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.

 

Alert: Maine Senate Passes National Popular Vote Bill To Bypass Electoral College

page: 3
34
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   
The Republicans will have to bring back dead voters just like the Democrats have.




posted on May, 15 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: sine.nomine

14 other states have already joined this pact include New Mexico with 5 electoral votes, Colorado with 9 electoral votes, Delaware with 3 electoral votes, California with 55 electoral votes, Massachusetts with 11 electoral votes, Illinois with 20 electoral votes, Hawaii with four electoral votes, Connecticut with seven electoral votes, Rhode Island with 4 electoral votes, Washington with 12 electoral votes, New York with 29 electoral votes, New Jersey with 14 electoral votes, Washington DC with 3 electoral votes, Vermont with 3 electoral votes, and Maryland with 10 electoral votes.


I'm considering somehow getting involved in politics in my home state of Washington. I don't know if I could run for office, but I could make a decent campaign manager for a fresh face i think. Or something like that.

I'm SICK OF THIS! Washington is an outdoorsman's state, an extreme sportsman's state, a gun owner state for God's sakes!! A fishing, camping, hunting, boating, watersports, loggers and mountain men state! How can this BE that we are lorded over by loser Democrats???? Yes, yes, I know the basic reasons... But my point is, we gotta do something about it!



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: sine.nomine

14 other states have already joined this pact include New Mexico with 5 electoral votes, Colorado with 9 electoral votes, Delaware with 3 electoral votes, California with 55 electoral votes, Massachusetts with 11 electoral votes, Illinois with 20 electoral votes, Hawaii with four electoral votes, Connecticut with seven electoral votes, Rhode Island with 4 electoral votes, Washington with 12 electoral votes, New York with 29 electoral votes, New Jersey with 14 electoral votes, Washington DC with 3 electoral votes, Vermont with 3 electoral votes, and Maryland with 10 electoral votes.

Doesn't matter, none of them take effect until a majority of the States have passed these ridiculous laws.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   
This sounds drastic (and it certainly is) but aside from the constitutional issues and faithless electors, the other thing to consider is this might actually bite them in the ass. I mean even as much as President Trump is despised, the odds-on winner still only eked by with 2 - 3 million votes nationally. Hopefully we can get the voter rolls straightened out and stop some of the pasts 'shenanigans'.

So, it may play out that their 'national popular vote law' - even if it passes constitutional muster somehow (and it doesn't) ends up giving the other side ALL of their electoral votes.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 06:41 PM
link   
This is going to back fire.

In 2020 I can picture Trump winning the national popular vote.

That means that even if California citizens vote for Biden/Democrat, their electoral college votes will go to Trump.

That would be hilarious, but an incredible disenfranchisement of the citizens in those states.

Why have state representation at all --- oh that's right, the democrats are trying to destroy the Republic.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

It depends, if the state wants to be part of the Union, it should accept what the majority of the Union wants. I mean, every single vote counts, including the states' votes.

It could always try and go it alone.




posted on May, 15 2019 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: infolurker

This is so shortsighted, it's insane. In the end, these laws will either be found unconstitutional or cause major unrest throughout the country. It ultimately cripples the Midwest representation. People are going to feel extremely disenfranchised.

It's basically saying, however New York and LA vote, that's our president.


Trump is from New York.




posted on May, 15 2019 @ 07:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: infolurker
We'll have civil war instead of elections next year. I think it will be short.


Because the Chinese and the Russians etc will have won.




posted on May, 15 2019 @ 07:30 PM
link   
This is essentially Maine giving up their state sovereignty. It completely disregards the will of their electorate and puts them at the mercy of the federal government. The power of the state in this country is there to keep our over-bloated and out of touch federal government in check. Remove that and we are on a fast track towards globalism and the greater loss of our national sovereignty ...which has long been the dangerously naive goal of the left.

This will be struck down in the Supreme Court because it disenfranchises Maine's voters. If you reside in Maine, why even vote at that point?



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 07:52 PM
link   
are there restrictions on who the electors can vote for?

Are there restrictions on who the Electors can vote for?
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states. Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: sine.nomine

Easy fix nuke both la and NYC, just kidding in reality we should just spin them off and let snake plisken have run of them.
Really they want to rule so much let them be there own little kingdoms. These kind of laws should not be constitutional period it gives away the states rights.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
The Republicans will have to bring back dead voters just like the Democrats have.


They were absentee ballots completed before they were deceased of course. :-p



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

When a person votes for President in any state, they are not really voting for a President. They are voting for electors who pledge or are otherwise committed to voting for that parties candidate. Some ballots even list the electors under the candidates name.

