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.

hey fuck face; Ohio is a RED STATE so, why in Hell are U bitching?

Oh, that's right; U have to bitch about everything that does not align with your right wing Nazi Trump agenda.

Cheers

Sorry uninformed voter, Ohio is not a red state. We voted for DumBama twice. We are a swing state.

Ray this is a red state through and through.

Our state government is, but by national standards, we are purple. We elect Republican and Democrat Presidents. And let's not forget Commie Sherrod Brown.

 

[Aldo Raine]

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.

hey fuck face; Ohio is a RED STATE so, why in Hell are U bitching?

Oh, that's right; U have to bitch about everything that does not align with your right wing Nazi Trump agenda.

Cheers

Sorry uninformed voter, Ohio is not a red state. We voted for DumBama twice. We are a swing state.

Ray this is a red state through and through.

Our state government is, but by national standards, we are purple. We elect Republican and Democrat Presidents. And let's not forget Commie Sherrod Brown.

Brown, the one that bitchslapped Renasty and Howie Mandel and Dewhine? That Sherrod Brown?

No this state is bright red.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Objecting to un-Americans trying to cheat us out of our vote is being a snowflake?

look jack ass, in every election except for the POTUS election a vote counts for a vote; NOT a fucking representation of a goddamn vote.
If you & all of your 100 plus year old clan of jack asses wanna be living in antiquity, then you go girl but the times they are a changin' & for the better, via a Constitutional mechanism.

bla ......

Well when you can change the Constitution, go for it gal. But you Commies are always looking for ways to get around it because you totally hate the Constitution. I have no idea why you even stay in this country.

Like I said dip shit; the Dems are attempting to make the change via a Constitutional mechanism.

Just because you & your fellow bed wetting Republicunts can't latch onto that; well, that is your fucking problem.

No, they are trying to change the Ohio Constitution, not the US Constitution. The problem with that is the Ohio Constitution doesn't supersede the US Constitution. It works the other way around.

So even if this passes which is a chance in hell, it will be overturned eventually.

What are they looking to change dippy? How their electoral votes are counted? They have the right to do that under the US Constitution

They don't have the right to subvert the Electoral College process which is what this proposal does. F the EC, we do popular vote now. That's against the US Constitution. The EC is not supposed to vote according to what the country does, they are supposed to represent the voters of that state. If we voters say we want Trump, and the EC says we by law are giving it to Hillary, that disenfranchises the voters in the entire state who voted to have Trump get our electoral votes.

 

[Lesh]

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

 

[22lcidw]

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

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

A Stalin protege.

 

[martybegan]

Ohioans might vote to ditch Electoral College. Who's behind the effort? That's a mystery

DemNazis...

If you cannot win fair, you need to change The Rules so you can cheat!

We are in a Civil War.

And The Dems are Invading this country from The Southern Border and attacking our Constitution in our courts and legislatures.

The constitution gives the states the power to choose how they select their Electors and how they will vote.

you cannot shit on the constitution by doing something it gives the power to do

The Constitution also requires the States to provide a Republican form of government, as well as requiring equal protection via the 14th amendment, which has been interpreted by the SC to require 1 person 1 vote.

Giving your votes to someone outside your State, and denying the will of the majority in the State for a Presidential Election violates both tenets.

 

[martybegan]

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

It denies a Republican form of government, and violates 1 person 1 votes as imposed on the States via the 14th amendment.

It denies the will of the Majority in State for voters out of the State.

 

[candycorn]

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

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

A Stalin protege.

One of the dumbest statements your pea-sized-brain ever uttered and for you, that is saying quite a bit.

 

[Lesh]

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

It denies a Republican form of government, and violates 1 person 1 votes as imposed on the States via the 14th amendment.

It denies the will of the Majority in State for voters out of the State.

Majority in the state? So you FAVOR a popular vote...but only when it benefits you?

Too bad. What they are doing is totally legal and Constitutional. States have every right to apportion their electoral votes as they see fit.

Cry all you want

 

[blackhawk]

The electoral college is not going anywhere no matter how much the far left screams and bitches about it.

 

[martybegan]

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

It denies a Republican form of government, and violates 1 person 1 votes as imposed on the States via the 14th amendment.

