- 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 1:37 pm to RobbBobb
Posted on 4/17/24 at 1:37 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
And it specifically says they will choose by votes,
That's the vote of the ECs
It says nothing about how those EC slots are determined
quote:
Which then calls into question the ability to mail in ballots, or vote early in presidential elections
Statutory analysis is now on the long list of things you've proven you shouldn't attempt. We'll slot it right under "making up stories bout driving in Florida"
1
Posted on 4/17/24 at 1:46 pm to Indefatigable
I get your confusion, but the Congress has already clarified this issue. Specifically due to early voting affecting other states
It solves 2 concerns in this thread
1) Electors are to be voted on
2) On a specific day
quote:
On January 23, 1845, the 28th US Congress passed "An act to establish a uniform time for holding elections for electors of President and Vice President in all the States of the Union." The act selected "the Tuesday after the first Monday in November"
It solves 2 concerns in this thread
1) Electors are to be voted on
quote:
for holding elections for electors of President and Vice President in all the States of the Union
2) On a specific day
quote:
the Tuesday after the first Monday in November
Posted on 4/17/24 at 1:48 pm to OzonaOkapi
quote:
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.
NOPE
The presidential election act of 1845 says the electors will be VOTED ON, not selected by any other means
Posted on 4/17/24 at 1:52 pm to TigersnJeeps
So if Trump wins Maine and the popular vote majority goes to Biden, then Trump loses the state he won. Sounds like something crooked demprogs would do.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 1:55 pm to RobbBobb
several reasonably bright posters have told you that you are wrong, and explained why, in some detail. Your position remains the same. “Welcome to a political discussion board,“ I suppose.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 1:55 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
It solves 2 concerns in this thread
1) Electors are to be voted on
quote:
Congress doesn't get to override the Constitution
Also "election" doesn't necessarily mean "vote"
Posted on 4/17/24 at 1:58 pm to MemphisGuy
quote:
SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't know
Bookmarked!
quote:Article 2 Clause 2
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.
I know SFP admitting he or she does not know something is rare, but SFP is right. It violates the Founder's intent of electing the President indirectly by an Electoral College. However, the states in the NPV do not have a uniform standard of who gets to vote and how the votes are counted. So the Equal Protection Clause and states suing other states and other things not mentioned could let SCOTUS negate it.
ETA: The article clearly says that states will only start allocating electors that way once they have 270 committed. So it is unlikely that we have to worry about it this election cycle.
This post was edited on 4/17/24 at 2:46 pm
Posted on 4/17/24 at 1:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Statutory analysis is now on the long list of things you've proven you shouldn't attempt. We'll slot it right under "making up stories bout driving in Florida"
Maybe you should have held your trigger finger before hitting submit. It confirms that yet again you are clueless as to the actual written law
Heres a link to the Election Act of 1845 that states word for word that electors will be chosen by elections in the states, held on the same day
quote:
And provided, also, when any state shall have held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and shall fail to make a choice on the day aforesaid, then the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the State shall by law provide
Gotta vote first, sport
LINK
Posted on 4/17/24 at 2:02 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Gotta vote first,
Where does the word "vote" appear?
Where does that vote reference the population engaging in the act?
How can Congress overrule the Constitution?
Posted on 4/17/24 at 2:03 pm to RobbBobb
You need to read your link
This is only for states who choose an election path, indicating the statute anticipates other possible appointment paths for Electors.
quote:
when any state shall have held an election f
This is only for states who choose an election path, indicating the statute anticipates other possible appointment paths for Electors.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 2:04 pm to RobbBobb
quote:The impressive element here is the sheer confidence with which you are utterly wrong.
Heres a link to the Election Act of 1845 that states word for word that electors will be chosen by elections in the states, held on the same dayquote:Gotta vote first, sport
And provided, also, when any state shall have held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and shall fail to make a choice on the day aforesaid, then the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the State shall by law provide
This post was edited on 4/17/24 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 4/17/24 at 2:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Where does the word "vote" appear?
Where does that vote reference the population engaging in the act?
How can Congress overrule the Constitution?
Jeez dude, I get that youre scrambling, but the Congress passed a law in 1845 that hasnt been contested by the Supremes. So it currently is the law of the land
And the the act is titled:
quote:
An act to establish a uniform time for holding elections FOR ELECTORS of President and Vice President in all the states of the union
Now try and tell me "holding elections" doesnt mean casting votes by the people. Here, even I'll go first
quote:
An election is a process in which people vote to choose a person or group of people to hold an official position.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 2:13 pm to OzonaOkapi
quote:
The impressive element here is the sheer confidence with which you are utterly wrong.
Lulz
Keep digging
Posted on 4/17/24 at 2:14 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
I get that youre scrambling
I"m not
quote:
but the Congress passed a law in 1845 that hasnt been contested by the Supremes.
And it doesn't include anything about mandated voting, let alone a vote by the population.
quote:
And the the act is titled:
Did you read the words of the statute?
It even says electors shall be "appointed", not elected.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 2:15 pm to OzonaOkapi
quote:
The impressive element here is the sheer confidence with which you are utterly wrong.
Whats up Hank? Here fundamentally changing America again?
Posted on 4/17/24 at 2:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It even says electors shall be "appointed", not elected.
I'm disappoint
I even underlined the part for you, where it said they are only appointed if the election results arent certain, certifiable, legit, honest. (insert your reason here)
Posted on 4/17/24 at 2:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
Is RobbBobb serious, or a troll? Genuinely curious.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 2:26 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
I even underlined the part for you, where it said they are only appointed if the election results arent certain, certifiable, legit, honest. (insert your reason here)
No, you didn't.
quote:
And provided, also, when any state shall have held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and shall fail to make a choice on the day aforesaid, then the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the State shall by law provide
1. The qualification "when any shall shall have held an election" limits the clause to only these specific states. This also implies that states may appoint without "having held an election" (and the clause would not apply)
2. This clause says that IF a state chooses to hold elections AND they fail to do it in time, then electors may be appointed based on state law in subsequent days, which largely neuters the law, but that's another discussion.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 2:27 pm to OzonaOkapi
quote:
Is RobbBobb serious, or a troll? Genuinely curious.
Serious
Posted on 4/17/24 at 2:28 pm to uncommon sense
quote:
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch
Its the race to tthe bottom. It is absolutely happening here.
Even with our muted "democracy" they still found a way to push losers to the top.
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News