Generally, State parties put together their own list of electors. They can be voted upon in some states. If a D wins the popular vote in that state, the D electors are...'elected'. They will vote for the D Presidential candidate their party selected at their national convention.

Some states like Maine, ironically, split up their electors based on the states popular vote. But most states are winner take all like you stated.

While the original Article II was changed by the 12th Amendment, nowhere in any way, shape, or form did the Founding Fathers want a popular vote for President. The people's "voice" is heard through their Representatives whom they directly vote for...more or less. The 17th Amendment now (since 1917) lets the people's "voice" elect Senators.

Congress makes laws. Congress is popular vote. State legislatures make state laws. Legislatures are popular vote. Local governments are the same...more or less. Local elections are popular vote. The people's voice gets those who make the laws elected. Now, will they make laws which benefit those who elected them? That's another discussion but far germane to the complaint of people not being heard than the the EC.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: infolurker

This is so shortsighted, it's insane. In the end, these laws will either be found unconstitutional or cause major unrest throughout the country. It ultimately cripples the Midwest representation. People are going to feel extremely disenfranchised.

It's basically saying, however New York and LA vote, that's our president.


Trump is from New York.


And?
He doesn't run New York. You do know that. Right?

This is such an absurd reply, it baffles me.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

It really doesn't matter. As soon as something like this happens:


This means if [> 50]% of the state voted [Person A] and the National popular vote showed [Person B] winning that the state's electoral votes would be awarded to [Person B]. 


The people of that state would form an uprising that the winning party couldn't hope to quell.

This is only popular amongst political party leaders who think they can take advantage of it; and they have pushed it through while no one was really paying attention.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 08:31 PM
link   

edit on 15-5-2019 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



It depends, if the state wants to be part of the Union, it should accept what the majority of the Union wants. I mean, every single vote counts, including the states' votes. 

It could always try and go it alone.


Tyranny of the majority? Doesn't sound to appealing. I guess it's a good thing I live in one of those areas where my opinion will matter ... sorry to the rest of the country who will just have to shut up and take what we give them.
edit on 15-5-2019 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Liquesence

Popular votes divide the vote evenly and fairly across the board: whoever gets the most in the tally wins. EC is winner take all, and disenfranchises those whose voters who are in the minority. When a state has X electoral votes and all go to one candidate without being proportionate to the actual popular vote, THAT is disenfranchisement.


It does not. If only the popular vote existed the majority of states would have no say in our Presidential elections making New York and California the dictatorships that will rule the United States...



originally posted by: Liquesence
Yes, we are a republic, based on and still in part operating on democratic principles. The people still vote on issues (locally) using popular vote, and even our representatives and senators are....elected through popular vote.

Why do people still not see the simple, larger concept of why popular vote is more fair?


It isn't fairer as it is majority dictatorship... We are not a democracy, our principles are those of a REPUBLIC, not a democracy...


originally posted by: Liquesence
ETA:

BUT, the EC is constitutional law, so it is what it is.


The Founding Fathers knew that without the EC the U.S. would be ruled by one party only and would become a dictatorship of the majority...

This is the reason why we ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY NOR ARE WE RULED BY DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES... Democratic principles would dictate that only what the majority vote for goes. If the majority want to ban freedom of speech to the political opposition that's the law in a DICTATORSHIP/in a country where only the majority have all rights...

Under "Democratic principles" individual rights are suppressed or outright banned. Socialist and communist dictatorships call themselves "democratic" because they claim to represent the majority...



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: sine.nomine

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: infolurker

This is so shortsighted, it's insane. In the end, these laws will either be found unconstitutional or cause major unrest throughout the country. It ultimately cripples the Midwest representation. People are going to feel extremely disenfranchised.

It's basically saying, however New York and LA vote, that's our president.


Trump is from New York.


And?
He doesn't run New York. You do know that. Right?

This is such an absurd reply, it baffles me.


Yeah, I know that. He tanked there, like he did in most states.

I was being sarcastic (you can tell by the
).

Don't you love it in the US, at the way empty prairie land has a bigger vote than most citizens.




posted on May, 15 2019 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: chr0naut



It depends, if the state wants to be part of the Union, it should accept what the majority of the Union wants. I mean, every single vote counts, including the states' votes. 

It could always try and go it alone.


Tyranny of the majority? Doesn't sound to appealing. I guess it's a good thing I live in one of those areas where my opinion will matter ... sorry to the rest of the country who will just have to shut up and take what we give them.


The diametric opposite of "tyranny of the majority" isn't 'fair and equitable rule'.

It is "tyranny of the minority".

That's what you have.


edit on 15/5/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join