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

[OKTexas]

\
Wrong answer commie, the 1st Amendment confines itself to congressional actions. "Congress shall make no law". The supreme court later came up with the incorporation doctrine to include the States.

As a function of the 14th Amendment.

Yep, the supremes have fucked the intent of the 14th since its passage. It was an amendment to protect the rights of former slaves, not the many other things they've used it to do.

.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Right, and you support the opposite because you believe it's the best for everybody in the country--not your party.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is not an amendment.

It is illegal legislation designed to steal EC votes and throw them to a candidate that did not win that state!

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.

Calm down Skippy.

The constitution was written to be amended from time to time.

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

Strange how you guys hate states' rights . . . until you want to misuse them.

You still pissed about the civil war, you dreadful bitch?

You still a babbling moron, you ignorant twat? (That's a rhetorical question, since I can see you are.)

 

[rightwinger]

Ohio joins effort to shit on Republicans winning elections by losing the popular vote

Nobody joined anything yet. It's just a small group of sore losers who understand they can't win by the rules any longer.

Its actually inching closer to the 270 needed to control the election

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

I do too, but there's such a thing as "too much" for me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

In your world there are no parties--only people. When you wake up, you'll come to realize we have two major parties, and they are totally opposite of each other. That means that a representative of that party is supposed to carry out the wishes and desires of their constituents. People join their respective parties because of the issues they believe in.

The Republicans have ignored that for some years, and that's why we voted for Donald Trump.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

I suppose the legislators could try to pass a law like that but I doubt that it would have the support this measure does. Most people aren't corrupt.

I think his comparison is off the mark.

You suppose wrong. Legislators would never be allowed to pass a law like that. The Supreme Court would shut it down in a heartbeat, not to mention the impeachments and criminal prosecutions.

His comparison is completely valid, albeit taken to extremes to make the point. The delegated power of the States to decide their own method of apportionment is limited by obligations to both the purpose of the electors and the Electoral College and to their own voters and oaths of office to them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ohio joins effort to shit on Republicans winning elections by losing the popular vote

Nobody joined anything yet. It's just a small group of sore losers who understand they can't win by the rules any longer.

Its actually inching closer to the 270 needed to control the election

If the Democrats thought they could win all elections using our system, they wouldn't by crying about it today. The only reason they are worked up now is because they lost another election with the EC. Every time they lose a presidential election, they whine that we need to make changes so they don't lose the next time; every presidential election.

 

[rightwinger]

Ohio joins effort to shit on Republicans winning elections by losing the popular vote

Nobody joined anything yet. It's just a small group of sore losers who understand they can't win by the rules any longer.

Its actually inching closer to the 270 needed to control the election

If the Democrats thought they could win all elections using our system, they wouldn't by crying about it today. The only reason they are worked up now is because they lost another election with the EC. Every time they lose a presidential election, they whine that we need to make changes so they don't lose the next time; every presidential election.

Rules can be changed

Just like the rules on selecting a Supreme Court Justice changed

 

[Pogo]

So you think California New York, Washington State, Louisiana, and Illinois should throw out the Votes of the other 44 States?

Why should a few populous cities dictate Fascist Ideologies to the other 83% of the country?

Do you know Hillary Von Cankles only won 17 states?

President Trump won 33. Why should The 33 states he won be given to Clinton in direct violation of The Will Of The People?

I call it Violation because it is Literally a Rape Of Democracy and Lady Liberty to deny those people in those States their voice!

You know who doesn’t have an Electoral College?

Russia!

I have lived in the south all my life and my vote has only ever counted once. One time since the 80s. I'm about tired of it. My vote gets thrown in the trash while my Republican neighbor's count. It's not right and it has to end.

You know who else doesn't have an electoral college? MOST OF THE FUCKING WORLD. Although I believe Pakistan does.

You know who won those thirteen states I listed in post 28? NOBODY. Including Rump's states of Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and my own.

You know how to use the fucking quote function?

GO LEARN IT.

Do you know how to get the votes dipshit? Go get them or quit whining.

I'm not running for an office, Illiterati. Go lurn two reed.

You spelled "learned to read" wrong.

NO SHIT, SHERLOCK.

 

[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?

You lose by the established rules, and like a typical commie, you want to change the rules in your favor. Ain't gonna happen.

Try reading the actual post quoted.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Where does the constitution say you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms?
Oh - it doesn't?
Why did you lie?

Interesting point, albeit totally off topic ---- where does any part of the Bill or Rights, or any Amendment at all, find a need to justify itself with an introductory subordinate clause implying a qualification for what follows?

