- 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: Virginia Governor Abigail signs bill into law giving all electoral college votes to winner
Posted on 4/14/26 at 10:07 pm to SallysHuman
Posted on 4/14/26 at 10:07 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Because there wasn't the cover of covid.
Fewer DEMs voted for the DEM candidate in states like California and New York because there wasn't...covid?
1
Posted on 4/14/26 at 10:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Yeah your 1/34th vote
Even in this system, your vote would be necessary for the national vote, no?
Posted on 4/14/26 at 10:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Fewer DEMs voted for the DEM candidate in states like California and New York because there wasn't...covid?
Ballot harvesting was much easier during covid.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 10:08 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Yeah your 1/34th vote
If your vote counts equally to all other votes, it, by definition, is not disenfranchised.
Our current system (which gives the GOP a naturally advantage due to how small GOP states get over-allocated EC seats) would actually be more disenfranchising, but that's for another discussion.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 10:09 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Ballot harvesting was much easier during covid.
Ballot harvesting in CA predates Covid by a few election cycles.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 10:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Ballot harvesting in CA predates Covid by a few election cycles.
I swear you are intentionally obtuse.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 10:11 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
I swear you are intentionally obtuse.
Because I understand the history of things like ballot harvesting, and know they didn't start in CA b/c of Covid?
That argument works for other states, but not CA.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 10:11 pm to L.A.
This only takes effect if all states sign on to it.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 10:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
Fascist Democrats hate Electoral College because it is designed to minimize fraud. States like Illinois and California absolutely cheat in elections. With the electoral college, this fraud gets contained to just one state. Once you open everything to the “popular vote” (a fraud, because many states cheat), each fraudulent vote impacts across the board.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 10:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Ballot harvesting in CA predates Covid by a few election cycles.
Fact. California is no longer a democracy. Turning a vote into a commodity is anti-democratic. All mail in voting, other than overseas military, should be banned.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 10:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Because I understand the history of things like ballot harvesting, and know they didn't start in CA b/c of Covid?
No one said it did... but that it was more common during covid. Plus, YOU are the one saying California as if other states did not change their rules and widen such activities. It ain't just a Cali problem.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 10:31 pm to L.A.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 11:00 pm to udtiger
I don't see how Article II, Section I doesn't pretty much give states sole discretion of how that state's electors are appointed.
And the 2020 SCOTUS decision upheld state laws forcing electors to comply with state directives about how they cast their votes. So the Supreme Court has already ruled that states can tell electors how to cast their votes, and Article II, Section I give the state legislatures sole power to appoint them.
So I don't see the Constitutional basis to object (then again, I'm not a lawyer).
I agree it's not good. I just don't see how anybody can do anything about it without a Constitutional amendment.
And the 2020 SCOTUS decision upheld state laws forcing electors to comply with state directives about how they cast their votes. So the Supreme Court has already ruled that states can tell electors how to cast their votes, and Article II, Section I give the state legislatures sole power to appoint them.
So I don't see the Constitutional basis to object (then again, I'm not a lawyer).
I agree it's not good. I just don't see how anybody can do anything about it without a Constitutional amendment.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 11:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
They may lose some of that, but unless they're in another 2024 situation, they're pretty safe.
I'd say that's pretty well unknown.
If this shifts to a national election rather than strategically targeting swing states, this whole game changes, and not just because campaign strategies will change.
How many people in states that have been historically guaranteed to fall one way or the other just didn't bother to vote because they knew it wouldn't matter? No one knows the answer to that.
We'll find out, I guess. And it may surprise the hell out of the Democrats.
This post was edited on 4/14/26 at 11:07 pm
Posted on 4/14/26 at 11:14 pm to wackatimesthree
Its just a way to neuter the Electoral College and let the Dems cheat their way to victory. They just do what they did when Biden ran and create enough votes in states they control to ensure the win.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 11:19 pm to L.A.
I'm guessing this will get appealed. It's just a waste of everyone's time and will cost a ton of money in courts.
This post was edited on 4/15/26 at 6:40 am
Posted on 4/14/26 at 11:19 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
We'll find out, I guess. And it may surprise the hell out of the Democrats.
If Louisiana wins the SCOTUS case, it won’t matter. The Dems will be done for a long time.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 11:25 pm to antibarner
quote:
They just do what they did when Biden ran and create enough votes in states they control to ensure the win.
Seems like this kind of move would make it harder to do that, though.
AI says there are roughly 245 million people of voting age in the US right now. If there were 155 votes cast in last election, what if that number now goes up to 210 with these developments?
You couldn't load up just a few states with fake votes b/c you'd already be so close to exceeding the number of eligible voters in the state. it would be too obvious at that point.
So you'd have to spread it around, much more so than you would if you only had to figure out how to win a half dozen swing states. Plus you'd have to insert significantly more votes overall.
Posted on 4/14/26 at 11:35 pm to L.A.
So I was reading about this and even though it is law it cant be used. Until these states have enough to reach 270 then it will go before the Supreme Court to be ruled if its Constitutional where it will be struck down. So currently even though it is written into law they cant use it.
Posted on 4/15/26 at 12:08 am to DeplorableTerrorizer
If the Republican nominee wins the popular vote again, this will go away like a fart in the wind.
This post was edited on 4/15/26 at 12:09 am
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News