Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, actually they can. They can allocate their EC votes any way they wish. There will be hiccups as you suggested, but it is the State's right constitutionally to figure out how they will do so.
The USA would be much better served if there were more parties. Then voters would have a real choice.
I am not sure that states have rights to completely overturn the will of the majority of the voters within the state. Maybe they have but it sure will be tested in the Supreme court and if there is a conservative majority and the loser in the state was a republican the verdict might go the other way. Or a liberal majority Supreme court and a democratic loser. Uncharted territory.
Also, this a non-binding pact between states that agree to it once they reach the 270 number. Not all the states. But what happens if in a few years time a couple of states who agreed to it now have a governor and legislature from a different party and they overturn the law and the total number then falls less than 270. Do the other states who agreed to it in the past still have to follow the rule. The whole thing will become messy.
I agree with multi party choices. More choices than the two idiotic ones we have.
I am not sure that states have rights to completely overturn the will of the majority of the voters within the state. Maybe they have but it sure will be tested in the Supreme court and if there is a conservative majority and the loser in the state was a republican the verdict might go the other way. Or a liberal majority Supreme court and a democratic loser. Uncharted territory.
The federal Constitution permits a state to determine its electoral vote however it wishes.
I believe this is a matter that would go to the state supreme court to determine if by the state constitution whether the state legislators can pass such a law. That suit, in this case, should be filed by the state Republican Party organization.
If that proves constitutional by state law, then the correction method is to vote the state congresscritters out of office.
The federal Constitution permits a state to determine its electoral vote however it wishes.
I believe this is a matter that would go to the state supreme court to determine if by the state constitution whether the state legislators can pass such a law. That suit, in this case, should be filed by the state Republican Party organization.
If that proves constitutional by state law, then the correction method is to vote the state congresscritters out of office.
Ask President Al Gore about the equal protections clause. He will set the record straight for you, and so will the supreme court. This nonsense will be struck down immediately.
I as well as others have said the following, in this as well as other threads on the subject, more than once.
It doesn't matter how many "compacts" are signed (if they even get approved by Congress) how many promises are made or how many pinky swears are done, the first time a state like California or Florida or New York or Texas (or for arguments sake Indiana or Maryland) has to allot its Electoral votes to a candidate that didn't carry that state, especially when voting the way the state did makes that candidate President, you'll see this "agreement" melt away faster than an ice cube dropped into boiling water.
I as well as others have said the following, in this as well as other threads on the subject, more than once.
It doesn't matter how many "compacts" are signed (if they even get approved by Congress) how many promises are made or how many pinky swears are done, the first time a state like California or Florida or New York or Texas (or for arguments sake Indiana or Maryland) has to allot its Electoral votes to a candidate that didn't carry that state, especially when voting the way the state did makes that candidate President, you'll see this "agreement" melt away faster than an ice cube dropped into boiling water.
Probably.
Unless all those state congresscritters have their hands on the handles of their golden parachutes.
The federal Constitution permits a state to determine its electoral vote however it wishes.
I believe this is a matter that would go to the state supreme court to determine if by the state constitution whether the state legislators can pass such a law. That suit, in this case, should be filed by the state Republican Party organization.
If that proves constitutional by state law, then the correction method is to vote the state congresscritters out of office.
If you truly believe a monumental case like this will be settled by a State supreme Court and end there, I have a bridge in NY to sell to you.
This will be appealed directly to the US Supreme court and decision made there. Not in Colorado State Supreme court
States can split their electoral votes proportionately which is what should happen.
States can give it to winner takes all - I don't fully agree with this but at least the plurality or majority of the voters wanted that candidate.
What they cannot do is take the electoral votes and give it away to the loser of that state even if he has won the national vote. This applies equally to democrats and republicans.
Let us say for the sake of argument there iis a Republican, Democrat and Independent in Colorado. The republican wins 40%, the democrat 25% and independent 35%. But the democrat wins the national vote and the Colorado electoral votes are the ones that help the democrat win the electoral college. That a third place finisher in a state is awarded all the votes will be challenged in the Supreme court and may be declared unconstitutional.
I am sure that if the democrat gets the 40% in the state but gets no electoral vote due to losing the national vote, and thus loses his chance of becoming president, all hell will break loose.
This is a stupid idea.
Re: bold: agree this would make the most sense.
( 'This is (also) why we can't have nice things' because we seem to inevitably break them. )
I am not sure that states have rights to completely overturn the will of the majority of the voters within the state. Maybe they have but it sure will be tested in the Supreme court and if there is a conservative majority and the loser in the state was a republican the verdict might go the other way. Or a liberal majority Supreme court and a democratic loser. Uncharted territory.
Also, this a non-binding pact between states that agree to it once they reach the 270 number. Not all the states. But what happens if in a few years time a couple of states who agreed to it now have a governor and legislature from a different party and they overturn the law and the total number then falls less than 270. Do the other states who agreed to it in the past still have to follow the rule. The whole thing will become messy.
I agree with multi party choices. More choices than the two idiotic ones we have.
And then there are states like mine. Even though the crazy blue city of Madison is our state capital, we are not partisan sheeple. We are independent.! Many times we elect a Republican governor in the same election where we vote in a Democrat for president.
The states that are essentially silencing their vote, by doing whatever the mob does, are giving away their independence. Why campaign in state X, Y or Z if they will be forced to elect whoever New York and California vote for?
And why would a presidential candidate bother to campaign in a small state if a state like California is soooooo blue, that the 75% overkill in votes, those past the 50.1% cutoff, are enough to wipe out all the votes from three smaller states?
Last edited by Wapasha; 04-11-2019 at 08:06 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
