- 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 4/15/26 at 12:50 pm to soonerinlOUisiana
Posted on 4/15/26 at 12:50 pm to soonerinlOUisiana
quote:
If their votes end up counting for the candidate they didn’t vote for
How, exactly would this occur?
Say this existed in 2024. If they vote for Trump, that vote for Trump counts in the national tally for Trump. If they vote for Kamala, that vote for Kamala counts in the national tally for Kamala.
Who they vote for remains unchanged in either system.
1
Posted on 4/15/26 at 12:55 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:You think that’s WHY they’re doing this?
Not advocating for this, but explaining why they are doing it this way
Jesus Christ
Posted on 4/15/26 at 12:58 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
You think that’s WHY they’re doing this? Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ…I said “why they are doing it this way” meaning why they are keeping the electoral college in name only. It’s to keep this process legal.
Do better.
Posted on 4/15/26 at 12:58 pm to L.A.
So all those celebrities begging for delegates to vote their conscience were really just mindless pawns?
Well, yeah, but now more than ever!
That trick didn’t work so now just cheat?
Well, yeah, but now more than ever!
That trick didn’t work so now just cheat?
Posted on 4/15/26 at 1:13 pm to NorCali
quote:
There is not a requirement for a "compact" for this to fly.
But it is a compact and thus needs Congressional approval.
A State could award its electoral votes according to who its Secretary of State says won a "national vote" (however defined) and that would not need congressional approval. But conditioning it on a compact that States agree will go into effect when enough states join does require congressional approval.
Posted on 4/15/26 at 1:41 pm to Diego Ricardo
quote:Negative.
Article II, Section 1 only defines the number of electors a state receives and that they state can appoint them.
Since that appointment process was not enumerated, how it is done is left to the state.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State"
Now, if Congress approved it, that could be a different issue.
Posted on 4/15/26 at 3:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Say this existed in 2024. If they vote for Trump, that vote for Trump counts in the national tally for Trump. If they vote for Kamala, that vote for Kamala counts in the national tally for Kamala.
And the electoral votes would end up counting for Trump. How can you be so obtuse? Oh yeah, I forgot, because you’re a dumbfrick.
Posted on 4/15/26 at 3:48 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Negative. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State" Now, if Congress approved it, that could be a different issue.
I do not think this qualifies as a compact or agreement with another state but it is pissing in the wind to argue much one way or another. You can just say you disagree and there we’ll be pissing in the wind.
Posted on 4/15/26 at 4:54 pm to Diego Ricardo
quote:You don't think a compact or agreement with other states qualifies as a compact or agreement with other states?
I do not think this qualifies as a compact or agreement with another state
That is quite an interesting take.
Posted on 4/15/26 at 7:25 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You don't think a compact or agreement with other states qualifies as a compact or agreement with other states?
That is quite an interesting take.
Where did they enter into an agreement or compact with another state. They simply stated that their electors would be apportioned based on winner take all of the national popular vote. Even the clause that it is not effective until a certain percentage of states have the same system is not coordinated between the states in any legal sense.
Posted on 4/15/26 at 7:29 pm to L.A.
See now you just need to manufacture votes somewhere like California or Fulton county to swing Virginia. This is dumb.
This post was edited on 4/15/26 at 7:29 pm
Posted on 4/15/26 at 8:09 pm to L.A.
Can’t wait for this to go to SCOTUS so ACB, Kavanaugh, and Robert’s can once again use the Constitution as toilet paper and side with the ones that are openly liberal.
Posted on 4/15/26 at 8:10 pm to soonerinlOUisiana
quote:
And the electoral votes would end up counting for Trump
And? Their vote was a part of that process
Posted on 4/15/26 at 8:47 pm to jp4lsu
quote:
I really cant see how this is legal.
I don't understand how it's not.
The Constitution gives state legislatures the sole power to select delegates by any means they choose.
And in 2020 SCOTUS upheld state laws that allowed states to require those delegates to vote the way the state mandates.
What's the illegal part?
As far as I can tell, this is just the consequence of a representative government designed to allow the people to determine the direction of the country.
This country was designed such that if the people were determined to do it, they could eventually vote away their freedom, their vote, their voice, their power.
The FFers tried to mitigate the probability of that by restricting who could vote and concentrating power in the states. And citizens kept voting to expand the vote and transfer power to the federal government.
Collectively, over time, we voted for this. It's the fundamental flaw of a democratic government. Citizens can vote for authoritarianism and there's nothing to stop it.
Posted on 4/15/26 at 9:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
And? Their vote was a part of that process
Yes. And the votes would be processed opposite of who the voters voted for. Sigh. Common sense apparently is not very common at Stanford.
Posted on 4/15/26 at 9:24 pm to soonerinlOUisiana
quote:
And the votes would be processed opposite of who the voters voted for
You're describing votes in the national tally for the losing side in that tally. Nothing more.
This post was edited on 4/15/26 at 9:25 pm
Posted on 4/15/26 at 9:30 pm to soonerinlOUisiana
Yep, this is why some states like California kept counting votes for 2-3 months after the election. To try to overturn the popular vote total.
Posted on 4/15/26 at 9:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're describing votes in the national tally for the losing side in that tally. Nothing more.
No. I’m describing votes for one candidate, that Virginia is ignoring for the benefit of a different candidate. Give it up. Your cretinism was exposed way back at the beginning of this thread. Or actually, the beginning of this board.
Posted on 4/15/26 at 9:55 pm to soonerinlOUisiana
quote:
And the votes would be processed opposite of who the voters voted for.
I don't understand how this is any different from millions of people who vote, say, in Alabama, for a Democrat but whose votes don't count for anything when the Republican wins the popular vote in the state because it's been determined by the state legislature to be a winner take all state. Why is that not disenfranchisement?
Why is awarding all the electoral votes based on who wins the popular vote in the state o.k., but doing the same thing based on who wins the popular vote nationally "disenfranchisement?"
And remember, it's Constitutionally mandated that the state legislatures have sole discretion about how these delegates are chosen and the Supreme Court has upheld state laws mandating how the delegates have to vote.
If the state legislature voted for it, it could ostensibly mandate under those Constitutional conditions that every electoral vote had to always be cast for the Republican (or Democrat) candidate no matter what anybody voted for. I really don't see anything stopping that. The Alabama state legislature could ostensibly just vote to be a Republican state. Vote for whoever you want, but all the electoral votes are always gong to be cast for the Republican.
How 'bout them apples?
Is this a design flaw, or is this an intentional safeguard that the FF built into the system to return power and emphasis to the state legislatures if we voted for the power to shift too far toward the federal level?
I think it's possible that it could be.
Because if states start voting like I theorized above, where the state legislature just votes to be a Republican or Democrat state, the state legislature becomes a hell of a lot more important, doesn't it? And it goes back to what the framers intended...for the state legislatures to pick the POTUS.
I knew those guys were smart, but I didn't know they were that smart. Good grief.
This post was edited on 4/15/26 at 10:04 pm
Posted on 4/15/26 at 10:10 pm to soonerinlOUisiana
quote:
No. I’m describing votes for one candidate, that Virginia is ignoring
They aren't though
You're not defending your point at all and just keep repeating untrue statements over and over as if that will change something
We can break this down simply for you
Would these votes count in the national tally, yes or no?
Page 9 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News