The Hilarious attempt to disenfranchise the popular Vote.....so the popular vote can be elevated????

[B. Kidd]

I always say, if you can't win a game that you're afraid of continuing to lose at, then just change the F'in rules! (Or, cheat!).

 

[Pogo]

the ridiculous argument that state Electors may be unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and have it stand

This in fact happens in most if not all of the 57 states.

My state for instance is allotred 15 electoral votes. In 2016 about 49% of the votes in the ELECTION --- which is NOWHERE mandated by the Constitution but happens --- voted for Rump. About 47% of them voted for Clinton. NO ONE was able to crack 50% of the state's vote ..... and yet ALL FIFTEEN Electoral Votes went to Rump, who could not win even half the state.

Same thing happened in Florida.
And in Michigan.
And in Wisconsin.
And in Pennsylvania.
And in AridZona.
And even in FRICKIN' UTAH.

And in the rest of the 57 states NOWHERE -- NOT ONE STATE ANYWHERE -- reported a unanimous vote total for any candidate. ZERO. It has literally never happened, EVER. So every one of those states, in every POTUS election, IS ALREADY "being unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and having it stand". And you're too blind to see it.

So your ridiculous thread title about "attempt to disenfranchise the popular vote" is not only a reference to a popular vote that is ALREADY disenfranchised, which is a major reason for our abysmal election day turnout rate because what's the point --- it's also an "attempt to disenfranchise" a franchise that doesn't even exist fin the first place.

Read your Constitution and try to prove me wrong.

States should go to proportional electors. That way, California Republicans would actually have a voice.

That way EVERYBODY would have at least a limited voice. How many would-be Rump voters didn't even bother to go vote because they knew their state was going for Clinton regardless what they did? How many Clinton voters did the same thing in the Alabamas and Kansases? For that matter how many Clinton voters in blue states or Rump voters in red states didn't bother, for the same reason? We can never know as it works now. Nobody in a "red" or a "blue" state has any reason to go out on election day at all. Their state is already predetermined. Their vote is not needed and if it doesn't go the way the state is already going, it will be ignored.

James Madison, who was a major architect of the Electoral College, wanted a Constitutional Amendment to ban the WTA practice. He could already see where it was going.

I think we agree.

Unfortunately an Amendment would be what it would take, since the whole reason WTA took over was a mob mentality of power hunger. States started deciding 'well hell if Virginia is doing it we've got to do it too, or they'll have more power than us and we can't have that". So it becomes a challenge where nobody wants to go first, unless they're forced to.

The National Popular Vote Compact tries to get around that morass by honoring the electorate's wishes..

Or we could simply do away with the EC altogether, it having fulfilled its reasons for being long ago. But that would absolutely require an Amendment.

 

[justoffal]

the ridiculous argument that state Electors may be unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and have it stand

This in fact happens in most if not all of the 57 states.

My state for instance is allotred 15 electoral votes. In 2016 about 49% of the votes in the ELECTION --- which is NOWHERE mandated by the Constitution but happens --- voted for Rump. About 47% of them voted for Clinton. NO ONE was able to crack 50% of the state's vote ..... and yet ALL FIFTEEN Electoral Votes went to Rump, who could not win even half the state.

Same thing happened in Florida.
And in Michigan.
And in Wisconsin.
And in Pennsylvania.
And in AridZona.
And even in FRICKIN' UTAH.

And in the rest of the 57 states NOWHERE -- NOT ONE STATE ANYWHERE -- reported a unanimous vote total for any candidate. ZERO. It has literally never happened, EVER. So every one of those states, in every POTUS election, IS ALREADY "being unfaithful to the popular vote of their state and having it stand". And you're too blind to see it.

So your ridiculous thread title about "attempt to disenfranchise the popular vote" is not only a reference to a popular vote that is ALREADY disenfranchised, which is a major reason for our abysmal election day turnout rate because what's the point --- it's also an "attempt to disenfranchise" a franchise that doesn't even exist fin the first place.

Read your Constitution and try to prove me wrong.

States should go to proportional electors. That way, California Republicans would actually have a voice.

That way EVERYBODY would have at least a limited voice. How many would-be Rump voters didn't even bother to go vote because they knew their state was going for Clinton regardless what they did? How many Clinton voters did the same thing in the Alabamas and Kansases? For that matter how many Clinton voters in blue states or Rump voters in red states didn't bother, for the same reason? We can never know as it works now. Nobody in a "red" or a "blue" state has any reason to go out on election day at all. Their state is already predetermined. Their vote is not needed and if it doesn't go the way the state is already going, it will be ignored.

James Madison, who was a major architect of the Electoral College, wanted a Constitutional Amendment to ban the WTA practice. He could already see where it was going.

I think we agree.

Unfortunately an Amendment would be what it would take, since the whole reason WTA took over was a mob mentality of power hunger. States started deciding 'well hell if Virginia is doing it we've got to do it too, or they'll have more power than us and we can't have that". So it becomes a challenge where nobody wants to go first, unless they're forced to.

The National Popular Vote Compact tries to get around that morass by honoring the electorate's wishes..

Or we could simply do away with the EC altogether, it having fulfilled its reasons for being long ago. But that would absolutely require an Amendment.

Dream on dude.... Until you are ready to shut down all the Governor's Mansions and erase all of the state borders you will never succeed. The state legislatures maybe trying to play games with their electoral votes but you do notice that they're not interested in losing those electoral votes.

The United States is a collection of sovereign states..... That would change immediately after we dispose of the EC.

Ain't gonna happen....

Jo

 

[justoffal]

I always say, if you can't win a game that you're afraid of continuing to lose at, then just change the F'in rules! (Or, cheat!).

These assholes would scream at the top of their lungs the moment Trump won the popular vote. They are assuming that that's impossible. If it did happen California would call an emergency legislative session and reverse their decision immediately thus exposing it for what it is.

Jo

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

States should go to proportional electors. That way, California Republicans would actually have a voice.

The states are free to allocate their electoral votes as they see fit, but being that California is overwhelmingly Democratic, it would hardly be in their party's best interest to make that kind of a change. It would be the same in Texas for the Republicans.

 

[justoffal]

States should go to proportional electors. That way, California Republicans would actually have a voice.

The states are free to allocate their electoral votes as they see fit, but being that California is overwhelmingly Democratic, it would hardly be in their party's best interest to make that kind of a change. It would be the same in Texas for the Republicans.

Should we call it the Reid syndrome?

Jo

 

[Pogo]

I always say, if you can't win a game that you're afraid of continuing to lose at, then just change the F'in rules! (Or, cheat!).

These assholes would scream at the top of their lungs the moment Trump won the popular vote. They are assuming that that's impossible. If it did happen California would call an emergency legislative session and reverse their decision immediately thus exposing it for what it is.

Jo

Speculation Fallacy from a wag who refuses to even read the Constitution is dismissed.

 

[beautress]

Why even have Electors?

It is just a partisan appointment. If the Elector just has to go with what the popular vote says, why not just automatically assign the EV?

We do not exclude the right of small states to have a voice in national politics. If Demmies try to insure small states have no say, they would shoot to kill, if it wasn't so funny watching the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot every Silly Season in the world. Foot shoots are so self-extinguishing. Poor Demmies. It's ready, aim, shoot self in foot!