer EC votes than NY, which is correct since it's a less-populous state, without being deprived of all representation, which you might remember was kinda important to our Founding Fathers, what with them fighting a revolution over that idea.

Oh be honest for once in your miserable partisan life. The only reason you support the existence of current system s because it give YOUR party a huge advantage.

Jesus...

And a state has the complete right as to how they apportion their EC votes. You just don't like it.

Suck ass

 

[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

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 Constitutional challenge is in regard to denying a republican form of government. What Colorado and the other Soros ruled states have done is subvert the voice of their own voters with the voice of California. Essentially they have created a dictatorship by denying the people the right to vote in presidential elections.

There are several reasons to challenge this, actually.

First, NPV abandons the idea that presidential electors represent the people of their own states.

Second, it discards an election system balanced among interests and values in favor of one recognizing only national popularity. That popularity need not high: A state joining the NPV compact agrees to assign its electors to even the winner of a tiny plurality in a multi-candidate election.

Third, because NPV states would have a majority of votes in the Electoral College, NPV would effectively repeal the Constitution’s provision for run-off elections in the House of Representatives.

Fourth, NPV requires each state’s election officer to apply the vote tabulations certified by other state election officers — even if those tabulations are known to be fraudulent or erroneous. Indeed, NPV would give state politicians powerful incentives to inflate, by fair means or foul, their vote totals relative to other states. - Robert Natelson

And fifth, the Constitution requires Congressional approval of compacts between the states, and the NPV Compact has not received that.

 

[Pogo]

Except for Article I Section 10:1, sure.

You're unaware of the fact that states can apportion their EC votes as they see fit?

Add that to the list

They cannot base their votes on results outside of their state. That is not a republican form of government. It is an abortion.

Is anyone else amused that the leftists are trying to cloak their evil in righteousness by claiming they're "trying to protect the sacredness of every vote", when what they're suggesting actually makes large numbers of votes invalid entirely?

There's some 1984 Newspeak bullshit for you right there.

Ah you mean like the WTA shitstem *ALREADY* makes large numbers of votes invalid entirely?

In numerous cases, making MOST of that state's votes invalid entirely, including in 2016 both yours and mine?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh be honest for once in your miserable partisan life. The only reason you support the existence of current system s because it give YOUR party a huge advantage.

Your opinion has no factual basis behind it.

And a state has the complete right as to how they apportion their EC votes.

You have been shows this is not true.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

This is relevant how?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Was there a constitutional challenge to electors being appointed by Senators?

That is a pertinent fact you were going to conveniently gloss over.

There was not one because it was not against the Constitution...just like this is not.

The ever-popular leftist retard refrain: "THAT wasn't Unconstitutional, so THIS isn't, because . . . reasons!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

I think only three times in history that electors voted against the popular vote of a state, and it was stray electors at that, not the entire electorate.

psssttt...prior to about 1820 or so how the state voted was not taken into account at all when the electors were given who to vote for.

Pssssstttt. Utterly irrelevant to the idea of a state certifying electors based on A DIFFERENT STATE ENTIRELY.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

I think only three times in history that electors voted against the popular vote of a state, and it was stray electors at that, not the entire electorate.

psssttt...prior to about 1820 or so how the state voted was not taken into account at all when the electors were given who to vote for.

As late as 1860 South Carolina for one held no vote at all. Electors were simply appointed by the state leg.

And nobody at the time was whining about it being unconstitutional. Weird

Because it wasn't. And that remains utterly irrelevant to whether or not THIS is.

I know your brain isn't developed enough to comprehend this, but the fact that both situations involve electoral votes doesn't make them the same. It's actually possible for two scenarios to involve the same topic, and yet be totally different from each other, as confusing as that probably is to you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Right wingers:

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

Elections : Fuck Staste's Rights

Leftists: "Fuck states' rights unless we want to misrepresent them!"

 

[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.

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.

"For example, the courts often have voided efforts to exercise delegated powers in the constitutional amendment process in ways inconsistent with purpose or historical understanding. This is true even if the attempt superficially complies with the Constitution’s text.

Like a state legislature’s authority to act in the amendment process, its power to decide how electors are appointed is a delegated one. In exercising it, the legislature must comply with the overall purpose of the presidential election system and the historical understandings surrounding it. For example, the founders, including those who approved the 12th amendment, designed the system to serve multiple interests, not merely candidate popularity. And they conceived of an elector as a person who acted on behalf of the people of his state — much like a legislator, but with more limited functions.

In deciding how electors are appointed, state lawmakers may choose among a range of procedures. But they have a constitutional duty to choose a method consistent with the electoral system’s purpose and design." - Robert Natelson

I've been quoting this guy's article over and over, because he lays out all the issues about as clearly as they can be. Here's the link to the article.

NATELSON: Why A National Popular Vote Is Unconstitutional

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

One of my brothers-in-law is moving to TX because of the way CO is going. He's lived there almost 40 years.

.

Interesting. I have Lived in Colorado all my life, and I’d move to Montana before I’d move to Texas if I chose to leave.

I've been to Montana. Nice place, but very empty. Last time I had to drive through that area, I felt like I was driving on the moon. Nearly drove me barmy.

I like wilderness.

 

[skookerasbil]

Why do progressives insist on navigating in the realm of impossible all the time.

This nuttiness is backed only by those who would squash the second amendment. No DUM can win electorally EVER not supporting gun rights.....so consider the make-up of the Senate s0ns! Doy.....where do you get 2/3rds asshats?. I mean.....c'mon now.....and you people wonder why you are labeled as Disney dwellers?

 

[skookerasbil]

If the 2nd amendment goes away, only then can we have this discussion. Duh

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Like every other leftist, you post here to pretend you know something about the Constitution when you actually know nothing.

VERY sure states do not have the right to use delegated powers to undermine the purpose of the Constitution and to betray their own constituents.

You wouldn't have to waste time worrying about "feewing" whether something is wrong if you'd bother to learn things first . . . and then THINK for five seconds.

Ask yourself this quick question, cluebird: does the right of states to choose the method of apportioning EC votes extend to allowing them to simply sell them to the highest bidder?