Thanks, I’ll have to check it out later.
This is a conspiracy. Stop peddling conspiracies.
Also she “won” the popular vote by almost 3 million
Which is dumb because even in those densely populated cities/counties people still vote republican in large numbers (compared to those smaller, mostly red cities/counties). Those densely populated counties help the numbers in the popular vote tremendously for both republicans or democrats.
California alone has 4.5 million republican votes, that more than several “red” states republican vote total combined.
No, it will count more than it does today. Today you have a many to one relationship with the election of the President. Many votes funneled to 1 state, electoral bucket.
I am seeking a one to one. My one vote goes straight to my preferred candidate. My vote isn’t stopped before it gets to my candidate because my state is a solid blue or red state.
That’s gibberish. You claim a vote doesn’t count because the candidate you voted for doesn’t win your state but deny that same thing isn’t applicable on a national level. If your vote is wasted because your preferred candidate doesn’t win your state the same thing holds true in a national vote when your candidate loses.
The EC exists for a very good reason, that reason being, we were not founded as or intended to be a direct democracy but a democratic republic. There would be no constitution or country without the smaller states having extra clout beyond their population numbers as no smaller state would have ratified the document without it.
We get it, democrats want a tyranny by majority vote. That is antithetical to every principle this country was founded upon, which is individual rights and not mob rule. It’s a fundamentally un-American position. It’s also a recipe for eventual dissolution of the country and civil war. If you think the the rest of the country will ultimately stand for being ruled by California and New York, you are very much mistaken.
And as someone else previously stated in this thread, if your position was really founded on every vote counting, you would be pushing for proportional electors based on who won each congressional district, not a national vote. You are for this for one reason and one reason only, you think democrats can win the national vote from here on out having imported enough sheep to vote for them.
4 Likes
Nope just trying to make you respond and ;laugh at your responses as the next one is more outrageous.
I want the electors out of my way. I want my 1 vote to go DIRECTLY to my preferred candidate. Just like it does when I elect my senator.
That was 1776… this is 2019. It’s different and I am not arguing Against the original intent. It worked for the time.
And yet no one has explained how a national vote will lead to more Democrats being elected? History doesn’t agree with you.
You mean that electoral votes are split based on the popular vote count? If so, that’s fine. It gets us closer to my desire.
We also need to adjust the electors for each state.
The bill would NOT abolish the Electoral College.
National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as plenary and exclusive.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country. It does not abolish the Electoral College.
The National Popular Vote bill is states with 270 electors replacing state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.
The vote of every voter in the country (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency. Every vote in the country would become as important as a vote in a battleground state such as New Hampshire, Ohio, or Florida. The National Popular Vote plan would give voice to every voter in the country, as opposed to treating voters for candidates who did not win a plurality in the state as if they did not exist.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.
Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system.
Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections.
It would sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.
It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;
It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.
It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),
It would not make every vote equal.
It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.
The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person’s vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.
California and New York state together would not dominate the choice of President under National Popular Vote because there is an equally populous group of Republican states (with 58 million people) that gave Trump a similar percentage of their vote (60%) and a similar popular-vote margin (6 million).
In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.
California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population
Alone, they could not determine the presidency.
In total New York state and California cast 16% of the total national popular vote
In total, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states.
The vote margin in California and New York wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.
In 2004, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.
About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.
New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic.
Under a popular-vote system CA and NY would have less weight than under the current system because their popular votes would be diluted among candidates.
That’s only in the Democratic Primary. The Constitution does not dictate how the Parties select their candidate. The Constitution doesn’t even acknowledge the Parties.
Just a reminder for when Democrats and Socialists try and play mind tricks with you: This is why the Electoral College exists.
[quote=“oldgulph, post:168, topic:1342”]
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
[/quote]Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution gives the Colorado legislature the power to designate a slate of candidates that finished second as the state’s electors — even though this self-evidently abridges the voting rights of the Coloradans who cast ballots for the slate that finished first — by rendering their votes meaningless.
But Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that if the Colorado legislature follows through and does this, the state could lose at least half of its seats in Congress.
No they haven’t, please cite them. This is what I find.
from Electoral College a rare topic of discussion at Supreme Court | Constitution Center
In Bush v. Gore , the main unsigned majority per-curium opinion discussed the Electoral College in light of the McPherson v. Blacker decision from 1892.
“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College,” it said. “This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution.”
The Bush v. Gore majority found that states could allow voters to choose electors and if they did so, the process needed to be fair with “equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.” The court also said that states retained the ability to “take back the power to appoint electors” from voters and return it to the legislatures, as happened in the early days of our republic.
So it’s plenary in that the legislature may select them, but with a caveat I have underlined in bold. And in the second bolded section, I can assure you they were talking about state voters, not a national vote.
2 Likes
And lets picture this actually happening for a minute. Scenario.
We have a really close election. The Republican wins the national vote by a few thousand votes. The democrat asks for a recount. Oops, wait a minute this stupid plan doesn’t provide a mechanism for a national recount. Then what happens. Liberal states conduct recounts and find more votes for the democrat and now they are ahead? How does that work? Well republican states can recount you say? What if we have a candidate that was really popular in a state like say Pennsylvania, but they refuse to recount? Is the election void? Does it go to the House?
Good thing all of that is a moot question because they aren’t going to get enough states to sign on and if they ever did, a conservative SCOTUS would overturn it anyway.
But they cannot override the votes of the delegates so appointed. They can pass all the laws they want directing the delegates how to vote, but they cannot prevent the delegates from voting as they wish.
Very simply- the EC ensures that all sates have a voice, and must be represented - whether densely populated or less so. Without the EC four states rule the country.
There is another reason that is not as obvious- highly urban states tend to have tiny minorities that pay the vast majority of the taxes, and enormous hordes of ‘gimme dat’s’ who contribute nothing but trouble, yet are constantly pandered to by the left. The EC is the last bulwark against the country devolving into California.
I don’t think they can ignore the result of the state vote either.
from BUSH v. GORE
When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1shttps://politicalbullpen.com/t/house-slated-to-vote-on-most-significant-gun-control-bill-in-years/1291/61t Sess.).
If a state legislature wants to reclaim the power to appoint electors as they wish, they will have to not hold an election. And if they don’t hold an election, how is the winner of the national vote determined? Which points to another possible remedy, any state not in the compact can likewise reclaim the power of the legislature to appoint electors and do away with the vote, causing the same crisis for this plan.
1 Like
The same principle applies to the Senate. Every state has 2 votes.
Which the democrats are also attacking.
The National Popular Vote bill does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.