Blue states rally to upend Electoral College, with addition of Connecticut

a reply to: Phage

The founders underestimated the stupidity of their offspring and assumed that the state level allegiances would hold.

a reply to: Phage

What does that have to do with the Popular Vote determining who Wins the Presidency ?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

A Constitutional Amendment to Change the Status Quo will not be Supported by the Majority of American Citizens from Any Political Party ...PERIOD .

No Constitutional Amendment is required.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
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.

It is the States, through their electors, who choose the President. There is nothing in the Constitution which determines how Electors are to vote.

www.archives.gov...

If the populace of a State votes for Trump, but the combination of Liberals from California, NY etc creates the national vote total in favor of Hillary.......

Then the people of that State are robbed of their representation. They voted for Trump but their State sends delegates that would vote for Hillary.....

Are they trying to start a new Civil War? States would be exiting the union over such injustice. All because the libs are bad losers.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

What does that have to do with the Popular Vote determining who Wins the Presidency ?

Not a thing.

Why is a Constitutional amendment required for states to direct their electors to vote according to the national popular vote?

a reply to: Phage

But did any actually sway a national election?

😎

a reply to: TinfoilTP

States would be exiting the union over such injustice.

Why? If a state chooses to direct their electors to follow the national popular vote, why would they then leave the union? If the citizens of the state were upset, wouldn't it make more sense get rid of the state legislators who created a the law and then get rid of that law?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Phage

But did any actually sway a national election?

😎

That's not what you asked. I'm sure you have the capability to find the answer.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

States would be exiting the union over such injustice.

Why? If a state chooses to direct their electors to follow the national popular vote, why would they then leave the union? If the citizens of the state were upset, wouldn't it make more sense get rid of the state legislators who created a the law and then get rid of that law?

That requires voting the legislators out then changing the law. In the meantime one bad election happens and people will rebel. It is clear this is just another underhanded strategy by the Left. Why can't they go out and gain support in enough States to win like normal people do?

They are too lazy to rebuild their Blue Wall.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

In the meantime one bad election happens and people will rebel.

Against the federal government? Leave the union? That makes a lot of sense.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

In the meantime one bad election happens and people will rebel.

Against the federal government? Leave the union? That makes a lot of sense.

When they lose their representation, then there is no sense being a State of such Union. What this really proposes is getting rid of all State borders. The borders would be there just for chits n giggles, meaningless.

Why not just hold one election in Californistan to determine every States Congress winner and POTUS too. This is ridiculous.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

What this really proposes is getting rid of all State borders.

Quite the opposite actually. It is an exercise of states' rights. Is there a law against states making agreements with each other? Remember, the Constitution says that states choose the president, not the people.

Maybe that's the Constitutional amendment you're looking for.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TinfoilTP

What this really proposes is getting rid of all State borders.

Quite the opposite actually. It is an exercise of states' rights. Remember, the Constitution says that states choose the president, not the people.

Maybe that's the Constitutional amendment you're looking for.

No, it is Californistan choosing. No thanks.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Yeah. I'm not in favor of an amendment either.

The Supreme Court will rule it unConstitutional because of The Compact Clause and other conflicts of interest like mass voter disenfranchisement.

😁🗝

a reply to: xuenchen

?

Under the Compact Clause, states may not lay any duty of tonnage; keep troops or armies during times of peace without the consent of Congress. They shall not enter into alliances nor compacts or agreements with foreign states, nor engage in war unless invaded or faced with imminent danger.

definitions.uslegal.com...

You think a foreign state means Connecticut?

Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or through practices, prevention of a person exercising the right to vote.

That's what some Republicans want to do.
en.wikipedia.org...

Again, according to the Constitution, the people have no part in the election of the president. It's the states that choose to do that.

One State cannot base their representation on another State, that is disenfranchisement. One State basing it on 49 other States is the same thing, unconstitutional.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

One State cannot base their representation on another State, that is disenfranchisement.

No. Preventing someone who is legally eligible from voting is disenfranchisement.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
If the populace of a State votes for Trump, but the combination of Liberals from California, NY etc creates the national vote total in favor of Hillary.......

Then the people of that State are robbed of their representation. They voted for Trump but their State sends delegates that would vote for Hillary......

It already happens internally in practically every state. For example the people who voted for Trump in California were robbed of their representation. But no-one complains about that. Not to mention that the numbers of delegates for each state are off and should be adjusted, unless we want to give some people more voting power over others.

The pact would be super weird though. Seems to me that it's technically constitutional, but it goes against the founding spirit, but then again it would make the elections more fair and rational. So there's multiple layers of right and wrong.

I just don't see how the current system is fair.

a reply to: Cutepants

It is complicated.

Who knew?

I've given this some thought.


The law of unintended consequences (which is the only ####ing law that affects leftists) comes to mind.

If this happens, more focus will be played in high population areas (LA, New York) so voting may be more scrutinized. I honestly think that leftists/democrats cheat their ####ing asses off all the time, so maybe this would be a good thing.