It denies the will of the Majority in State for voters out of the State.

Majority in the state? So you FAVOR a popular vote...but only when it benefits you?

Too bad. What they are doing is totally legal and Constitutional. States have every right to apportion their electoral votes as they see fit.

Cry all you want

I favor popular vote when it is called for by the requirements of the offices, and the only ones not requiring it are President/VP.

They have the right to apportion it based on the results IN THE STATE. When you go outside the State, you disenfranchise the voters in the State.

That violates the 14th amendment, and the right to a Republican form of Government.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.)

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

 

[Pogo]

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

It denies a Republican form of government, and violates 1 person 1 votes as imposed on the States via the 14th amendment.

It denies the will of the Majority in State for voters out of the State.

Majority in the state? So you FAVOR a popular vote...but only when it benefits you?

Too bad. What they are doing is totally legal and Constitutional. States have every right to apportion their electoral votes as they see fit.

Cry all you want

I favor popular vote when it is called for by the requirements of the offices, and the only ones not requiring it are President/VP.

They have the right to apportion it based on the results IN THE STATE. When you go outside the State, you disenfranchise the voters in the State.

That violates the 14th amendment, and the right to a Republican form of Government.

Those voters in that state are already disenfranchised every time its electors go to Congress and lie through their teeth babbling "oh wow it's amazing, for the umpteenth straight POTUS election everybody in our state voted for the same guy". BULLSHIT.

 

[Pogo]

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

It denies a Republican form of government, and violates 1 person 1 votes as imposed on the States via the 14th amendment.
It denies the will of the Majority in State for voters out of the State.

Once AGAIN --- the will of the Majority was denied in the last election in:

1. AridZona
2. Colorado
3. Florida
4. Michigan
5. Minnesota
6. Nevada
7. New Hamster
8. New Mexico
9. North Cackalackee
10. Pennsylvania
11. Utah
12. Virginia
13. Wisconsin

In ALL of which the choice of the majority was nonexistent.

And yet --- every one of these states sent 100% of their electoral votes --- 154 in total --- to a single candidate who failed to crack a majority of the state's vote.

 

[martybegan]

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

It denies a Republican form of government, and violates 1 person 1 votes as imposed on the States via the 14th amendment.

It denies the will of the Majority in State for voters out of the State.

Majority in the state? So you FAVOR a popular vote...but only when it benefits you?

Too bad. What they are doing is totally legal and Constitutional. States have every right to apportion their electoral votes as they see fit.

Cry all you want

I favor popular vote when it is called for by the requirements of the offices, and the only ones not requiring it are President/VP.

They have the right to apportion it based on the results IN THE STATE. When you go outside the State, you disenfranchise the voters in the State.

That violates the 14th amendment, and the right to a Republican form of Government.

Those voters in that state are already disenfranchised every time its electors go to Congress and lie through their teeth babbling "oh wow it's amazing, for the umpteenth straight POTUS election everybody in our state voted for the same guy". BULLSHIT.

No, they are not. They get to select their own electors. If you want it to be more fair, have 2 EV's go to the Statewide winner, and divide the rest by congressional district.

 

[martybegan]

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

It denies a Republican form of government, and violates 1 person 1 votes as imposed on the States via the 14th amendment.
It denies the will of the Majority in State for voters out of the State.

Once AGAIN --- the will of the Majority was denied in the last election in:

1. AridZona
2. Colorado
3. Florida
4. Michigan
5. Minnesota
6. Nevada
7. New Hamster
8. New Mexico
9. North Cackalackee
10. Pennsylvania
11. Utah
12. Virginia
13. Wisconsin

In ALL of which the choice of the majority was nonexistent.

And yet --- every one of these states sent 100% of their electoral votes --- 154 in total --- to a single candidate who failed to crack a majority of the state's vote.

How was the "will of the majority" denied in those States?

Oh, you are being a smarmy twat about the difference between a plurality and a majority.

Figures you have to go to semantics when you don't have a real argument.

 

[Pogo]

look jack ass, in every election except for the POTUS election a vote counts for a vote; NOT a fucking representation of a goddamn vote.
If you & all of your 100 plus year old clan of jack asses wanna be living in antiquity, then you go girl but the times they are a changin' & for the better, via a Constitutional mechanism.

bla ......

