It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Colorado Senate Passes Bill Nixing Electoral College in Favor of Popular Vote

page: 12
37
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2019 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar



2,649 to 503 kinda says it all.


All good until the left is in power and they offer free housing and voting privileges to 20 million illegals and then spread them across 2,649 counties...lol




posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 08:55 PM
link   
August 22, 2019

Democrats/Progressives were royally bitc'h-slapped today by the Federal Court, for attempting to get rid of the Electoral College and replace it with the Popular Vote, for determining the Presidency.

In a major blow to state-by-state progressive efforts to effectively replace the Electoral College with a nationwide popular vote, a federal appeals court ruled that presidential electors in the Electoral College have the absolute right to vote for presidential candidates of their choice.

Democrats have increasingly sought to erase the Electoral College's influence by promoting state laws that would force electors to vote for the national popular vote winner -- and those laws were now in jeopardy as a result of the court's ruling, legal experts said.
Source: www.foxnews.com...

Thank-you President Obama for being too busy to fill 186 Judicial seats in our Federal Court system. President Trump is grateful too!


edit on 8/22/2019 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Democrats/Progressives were royally bitc'h-slapped today by the Federal Court, for attempting to get rid of the Electoral College and replace it with the Popular Vote, for determining the Presidency.
So the decision was that electors can vote however they wish, no matter how the citizens of a state vote. A state cannot compel them to vote. Why even have citizens vote for president at all?

Even where an elector violates a state-required pledge to vote for the winners of the state popular election, there is nothing in the federal Constitution that allows the state to remove that elector or to nullify his votes. And in the absence of such express authority, the states may not interfere with the electors’ exercise of discretion in voting for President and Vice President by removing the elector and nullifying his vote.


 



Thank-you President Obama for being too busy to fill 186 Judicial seats in our Federal Court system. President Trump is grateful too!


Trump?

Briscoe was nominated by Clinton and was the dissenting judge.
Holmes was nominated by Bush.
McHugh was nominated by Obama.

www.ca10.uscourts.gov...

edit on 8/22/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/22/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Thanks for the correction! Isn't it great that a few big cities won't be able to control our Presidential election outcome?



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Isn't it great that how citizens vote for president in any state in the 10th circuit doesn't matter since electors cannot be compelled to vote along with the citizens of that state?

I'm guessing you're not aware of the specifics of this case.

edit on 8/22/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: carewemust

Isn't it great that how citizens vote for president in any state in the 10th circuit doesn't matter since electors cannot be compelled to vote along with the citizens of that state?

I'm guessing you're not aware of the specifics of this case.


The winning party of each state will still be able to select who their electors are, they aren't an arbitrary group regardless of which candidate secures the popular vote of the state. This just means those parties would want to select reliable electors.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu




This just means those parties would want to select reliable electors.

In a perfect world, I suppose so.
However this case shows that it is not a perfect world, nor would it seem, is it becoming more so.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu



This just means those parties would want to select reliable electors.

In a perfect world, I suppose so.
However this case shows that it is not a perfect world, nor would it seem, is it becoming more so.


Depends on your definition of perfect. I can't imagine politics and perfection ever lining up.

This does make me happy that the NPV has been dealt a serious blow. I suppose they could start over and have state laws declare that the winning party of the federal election's popular vote gets to select the state's electors but that would be it's own can of worms.
edit on 22-8-2019 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu




This does make me happy that the NPV has been dealt a serious blow.

It does seem to keep 6 states out of the running, unless as you point out, the rules for selecting electors are changed.

Interesting though, that it was a Democratic elector who was at the center of the case. Didn't vote for Clinton even though she won the Colorado vote.

edit on 8/22/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Ahabstar

Colorado joins;

Maryland
New Jersey
Illinois
Hawaii
Washington
Massachusetts
Washington, D.C.
Vermont
California
Rhode Island
New York
Connecticut


Blue State of Maryland reported 472.0 violent crimes and 2,284.5 property crimes per 100,000 inhabitants for 2016. Maryland’s violent crime rate is 27.5 percent higher than the national median…

Blue State of New Jersey reported 245.0 violent crimes and 1,544.6 property crimes per 100,000 inhabitants for 2016.

Blue State of Illinois reported 436.3 violent crimes and 2,049.0 property crimes per 100,000 inhabitants for 2016. Illinois’ violent crime rate is 17.8 percent higher than the national median…

Blue State of Hawaii reported 309.2 violent crimes and 2,992.7 property crimes per 100,000 inhabitants for 2016. Hawaii’s violent crime rate is 16.5 percent lower than the national median, and the property crime rate is 15.9 percent higher.

Blue State of Washington reported 302.2 violent crimes and 3,494.1 property crimes per 100,000 inhabitants for 2016. Washington’s violent crime rate is 18.4 percent lower than the national median, and the property crime rate is 35.3 percent higher.

Blue State of Massachusetts reported 376.9 violent crimes and 1,561.1 property crimes per 100,000 inhabitants for 2016. Massachusetts’ violent crime rate is 1.8 percent higher than the national median…

The Blue District of Columbia reported 1205.9 violent crimes and 4802.9 property crimes per 100,000 inhabitants for 2016. Both the violent crime and property crime rates are much higher than the national median.

Blue State of Vermont reported 158.3 violent crimes and 1,697.4 property crimes per 100,000 inhabitants for 2016.

Blue State of California reported 445.3 violent crimes and 2,553.0 property crimes per 100,000 inhabitants for 2016. Violent crime rates in California are higher than the national median…

Blue State of Rhode Island reported 238.9 violent crimes and 1,898.7 property crimes per 100,000 inhabitants for 2016.

Blue State of New York reported 376.2 violent crimes and 1,545.6 property crimes per 100,000 inhabitants for 2016. New York’s violent crime rate is 1.6 percent higher than the national median…

Blue State of Connecticut reported 227.1 violent crimes and 1,808.0 property crimes per 100,000 inhabitants for 2016.

And just for you: Blue State of Oregon reported 264.6 violent crimes and 2,964.4 property crimes per 100,000 inhabitants for 2016. Oregon’s violent crime rate is 28.5 percent lower than the national median, and the property crime rate is 14.8 percent higher.
Beside the fact that these are what you have called Compact States, they are also Democratic States. It’s no wonder that these looser States are attempting to subvert the Constitution of The USA.
So Phage, are you with these anti-American, socialist States?
MAGA! And Again in 2020!
muninetguide.com...
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Violater1




Beside the fact that these are what you have called Compact States, they are also Democratic States.

What did I call what?
Exactly?

I did, however, say this quite specifically and on topic:

The Constitution says nothing about the president being elected by the people or any requirements on how electors vote. There are, however, state laws about how electors are "expected" to vote. Nothing to do with the US Constitution.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It seems that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with me.

Even where an elector violates a state-required pledge to vote for the winners of the state popular election, there is nothing in the federal Constitution that allows the state to remove that elector or to nullify his votes.

www.ca10.uscourts.gov...


 


MAGA!
Yeah. Whatever. Second coming and all that. Just ask Him. I got it but I have no idea what Trump has to do with the topic.

edit on 8/23/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 01:17 AM
link   
These statements are like listening to the new boyfriend talk about how he is going to do something about the old boyfriend and since there is a 99.9% chance of nothing happening they are covered.

I'm gonna.....I'm gonna....gonna do nothing but throw those electoral votes to Trump...



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join