- 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 3:52 pm to OchoDedos
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:52 pm to OchoDedos
quote:
Democrats don't have the Supreme Court. Pacts don't circumvent the Constitution
Rush Limbaugh said years ago democrats want to do away with elections and just win.
0
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:53 pm to JimEverett
quote:
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.
It's my understanding that states can base who takes their electoral votes on anything they want, as long as whatever criteria that ends up being isn't applied to their citizens unequally.
Is your understanding different?
quote:
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.
What court cases are you referring to?
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's more that there are more DEMs in the country than the GOP,
Wrong again, you leftist retard.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 3:58 pm to Bourre
quote:
Wrong again, you leftist retard
How many popular votes have Republican Presidential candidates won in the past 30 years? 2 (04, 24)
DEMs have won 6 (96, 00, 08, 12, 16, 20)
Posted on 4/21/26 at 4:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
So what, that’s a function of getting out the vote.
However, that wasn’t your statement, libtard. You stated there are more Dems than GOP and I just proved you wrong. National party registration has been trending GOP for a couple years now. I know that’s hard for you leftist to digest
Go back to arguing for left wing political theory, commie scum Some “constitutionalist” you are
However, that wasn’t your statement, libtard. You stated there are more Dems than GOP and I just proved you wrong. National party registration has been trending GOP for a couple years now. I know that’s hard for you leftist to digest
Go back to arguing for left wing political theory, commie scum Some “constitutionalist” you are
This post was edited on 4/21/26 at 4:04 pm
Posted on 4/21/26 at 4:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How many popular votes have Republican Presidential candidates won in the past 30 years?
How many of those elections were campaigned on and decided by the popular vote?
The team who won the most games for the past 30 years isn't necessarily the team who will keep winning if they change how the score is kept.
If elections start being decided by the popular vote, campaigns change and voter participation changes. Nobody knows what happens then.
Not you or anybody else. Which is why the Democrats are risking huge by doing this.
This post was edited on 4/21/26 at 4:25 pm
Posted on 4/21/26 at 4:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How many popular votes have Republican Presidential candidates won in the past 30 years? 2 (04, 24)
DEMs have won 6 (96, 00, 08, 12, 16, 20)
moving the goalposts.
But, your entire statement misses the point anyway.
Democrats have already adopted election fraud. This would be a way of embedding election fraud into friendly, challenge proof blue areas to impact the electors of other states.
Ultimately, it's an attempt to eliminate the value of elections and to setup a system that ensures political power.
It's easy to see. Those that don't just choose not to.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 4:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It can just as easily be argued that a system of equal voter representation is more equitable and states value that more than their inequitable share.
It can but it is not the design of the system we have. If I live in Tennessee within this compact and we vote for Candidate A and B wins because they win the California and NY/New England states then I dont see that my vote was properly represented.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 7:56 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
It's my understanding that states can base who takes their electoral votes on anything they want, as long as whatever criteria that ends up being isn't applied to their citizens unequally.
Is your understanding different?
Yes.
States are under a whole host of constitutional - both state and federal - limitations on how they can allocate electors. The recent North Carolina gerrymandering case makes that clear.
And as I have been saying - basing the "winner" of a state election based in part on people voting that do not qualify to vote in the state is a clear violation of due process, equal protection, state constitution s, the right to vote, etc.
quote:
What court cases are you referring to?
Bush v. Gore is one I was thinking of. But there are others.
Posted on 4/21/26 at 7:58 pm to tommy2tone1999
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News