Spanberger signs bill sending VA electoral votes to winner of popular vote.

[Nostra]

The electoral college makes the election way more susceptible to voter fraud.

It takes a small number of fraudulent votes in a small number of swing states to change the outcome.

Whereas the national popular vote almost always has a margin of millions.

So we should make sure everyone registering to vote is an American citizen, and require an ID to vote in order to confirm the person voting is the person using the registration.

Why didn't someone think of that before?

 

[Nostra]

Abstract thought is very difficult for a simpleton like you.

I mean this truly, you are very simple.

Explain your 'abstract thought".

Watch this.........................

 

[Nostra]

Abstract thought is very difficult for a simpleton like you.

I mean this truly, you are very simple.

Is there voter fraud or not?

Yes or no, Moroner.

Can you answer?

 

[Marener]

The 2020 election was won by 537 votes in Florida. That’s it. A minuscule amount of voter fraud could have flipped that election.

Whereas the national popular vote was won by a margin of half a million. It would have literally taken 1000x times more voter fraud to flip the national popular vote.

If we had the national popular vote in 2020, we never would have had an argument about Florida. A few thousand votes wouldn’t have made any difference.

 

[OldFlame]

I disagree. There is a nationwide movement by both parties to weaponize the voting process. It is not a beheading of the process; it is a death of a thousand cuts. We no longer have election day; it is a year long carefully groomed process. Mail in ballots sent out by various entities, media involvement in elections (more than in the past), redistricting and states refusing to monitor voter rolls, no accounting for untraceable campaign funds or use of them, and the refusal of the courts to address improprieties in the election. Your vote is being redirected, it may or may not be constitutional, but that is what is happening, if your vote is awarded to someone that someone else votes for. The winner take all system was bad enough, but this is criminal.

It is not both parties trying to weaponize it, most republicans want voter id and one day, in person voting, no mail in bullshit, no counting weeks after election day, no ballot drops. If you can't go on election day, then request an absentee ballot.

 

[task0778]

Marener

You’re right, I misread your comment. Sorry.

You said “a few of the most populous” states could override their vote. But again, you’re mistaken. In a national popular vote, states can’t override anything because states don’t vote.

You need to shift your mental framing and stop thinking about it as states because states become completely irrelevant.

The election would be decided by PEOPLE. Crazy, I know.

Yes, states don't vote, people do. But the people within each state should decide where their electoral votes go rather than whatever the national popular vote decides. There are 13 states by my count that have 4 electoral votes or fewer, all of which could be overridden by California's 54. They would effectively be disenfranchised if their state went to a person other than who they chose, and that is not right.

 

[Nostra]

Yes, states don't vote, people do. But the people within each state should decide where their electoral votes go rather than whatever the national popular vote decides. There are 13 states by my count that have 4 electoral votes or fewer, all of which could be overridden by California's 54. They would effectively be disenfranchised if their state went to a person other than who they chose, and that is not right.

I'm certain Moroner isn't nearly as smart as the Founding Fathers.


..

 

[Marener]

Yes, states don't vote, people do. But the people within each state should decide where their electoral votes go rather than whatever the national popular vote decides. There are 13 states by my count that have 4 electoral votes or fewer, all of which could be overridden by California's 54. They would effectively be disenfranchised if their state went to a person other than who they chose, and that is not right.

True. And then the whole state votes as on (with rare exception), so under the current situation, you’re right to think that some states could swing the election. The states vote, and that distorts the whole process.

But that’s not the case in a national popular vote. No states matter. A few states can’t swing an election. It doesn’t even make any sense to frame it that way.

The voters of those small states aren’t disenfranchised because their votes count towards the national popular votes. Your vote isn’t overridden because you lost.

 

[Mac-7]

National general elections should have universal rules across ALL States. We can't have rogue States with bullshit convoluted rules of their own as they affect the WHOLE country.
This Spanberger communist ***** has been trying to twist Virginia's electorate into a pretzel to push her Marxist intentions to DESTROY America. These zombies are out of control with this kind of election madness. "Rank-choise" and this crap is an OFFENCE against the Constitution and the American People. There must be push back against this insanity NOW.

That is an excellent point

As it stands under the lib concept, criminal enterprises like california can rule the outcome for other states

 

[Nostra]

Under the unconstitutional scheme of just using the popular vote LA County would have more influence than 40 states would.


No thanks.

 

[Marener]

That is an excellent point

As it stands under the lib concept, criminal enterprises like california can rule the outcome for other states

We do have universal rules. Every citizen regardless of age or race who is over 18 can vote.

It’s in the constitution.

 

[Delldude]

The truth is that you don't give a rats ass that the regional interest of Memphis or Dallas or for that matter any city, state or region that vote Democrats are disadvantaged.

You can turn that around by disadvantaging the less popular states.
That's what the EC does is balance the other.

 

[Mac-7]

As opposed to heavily favoring states that have smaller populations.

What do you have against densily populated States?

States that are 20% migrant and illegal alien?

States that have two elections?

One on Tursdsy in november when voters show up in person to be identified and cast just one legal vote?

And a 2nd bite at the apple for cheating democrats that takes place in the dead of night when no one is watching?

 

[Delldude]

We do have universal rules. Every citizen regardless of age or race who is over 18 can vote.

It’s in the constitution.

And so is the method.

 

[Marener]

You can turn that around by disadvantaging the less popular states.
That's what the EC does is balance the other.

Currently small states get advantages in the electoral college.

Losing your advantage does not put you at a disadvantage.

 

[Delldude]

Currently small states get advantages in the electoral college.

Losing your advantage does not put you at a disadvantage.

That's why the EC was created.
Prevent mob rule.

 

[Marener]

That's why the EC was created.
Prevent mob rule.

The EC was created because the founders didn’t think the American people were capable of picking the president.

So unless you’re willing to go back to that system, it doesn’t matter what the founders thought because neither of us actually care.

 

[Delldude]

The EC was created because the founders didn’t think the American people were capable of picking the president.

So unless you’re willing to go back to that system, it doesn’t matter what the founders thought because neither of us actually care.

You're full of bullshit as usual.

Electoral College History

How did we get the Electoral College? The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term...

www.archives.gov

 

[martybegan]

Well, there it is. Virginia could vote for a candidate 100% and still award the other candidate its EC votes to the other one with the most popular votes. Throw in some 6-month vote window, mail in papers, voting assistance and you have a real program going down. Vote shading and handling and misrepresenting the count so it could be sold as a "landslide". Of course, a "landslide" converts into "mandate" to enable more bullshit in the name of the People. Your vote still counts, just not how you think it does. MSN

The Constitutional End Run continues.

 

[HikerGuy83]

But when the states wrote in to their election law "winner takes all electors" instead of sending electors proportionately by how their citizens voted , was this unfairness fought in the courts???

That question indicates you don't understand the basis of the Constitution.

1. The states formed the Union. Not the other way around.
2. The Constitution favors state autonomy. So a state tieing the votes of it's citizens to the votes of citizens in other states is completely at odds with the Constitution.
3. What the constituion says is that the majority of people in a majority of states (weighted by EC votes) selects the president.
4. When Arizona choses a candidate with 50.1% of the vote or 99% of the vote does not matter. Arizona chose it's candidate as if it were an single entity.....i.e. a state. That the 49.9% of the losers are not represented isn't an issue.
5. Of course, the statkes were never supposed to be this high. Nobody thought the Federal Government would become the stupidly bloated, inefficient, corrupt, money grubbing, winner picking POS that it is today.