Well when you can change the Constitution, go for it gal. But you Commies are always looking for ways to get around it because you totally hate the Constitution. I have no idea why you even stay in this country.

Like I said dip shit; the Dems are attempting to make the change via a Constitutional mechanism.

Just because you & your fellow bed wetting Republicunts can't latch onto that; well, that is your fucking problem.

No, they are trying to change the Ohio Constitution, not the US Constitution. The problem with that is the Ohio Constitution doesn't supersede the US Constitution. It works the other way around.

So even if this passes which is a chance in hell, it will be overturned eventually.

What are they looking to change dippy? How their electoral votes are counted? They have the right to do that under the US Constitution

They don't have the right to subvert the Electoral College process which is what this proposal does. F the EC, we do popular vote now. That's against the US Constitution. The EC is not supposed to vote according to what the country does, they are supposed to represent the voters of that state.

NO THEY ARE NOT. The Constitution requires no election at all. Every state can choose literally any way it likes to select its electors. It could sit in a Starbucks and pick random people. It could draw names out of a hat. It could pick random names out of the phone book. This is another way it could work, period. All Constitutional.

Article II Section 1, let's quote the whole paragraph:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.​

Ain't nothing there about "representing the voters of the state" at all. As late as 1860 South Carolina for one didn't hold an election at all. The state leg simply appointed whoever they wanted to appoint. Also Constitutional.

That's why the states have gotten away with the corrupt WTA system --- it's Constitutional too. Even if it tosses millions of its own votes directly into the trash can. Unfair but Constitutional. Are we to believe that literally the ENTIRE population of California and New York voted for Hillary? Are we to pretend the entire population of Utah voted for Rump? 55% of that state's voters opted for somebody else.

And guess what --- even if 98% of a state voted for X, that state STILL wouldn't be obligated to cast its EVs for X. Not a one.

If we voters say we want Trump, and the EC says we by law are giving it to Hillary, that disenfranchises the voters in the entire state who voted to have Trump get our electoral votes.

Tough titty. Those voters are already disenfranchised by WTA, aren't they. And have been for going on two hundred years.
That's (again) Constitutional. You want to choose which Constitutional method you like and which Constitutional method you don't. And you can do that within your state, but you can't say it's not Constitutional when it plainly IS.

Your faux pas appears in the first line of your post. This is not "subverting the Electoral College" ---- this is subverting the WTA system. DIFFERENCE. And the latter is called for *NOWHERE* in the Constitution. It's also worth noting the thread title here is a blatant lie --- the NPV compact in no way "eliminates" the EC; it uses it to clean up the process.

 

[Pogo]

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

It denies a Republican form of government, and violates 1 person 1 votes as imposed on the States via the 14th amendment.
It denies the will of the Majority in State for voters out of the State.

Once AGAIN --- the will of the Majority was denied in the last election in:

1. AridZona
2. Colorado
3. Florida
4. Michigan
5. Minnesota
6. Nevada
7. New Hamster
8. New Mexico
9. North Cackalackee
10. Pennsylvania
11. Utah
12. Virginia
13. Wisconsin

In ALL of which the choice of the majority was nonexistent.

And yet --- every one of these states sent 100% of their electoral votes --- 154 in total --- to a single candidate who failed to crack a majority of the state's vote.

How was the "will of the majority" denied in those States?

Oh, you are being a smarmy twat about the difference between a plurality and a majority.

Figures you have to go to semantics when you don't have a real argument.

Nope. NONE of those states recorded a vote of 50% or more for any candidate. I'm in one of them. In our case we have 15 electors, a conveniently odd number. Did we send 8 electors for Rump and 7 for Clinton? Or 7 for Rump, 6 for Clinton, one each for Johnson/Stein? No, they sent ALL FIFTEEN for Rump. Minority sweeps. THAT's the issue, nothing to do with "pluralities".

All of which means more than half of my state's voters --- as well as every other state on that list --- had their votes immediately shitcanned.

Go right ahead, look 'em up. I'm way ahead of you.

 

[conserveguy877]

This whole electoral college stunt has to be based on Trump derangement syndrome.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This will not happen in Ohio.