- 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: Michigan Democrats approve National Popular Vote scheme
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:30 pm to cajunangelle
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:30 pm to cajunangelle
How can this be ok and fair?
Whomever wins in a state should get that states electoral votes.
Whomever wins in a state should get that states electoral votes.
1
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:43 pm to Zachary
quote:
The voters of one state are, in essence, letting the voters in ALL other states
Corrected.
It's astounding to me that the Republican party has won the popular vote for president exactly ONE time in 30 years, and that was to an incumbent. They've also had two incumbents lose during that same time.
It seems to me the Republican party is suffering from a messaging problem.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
Well the politicians literally ignores the constitution such as all men are equal unless you are black then you have more rights, affirmative action in private enterprise as well as government. Minorities such as women ( which make up 52% of the population) have protection & rights not afforded to men. If you argue that state’s right come into play they cannot supersede federal laws of EC, but they can manipulate as they have been doing in some states. As far as being implemented in states( very very doubtful) or nationally(convention of states) I would bet bet the end of America would happen first ( quickly getting there).
Posted on 7/13/23 at 12:48 pm to Nosevens
quote:
Well the politicians literally ignores the constitution such as all men are equal unless you are black then you have more rights, affirmative action in private enterprise as well as government. Minorities such as women ( which make up 52% of the population) have protection & rights not afforded to men.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 1:02 pm to cajunangelle
I wonder if California (or any of the states beyond the EST and CST zones, for that matter) would be OK with a law that said they would default to whatever majority those to their east had established.
I mean, that’s about the same amount of control for their voters as, say Ohio voters, would have if they had to wait for California to settle up before they could allocate.
States can do what they want so long as they do no practical injury to their own citizens, or those of other states.
Pretty sure bonafide lawyers of Constitutional law could come up with a hand full of citations to argue against the nonsense of ‘rule by mob’ that even those poor cretins who didn’t have proper sewage facilities foresaw a quarter millennium ago…
I mean, that’s about the same amount of control for their voters as, say Ohio voters, would have if they had to wait for California to settle up before they could allocate.
States can do what they want so long as they do no practical injury to their own citizens, or those of other states.
Pretty sure bonafide lawyers of Constitutional law could come up with a hand full of citations to argue against the nonsense of ‘rule by mob’ that even those poor cretins who didn’t have proper sewage facilities foresaw a quarter millennium ago…
Posted on 7/13/23 at 1:12 pm to Nosevens
quote:
Well the politicians literally ignores the constitution such as all men are equal unless you are black then you have more rights
Home schooled?
Posted on 7/13/23 at 1:20 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
it is NOT a popular election. The electors for president are appointed by the state.
The People don't elect the president, the States do.
Correct. I wasn't implying that the people directly elect the POTUS, just that since the 17th, all elections are now pandering to popularity.
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 7/13/23 at 1:22 pm to Knight of Old
None of this matters. The red states are not without recourse and there's nothing the national vote proponents can do about it.
Several states have already voted to withhold all state popular vote totals until after electors are chosen. They will only announce who got the most votes and rough percentages. Boom. Over. If there's no way to come up with the national popular vote (you can't just guess), the entire scheme fails. Texas and Florida alone account for roughly 22mm votes in a presidential election.
Plus, I doubt this would survive judicial scrutiny if for no other reason than the compact does not allow for a state to withdraw at will, which is required.
Several states have already voted to withhold all state popular vote totals until after electors are chosen. They will only announce who got the most votes and rough percentages. Boom. Over. If there's no way to come up with the national popular vote (you can't just guess), the entire scheme fails. Texas and Florida alone account for roughly 22mm votes in a presidential election.
Plus, I doubt this would survive judicial scrutiny if for no other reason than the compact does not allow for a state to withdraw at will, which is required.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 2:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
The only thing is, the R voters in those densely populated blue states really have very little incentive to vote. They would actually have a bigger voice if they show up and vote
Posted on 7/13/23 at 2:23 pm to cajunangelle
The states that have supported the national popular vote compact are cowards. It doesn't actually become operative until states with 270+ electoral votes approve it. If they truly believed in the national popular vote they would implement it immediately but they don't want to give a GOP candidate their votes.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 3:55 pm to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
Plus, I doubt this would survive judicial scrutiny if for no other reason than the compact does not allow for a state to withdraw at will, which is required.
Now THIS, this is an argument.
Can't believe this hasn't been challenged at the state level, but I guess there may not be standing yet.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 4:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You would have to give me an example of what you're talking about to analyze.
Each state is charged with picking electors. Electors vote for the candidate of their choice.
Can you make an elector vote for a candidate simply because that candidate received the most votes nation wide????
How is that constitutional?
Posted on 7/13/23 at 4:49 pm to doubleb
quote:
Can you make an elector vote for a candidate simply because that candidate received the most votes nation wide?
If that's how the population (via their state reps) decided.
quote:
How is that constitutional?
States are given the ultimate authority on how to apportion their electors.
quote:
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:
It's not clear if any election is even required
Posted on 7/13/23 at 4:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's not clear if any election is even required
No but electors have to be chosen. You can not make them vote a certain way. Once chosen they are charged with choosing the next president. They can do whatever they want.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 4:58 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
How can this be ok and fair?
Because it means that the person who got the most votes would win the election. How is that not fair?
Posted on 7/13/23 at 5:00 pm to doubleb
quote:
How is that constitutional?
My understanding has always been that this is a matter left to individual states. They can do it any way they want.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 5:01 pm to doubleb
quote:
No but electors have to be chosen.
In a manner the Legislature sees fit.
quote:
You can not make them vote a certain way.
States can. 33 states have faithless elector laws.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 5:03 pm to cajunangelle
Can win in the courts. This is obviously a path to totalitarianism.
This post was edited on 7/13/23 at 5:04 pm
Posted on 7/13/23 at 5:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
In a manner the Legislature sees fit.
Certainly
quote:
States can. 33 states have faithless elector laws.
I know, but an elector can break the law and vote for who they choose. They wouldn’t shoot the guy would they?
Say SFP is in the ballot in Michigan as an elector for Ben Afleck. Afleck wins Michigan, but since Tom Cruise won the popular vote state law requires SFP to vote Cruise.
SFP says no, I am pledged to Afleck and he votes Afleck as do all the other Afleck electors. Afleck gets 274 electoral votes and becomes POTUS.
Is any jury in Michigan going to find them guilty if a crime for following the will of the people? No
Posted on 7/13/23 at 5:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:It's because it won't go into effect until enough states support it so that they have 270+ electoral vote. There is no standing until then. Which is why I say they are cowards. If they truly believed in the national popular vote they could choose to award their electoral votes based on the national vote. They won't though because they don't truly believe in it.
Now THIS, this is an argument.
Can't believe this hasn't been challenged at the state level, but I guess there may not be standing yet.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News