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.
Actually what the blue states are doing is increasing the chances of a Republican winning. If just blue states sign on they will have to give their electoral votes to a Republican who lost their state but won the popular vote.
It is unconstitutional but then so was the welfare state at one time.
The approval would be needed upon its reaching the 270 EV threshold. I have a feeling it's not forthcoming.
What part of the words "The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that congressional consent is only necessary for interstate compacts that “encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.” Because the choice of method of appointing presidential electors is an “exclusive” and “plenary” state power, there is no encroachment on federal authority" do you not understand?
If the US Constitution doesn't prohibit it, how can you say that it is unconstitutional? And the Constitution explicitly gives states the right to choose their electors and cast their EC votes as they please.
The compact, which springs into existence when states having 270 EV pass the legislatin, is though.
Oh Dear me..States Rights advocates going all postal over a state exercising its State's rights. Once again we have sore losing Trumpers going off about Civil War if things don't go their way. Just like Trump himself. Whine, Whine Whine. Threaten. Threaten. Threaten.
What Nevada is doing is what all States should do. We've had two of the worst presidents in history elected because of the electoral college. Time to fix it. The people deserve to elect the president not an anachronistic process meant to protect the slave States.
Hopefully the bill passes.
Well said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill
Didn't Trump want to get rid of the electoral college......until he won by the electoral college?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerGeek40
Whatever dude. The country is divided because the democrats WON'T ACCEPT THAT TRUMP BEAT HILLARY IN 2016.
Actually Hillary beat Trump by over two million votes. Over Two Million! I think everyone's vote should count.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WMak70
Oh, please, stop the drama. I realize the Right loves the electoral college because it stacks the deck in your favor, but think about this...……...why would not the fairest way to vote be "one person, one vote" ? How is it fair that a certain percentage of ACTUAL VOTERS have their votes cancelled out because of some imaginary line drawn through their State ?
Any other election is run on the basis that if 10,000 actual people vote for one person, and 9,900 actual people vote for another guy, the one who got 10,000 wins. How is that so hard to accept and understand ?
The Right loves the flawed system of counting votes for obvious reasons, and , with Trump declining in popularity, he needs all the help he can get. But the day is coming when this antiquated, unfair system of counting votes will go away, it is inevitable.
Oh, and there won't be this mass succession you are worried about, this isn't 1776 any longer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan
So you're O.K. with some American voters being denied their right to have their vote counted due to the mere happenstance of where they've chosen to live.
How utterly "Republican" of you. OR is it?
The most important core belief of the Republicans:
"The strength of the nation lies within the individuals who live in the country, and therefore feel that the individual’s freedom, dignity, and responsibility must come first and foremost in our government."
UNLESS that "individual" and his vote reside in a highly populated state.
This.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeBeard
Yes, and it backfired tremendously. In the last two election cycles where the person won by the Electoral College were the types of people the electoral college was meant to prevent from winning. The crude, coarse, vulgar or otherwise, unqualified populist. The people knew better. The system let us down.
We now have the tyranny of the minority imposing their will on the majority. That is not what was envisioned by by the founding fathers either.
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA No, the Electoral College was an awkward compromise designed for one purpose: to accommodate slavery. A direct popular vote was first proposed. But the southern states objected because at the time they had small numbers of white citizens and large numbers of black slaves who could not vote. That meant in every election the Northern candidates would always win. James Madison proposed a solution that included the Electoral College and allowing the slave states to count blacks as 0.6 of a person to apportion electors. This is the famous Three-Fifths Compromise.
The Electoral College is an antiquated band-aid built to accommodate slavery. It no longer serves that purpose and should be abolished.
Well said. And Its good to see that at least someone knows something about American History.
This is nothing more than an attempt to stop Trump from winning in 2020. Its irresponsible, dangerous and It will eventually lead to succession. Our founding fathers knew what they were doing “leave it alone”.
Or, more properly, it is an attempt to make America a true democracy. When you have a disparity of the popular vote in the MILLIONS, it's time to re-consider. If I remember correctly, one of the main reasons for the electoral college in the first place was to preserve slavery.
If you believe in democracy, you should be in favor of it.
The compact, which springs into existence when states having 270 EV pass the legislatin, is though.
But even then, it does not "...encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.” Because the choice of method of appointing presidential electors is an “exclusive” and “plenary” state power, there is no encroachment on federal authority"
You are grasping at straws here.
Do you seriously think that the states involved have not researched this question? The right of individual states to determine how their elections are held in general, and in particular how they allocate their presidential electors, is WELL established. In fact, it is a bedrock of the federalist form of government. Are you arguing that the US should not follow a federalist form of government?
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.
