- 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: National Popular Vote Interstate Pact - Dems trying to circumvent the Constitution
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the state chooses to rely on the national tally, then who wins the state tally has no merit or value.
Yet, you say it doesn't violate anything?!?! WTF is wrong with you?
Everyone: "How in the hell would that not be a violation, SFP?"
SFP: "Because the state chose that way. It's their law or rule for handling their elections. Perfectly legit."
Everyone: "Oh, my bad. Well if they passed a law, then to hell with my vote, I guess"
[Insert WTF emoji]
If we could somehow force states to not be winner take all and divide their EC votes based on individual precincts (which is WAY better for everyone and definitely WAY more in line with the way things are currently done), I bet you'd find a way to argue against that too.
Only you, man. Insufferable. It isn't your fault though. It's our fault. For giving you the time of day. This board is a victim of you.
1
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Only if the state bases its EC vote only on the state tally
Ok???? I am saying due process requires that they base it on the state tally.
A state cannot hold an election where the voters choose Candidate A but the state says Candidate B won without violating due process. It is impossible.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:03 pm to tommy2tone1999
Trump is not on the ballot in 2028. Why are libtards freaking out so much? Are they going to act like this with every conservative politician?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:05 pm to moneyg
quote:
.but I can't tell if you are endorsing it or not.
Good luck with that. He's a man of no opinions.
He's only here to tell you what your opinion should be. Based on the law, of course. He isn't some random clown. It's the LAW, man.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:06 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
Patting themselves on the back until the GOP wins the popular vote
Yeah, I can’t wait until it backfires on them.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:07 pm to deuceiswild
quote:
Everyone: "Oh, my bad. Well if they passed a law, then to hell with my vote, I guess"
This only makes sense if your vote wasn't counted in the national tally, but in this system it would be.
You keep missing this, I think.
quote:
If we could somehow force states to not be winner take all and divide their EC votes based on individual precincts (which is WAY better for everyone and definitely WAY more in line with the way things are currently done), I bet you'd find a way to argue against that too.
In terms of legality? No. They could do that.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:09 pm to Tigerdew
quote:
This is pretty much textbook disenfranchisement is it not?
That’s (D)ifferent.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:09 pm to JimEverett
quote:
I am saying due process requires that they base it on the state tally.
Why, specifically?
They don't even have to permit us to vote (and in the early days, didn't). Was THAT a due process violation?
quote:
A state cannot hold an election where the voters choose Candidate A but the state says Candidate B won without violating due process. It is impossible.
You're only looking at this in terms of the state vote tally and ignoring entirely the concept of the national vote tally. The determination doesn't have to be exclusively state-based. You're arguing from this assumption that it has to be. Your vote would still be part of the national tally, part of that determining process.
This post was edited on 4/21/26 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:11 pm to Bwmdx
quote:
Then why even vote? Just don’t open the polls and automatically award the electorate votes to the popular vote winner of the other states. A small population state could decide that their electoral votes and low population is too little to have any bearing on the outcome and simply forgo the whole election dog and pokey show.
That’s exactly what the Dems would like. New York, California and the reliable big blue population centers would forever dictate the future of the country.
If the smaller population states and their voters (often Red) eventually got disillusioned and said “screw it, why even bother”…..,that wouldn’t hurt the feelings of the Dems in the least.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:14 pm to tigersbh
quote:
Patting themselves on the back until the GOP wins the popular vote
Yeah, I can’t wait until it backfires on them.
If you think these states would follow through and allocate deciding electoral votes to the Republican in that scenario, you are dreaming.
This is an attempt to take the will of the people out of the equation. When that happens, it's insane to think these people would follow through with an even handed application of these rules.
This is a direct attack on elections themselves. It makes them moot. But, this shouldn't be surprising. This is just another form of stealing an election an impementing a strategy that prevents the contesting of a result.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:15 pm to tommy2tone1999
Aside from the Constitutionality of all this, what else could they do to show they are dead set on winning by any means nessacery. I just can't understand why any representative calling themselves Republican wouldn't approach things the same way. It's a sad state we are in
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:15 pm to moneyg
quote:
If you think these states would follow through and allocate deciding electoral votes to the Republican in that scenario, you are dreaming.
If the national vote goes to the Republican, there is basically no possible way for the EC vote not to go GOP (like 2024).
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:20 pm to tommy2tone1999
Does the intent of the Electoral College matter or not?
Seems many don't really care.
Seems many don't really care.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Why, specifically?
i have said specifically why at least 2 times.
The due process violation would be awarding the electors to a slate that did not win the vote.