Oh it doesn't?

Exactly.

Wrong answer commie, the 1st Amendment confines itself to congressional actions. "Congress shall make no law". The supreme court later came up with the incorporation doctrine to include the States.

Once AGAIN ---

Once AGAIN, *READ* the quoted post before you embarrass yourself.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

You lose by the established rules, and like a typical commie, you want to change the rules in your favor. Ain't gonna happen.

Try reading the actual post quoted.

I did, your point?

.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Where does the constitution say you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms?
Oh - it doesn't?
Why did you lie?

Interesting point, albeit totally off topic ---- where does any part of the Bill or Rights, or any Amendment at all, find a need to justify itself with an introductory subordinate clause implying a qualification for what follows?

Oh it doesn't?

Exactly.

Wrong answer commie, the 1st Amendment confines itself to congressional actions. "Congress shall make no law". The supreme court later came up with the incorporation doctrine to include the States.

Once AGAIN ---

Once AGAIN, *READ* the quoted post before you embarrass yourself.

Once again, I did, your point?

.

 

[Pogo]

Ohio joins effort to shit on Republicans winning elections by losing the popular vote

Nobody joined anything yet. It's just a small group of sore losers who understand they can't win by the rules any longer.

Its actually inching closer to the 270 needed to control the election

If the Democrats thought they could win all elections using our system, they wouldn't by crying about it today. The only reason they are worked up now is because they lost another election with the EC. Every time they lose a presidential election, they whine that we need to make changes so they don't lose the next time; every presidential election.

How come it is that every time I post this ---- which, IIRC originally went straight to you -----

________________________________________________

• 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 continue to prattle on about "Democrats" and "2016" as if ignoring the above simply makes it go away?

Hm?

 

[Pogo]

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?

You lose by the established rules, and like a typical commie, you want to change the rules in your favor. Ain't gonna happen.

Try reading the actual post quoted.

I did, your point?

I actually have to spoon-feed this to you? Really?

The point (by Cecile) that I countered was one about disenfranchised voters under alternate systems.

That has zero to do with whatever you think I "lost", or with economic systems.
NOR do I live in Ohio.

 

[Pogo]

The word militia is in the amendment.

Where does the constitution say you’re supposed to be in a militia to own firearms?
Oh - it doesn't?
Why did you lie?

Interesting point, albeit totally off topic ---- where does any part of the Bill or Rights, or any Amendment at all, find a need to justify itself with an introductory subordinate clause implying a qualification for what follows?

Oh it doesn't?

Exactly.

Wrong answer commie, the 1st Amendment confines itself to congressional actions. "Congress shall make no law". The supreme court later came up with the incorporation doctrine to include the States.

Once AGAIN ---

Once AGAIN, *READ* the quoted post before you embarrass yourself.

Once again, I did, your point?

Is this some sort of Pee Wee Herman game?

Once AGAIN, and as above, the question is: where does any part of the Bill or Rights, or any Amendment at all, find a need to justify itself with an introductory subordinate clause implying a qualification for what follows?

It doesn't. Nor does it need to. Not the First, not the Third, not the Fourth, etc etc etc. Only the Second does that. And no one knows why.

A Constitution has no need to justify what it lays out. It's not the venue to make arguments for or against; all that debate about what is needed and what is not, takes place before it's hammered out and writ down. And that calls into question the phrase's purpose -- if it's not there to justify what follows, then the question becomes what IS it there for?

Moreover the question wasn't even posed to you in the first place. The poster it WAS posted to, ran away from it.
He does that a lot.

/offtopic

 

[OKTexas]

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?

You lose by the established rules, and like a typical commie, you want to change the rules in your favor. Ain't gonna happen.

Try reading the actual post quoted.

I did, your point?

I actually have to spoon-feed this to you? Really?

The point (by Cecile) that I countered was one about disenfranchised voters under alternate systems.

That has zero to do with whatever you think I "lost", or with economic systems.
NOR do I live in Ohio.

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

Then why the tears over your vote not being on the winning side?

.

 

[Rustic]

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.

View attachment 254516

Vacant land does not vote
People vote

Those blue areas are where the people are

Lol
The blue areas have no control over the red areas… As the way it should be

 

[Rustic]

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.

View attachment 254516

Vacant land does not vote
People vote

Those blue areas are where the people are

The blue areas are big city people and the red areas are rural folk. Try eating a Gucci handbag rather than Cornbread.

The blue areas support the red areas

Always have

Without the red areas the blue areas would have no power, resources and food... dumbass