- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Maine joins unConstitutional National Popular Vote states
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:02 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:02 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This will be 30 fricking pages of you defending this shite
Defending? What?
quote:For some reason, a lot of people interpret a detailed analysis as a "defense."
This will be 30 fricking pages of you defending this shite
Defending? What?
Very strange.
1
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:06 am to M. A. Ryland
quote:Politically, it is one thing, when sloppy voting procedures in California affect elections in California, or even how California chooses to award its electoral votes.
Now 10,000 illegal votes in California can change the election.
Texas & Florida will likely not be willing to accept that.
It is another matter entirely, when sloppy procedures in California start to have a direct effect outside its borders.
Of course, that is a political question, and has little relevance to the question of constitutionality.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:08 am to OzonaOkapi
quote:
For some reason, a lot of people interpret a detailed analysis as a "defense."
Very strange.
Not when partisan brain rot enters the picture, where anything other than histrionic reactions are seen as a "defense" of the policy associated with the out group.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:10 am to OzonaOkapi
Welcome back, Hank.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:10 am to SlowFlowPro
"What does the law say" is a very different question from "What result do I personally want to see."
People seem to struggle with that distinction.
People seem to struggle with that distinction.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:13 am to OzonaOkapi
quote:
What does the law say" is a very different question from "What result do I personally want to see."
Hank, that’s true.
But your twin never says what he wants to see. Of course, that’s on purpose.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:14 am to roadGator
quote:
But your twin never says what he wants to see.
quote:
Of course, that’s on purpose.
When you build your argument/world view on a lie, anything is possible I suppose.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What does this have to do with the Democratic party being decidedly more popular and supported than the GOP over the past 3 decades?
In the last 30 years the GOP has controlled the US House for 22 years compared to 8 years for the Democrats, 16 years in control of the US Senate compared to 14 for the Democrats. You’re making up a narrative to support your position.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 10:21 am to The Boat
It’s unconstitutional because it invalidates the election results within the state’s own borders. Why bother even having an election if the electors are going to throw out those results in an effort to award votes to a different candidate that more people voted for in other states? That would be like the people of Maine voting for a Senator and then having the governor’s cabinet choosing the candidate that Vermont voters prefer.
It’s well known that the Electoral College was developed precisely to keep larger states with large population centers from completely overriding the will of those living in smaller states outside those centers. Larger states are able to express the will of their larger populations in the House. There is no single election for the President; there’s 50 different states races that are intended to be independent from each other. Ergo, a state cannot consider the electoral results from outside of its state. To invalidate the will of the people from one state due to the preference of people from other states is thoroughly undemocratic and a violation of the tenets of representative government.
This whole movement is being built up in Democratic Party-controlled states, or, rather, states that have been voting Democratic in the Presidential election in recent history. It’s a move by the DNC to institute one party rule.
It’s well known that the Electoral College was developed precisely to keep larger states with large population centers from completely overriding the will of those living in smaller states outside those centers. Larger states are able to express the will of their larger populations in the House. There is no single election for the President; there’s 50 different states races that are intended to be independent from each other. Ergo, a state cannot consider the electoral results from outside of its state. To invalidate the will of the people from one state due to the preference of people from other states is thoroughly undemocratic and a violation of the tenets of representative government.
This whole movement is being built up in Democratic Party-controlled states, or, rather, states that have been voting Democratic in the Presidential election in recent history. It’s a move by the DNC to institute one party rule.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's been 20 years since the GOP has won the popular vote, and that required a war-time incumbent to do it.
And that is why the electoral college was founded. If not New York and California would determine every election with the psycho’s that live there
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't know if it violates the Constitution because states have a lot of leeway in how they appoint their electors.
Not enough leeway to send their electors based on how other states voted. Thats the whole purpose of the EC. Send electors based on how the citizens of a SINGLE state voted, based on the number of reps and sens that SINGLE state has
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:57 am to RobbBobb
quote:OKquote:Not enough leeway to send their electors based on how other states voted
I don't know if it violates the Constitution because states have a lot of leeway in how they appoint their electors.
quote:Please show us that limiting language in the Constitution,
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.
quote:Read carefully here. The Constitution does NOT mandate that EC delegates by selected by a vote or election. The state legislature could pick ANY means it wants for assigning its Electors, including lottery, rolling dice or throwing darts at a wall. Louisiana could pass a law saying "our Electors must vote however the Texas Electors vote."
Send electors based on how the citizens of a SINGLE state voted
FTR, I don't LIKE the "National Popular Vote" movement/statutes, but I acknowledge that it IS a clever attempt to bypass both the EC and the Interstate Compact provisions of the Constitution.
This post was edited on 4/17/24 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 4/17/24 at 11:59 am to RobbBobb
quote:
Send electors based on how the citizens of a SINGLE state voted
"Voted" is not in the Constitution. There isn't a requirement that states even assign their ECs based on a popular vote, or any vote, based on a textual analysis.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 1:12 pm to Indefatigable
quote:How does this fare, when neighboring states make agreements to not charge out-of-state fees when students are crossing boundaries to go to college?
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
This post was edited on 4/17/24 at 5:18 pm
Posted on 4/17/24 at 1:15 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
Winner take all laws are also a corruption of the Electoral College.
No its not. The constitution gave each state the right to choose how their electors are elected. If they choose popular vote, that is constitutional.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 1:17 pm to FreddieMac
quote:
If they choose popular vote, that is constitutional.
I didn't say it wasn't. I said it was a corruption of what was intended. Just because the founders didn't see the loophole doesn't mean it fits the original design.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 1:18 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Not enough leeway to send their electors based on how other states voted.
I don't see that limitation:
quote:
in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct
The State's don't even have to hold elections for POTUS.
The Compact is certainly terrible and against the intent of the Constitution, and very may well be unconstitutional, but your reasons probably are not why.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 1:24 pm to OzonaOkapi
quote:
Read carefully here. The Constitution does NOT mandate that EC delegates by selected by a vote or election
perhaps you missed this part
quote:
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."
This isnt the COUNTING of the electors, this is in specific reference to the said choosing of electors. And it specifically says they will choose by votes, and its mandated to do so on the same day
Which then calls into question the ability to mail in ballots, or vote early in presidential elections
Posted on 4/17/24 at 1:26 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Which then calls into question the ability to mail in ballots, or vote early in presidential elections
Your quote governs the States' appointment of their electors and the votes cast by said electors.
Nothing in that prevents early or mail-in voting.
This post was edited on 4/17/24 at 1:28 pm
Posted on 4/17/24 at 1:28 pm to RobbBobb
quote:Yes, Congress gets to pick the date on which each State will "chuse" its Electors. On that day, the States might "chuse" them by any method dictated by the legislature of the given state, be it vote of the populace, vote of the legislature, appointment by the governor, or the roll of a set of D&D dice.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."quote:
This isnt the COUNTING of the electors, this is in specific reference to the said choosing of electors. And it specifically says they will choose by votes, and its mandated to do so on the same day
Page 3 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News