States hold elections, the federal government does not. Virginia holds an election. You can vote for slate of electors A or slate of electors B (or just th candidates themselves, for sake of argument). "A" wins the election in Virginia but Virginia awards its electors to "'B" - that is as clear a due process violation as you can get.
quote:
They don't even have to permit us to vote (and in the early days, didn't). Was THAT a due process violation?
If a State does or did not permit an election to select electors then no due process would be required for the election - given that the election does not exist. Once the legislature decides to hold an election, then due process is required.
quote:
You're only looking at this in terms of the state vote tally and ignoring entirely the concept of the national vote tally. The determination doesn't have to be exclusively state-based. You're arguing from this assumption that it has to be. Your vote would still be part of the national tally, part of that determining process.
There are two problems with that line of thinking.
1. I get that there is a national vote tally that people use and refer to. But legally speaking there is no such thing. States hold elections, not the United States government. As you pointed out - States aren't required to even have a vote. So the idea that states could choose to hold a vote but not base the winner of the vote on the election but rather on some made-up "national vote" makes no legal sense. Our system is state-based elections, not national elections, and a national vote count for President is not something that will satisfy due process when a state, holds an election but says the winner is the candidate that lost the election they held.
2. You cannot treat voters differently. So even if this compact somehow got around the due process problem there would be an equal protection problem because the "national vote" will be a hodgepodge of all sorts of different election laws, rules, and standards. Voters in each state that make up the "national vote" - the basis of which electors are chosen - will be held to different, something courts have made clear violate equal protection.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If the national vote goes to the Republican, there is basically no possible way for the EC vote not to go GOP (like 2024).
sure, for lots of reasons including the willingness of leftist states to illegally inflate their vote tallies toward a Democrat.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:42 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
Patting themselves on the back until the GOP wins the popular vote
Which Trump just did
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:43 pm to tommy2tone1999
This all stems from the 17th amendment. It is the single worst thing that ever happened to the us as a Republic.
The path to a federal totalitarian state started with the Civil War/Reconstruction. Things like the 17th amendment and the dormant commerce clause exacerbate it. The 10th amendment is practically pointless today. Pretty soon we won't need states at all.
The path to a federal totalitarian state started with the Civil War/Reconstruction. Things like the 17th amendment and the dormant commerce clause exacerbate it. The 10th amendment is practically pointless today. Pretty soon we won't need states at all.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:46 pm to JimEverett
quote:
The due process violation would be awarding the electors to a slate that did not win the vote.
But the electors are awarded based on the national tally.
quote:
States hold elections, the federal government does not.
Nobody has argued the feds will hold elections.
The national tally would be based on the certifications of the 50 states + eligible outlying areas/voters. No federal authority or action necessary.
quote:
You can vote for slate of electors A or slate of electors B (or just th candidates themselves, for sake of argument). "A" wins the election in Virginia but Virginia awards its electors to "'B" - that is as clear a due process violation as you can get.
You're still trying to force it into the current paradigm/system when we're not discussing that system anymore.
This "Slate" isn't required. The text of the Constitution only says
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors
The state appoints them based on the system they choose. In a state-based system, a slate of electors makes sense, sure, but we're not talking about that, and nothing requires a specific slate to be voted on directly.
quote:
. I get that there is a national vote tally that people use and refer to. But legally speaking there is no such thing.
The state at issue just has to define it. I'd imagine they would based on the certified tallies of the 50 states + eligible outlying areas/voters.
quote:
and a national vote count for President is not something that will satisfy due process when a state, holds an election but says the winner is the candidate that lost the election they held.
The state-level vote wouldn't matter or have legal significance in this system. Who "won the state" means nothing and has no effect.
This is you trying to force the current system into the discussion when it's not necessary or proper.
quote:
You cannot treat voters differently. So even if this compact somehow got around the due process problem there would be an equal protection problem
If there isn't an equal protection problem in our current system making votes count differently, I don't see why a system equalizing the votes' values would.
And, again, all the national tally would be is the totaling of the certified votes.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:48 pm to moneyg
quote:
sure, for lots of reasons including the willingness of leftist states to illegally inflate their vote tallies toward a Democrat.
It's more that there are more DEMs in the country than the GOP, and the GOP has an advantage in the current system by over-representation in less populated states, so the GOP having the MOV for a national vote effectively requires flipping lots of crucial purple states (as there are fewer wasted vote possibilities given their systemic advantage via small states)
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:49 pm to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
Does the intent of the Electoral College matter or not?
Seems many don't really care.
This isn't a case where they don't care...this is a direct assault on elections. They want control and they want to be able to dictate that control.
They will follow the rules to the extent that those rules just disguise their ability to ensure the winner.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News