DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76857890 United States 01/19/2020 04:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote This is the lynch pin being pulled if they rulle states can 86 the electoral college. Then its going to be a cascade of free shit army voters running this country and the final act before the national collapse . |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77804998 United States 01/19/2020 04:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote A ridiculous notion on it's face. If the original intent of creating an electoral college was that they mirror the popular vote it never would have been created to begin with and that is what SCOTUS will say. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78356159 United States 01/19/2020 04:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76678898 United States 01/19/2020 04:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78302339 Canada 01/19/2020 04:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 75539787 United States 01/19/2020 04:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77079698 United States 01/19/2020 05:00 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote if memory serve my right. it doesn't say that in the constitution about binding the elector to the popular vote. My guess, that would be up to the individual state to do that. that would be a states right thingie |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78076561 01/19/2020 05:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Weyoun
User ID: 77989510 United States 01/19/2020 05:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Judethz
User ID: 75895360 United Kingdom 01/19/2020 05:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Weyoun
User ID: 77989510 United States 01/19/2020 05:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
STAX
(OP) User ID: 75012031 United States 01/19/2020 05:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote The entire purpose of the electoral college is to buck the popular vote to prevent tyranny of the masses. Quoting: Weyoun Binding the electoral college to popular vote violates the 14th amendment, and and states that does it loses all representation per the 14th amendment section 2. Quoting: Weyoun The article is talking about the popular vote of each state, not the entire country. The Supreme Court’s decision, expected later in the year, will likely have ramifications on this year’s presidential race if the electoral college members seek to casts votes for someone who did not win the popular vote in the state. I'll edit the title to make that more clear. I can see why it can be confusing. Last Edited by STAX on 01/19/2020 05:26 PM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78362610 United States 01/19/2020 05:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote You really want a bunch of people who are either freeloaders, criminals, non-citizens, or straight up corrupt picking out the people who will represent the US on national level? That’s a surefire way to kick of CWII. |
Weyoun
User ID: 77989510 United States 01/19/2020 05:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote Binding the electoral college to popular vote violates the 14th amendment, and and states that does it loses all representation per the 14th amendment section 2. Quoting: Weyoun The article is talking about the popular vote of each state, not the entire country. The Supreme Court’s decision, expected later in the year, will likely have ramifications on this year’s presidential race if the electoral college members seek to casts votes for someone who did not win the popular vote in the state. I'll edit the title to make that more clear. I wasn't talking about popular vote of the entire country. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78362610 United States 01/19/2020 05:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote Electors MUST vote for the candidate chosen by their locality. To do so otherwise makes the voting process irrelevant. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78350120 United States 01/19/2020 05:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote The Constitution evidences that the founding fathers decided long ago. The electoral college was and is the one thing that binds the states together. Destroy the electoral college and you destroy the United States. |
WonderlandAlice
User ID: 73898431 United States 01/19/2020 05:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote This is an incredibly dangerous thing for Libtards to be pursuing. Even if it's argued or deemed a "states' rights" thing, you know only the liberal states are going to fight to elect whoever gets the popular vote. Big cities are notoriously liberal. It's just another tool in their arsenal to prevent Trump 2020. They're desperate and this is just another dirty game they're attempting to play. I hope SCOTUS doesn't go along with this charade. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76568830 United States 01/19/2020 05:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday has agreed to take up a dispute that questions whether an electoral college member is bound by the state to support the presidential candidate chosen by the popular vote. Quoting: STAX The top court granted a petition to review a pair of cases—from Washington state and Colorado—that will decide the enforceability of state laws that threatens to penalize a presidential elector if they refused to vote for the candidate they pledged to support, commonly referred to as “faithless electors.” The Supreme Court’s decision, expected later in the year, will likely have ramifications on this year’s presidential race if the electoral college members seek to casts votes for someone who did not win the popular vote in the state. When an elector does not vote for a candidate who was chosen by the popular vote, some states provide that the deviant vote be canceled, and the elector replaced, according to FairVote.org. Meanwhile, some states allow the vote to stay but would impose a penalty on the elector. Some states also allow both the canceling of the vote and a penalty. Both Washington and Colorado have laws that direct how electors perform their duties and enforce consequences for casting a vote that deviates from the will of the people. In Washington, an elector can be fined if they vote contrary to how the law directs. Meanwhile, in Colorado, if an elector does not back the candidate with a popular vote, they would have been deemed to have “refused to act,” resulting in a vacancy in that elector’s office that needed to be immediately re-filled. The lower courts in both cases came to the opposite conclusion about the issues, with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Colorado ruling for the electoral college members. At the same time, the Washington Supreme Court found in favor of the state. MORE: [link to www.theepochtimes.com (secure)] There is no question this is illegal. SCOTUS can only screw this up. |
Weyoun
User ID: 77989510 United States 01/19/2020 05:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote Whoops, thought this was about the cabal of states pledging their EC votes to the national popular vote winner. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78362610 Electors MUST vote for the candidate chosen by their locality. To do so otherwise makes the voting process irrelevant. No, that's not how it works. You vote for the elector, not for the president. If all the electors vote one way "all-or-nothing" style as it is now, then that is against the 14th amendment because you cannot vote for the elector that votes for the president of your choice. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76647789 United States 01/19/2020 05:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote This is an incredibly dangerous thing for Libtards to be pursuing. Even if it's argued or deemed a "states' rights" thing, you know only the liberal states are going to fight to elect whoever gets the popular vote. Big cities are notoriously liberal. It's just another tool in their arsenal to prevent Trump 2020. Quoting: WonderlandAlice They're desperate and this is just another dirty game they're attempting to play. I hope SCOTUS doesn't go along with this charade. yep, the democrat way... change the rules so process supports our agenda |
Prowling Panther
User ID: 78068491 United States 01/19/2020 05:46 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote Whoops, thought this was about the cabal of states pledging their EC votes to the national popular vote winner. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78362610 Electors MUST vote for the candidate chosen by their locality. To do so otherwise makes the voting process irrelevant. It is. You are correct. The more I know, the crazier I appear to be. "THE ONLY WAY TO DEAL WITH AN UNFREE WORLD IS TO BECOME SO ABSOLUTELY FREE THAT YOUR VERY EXISTENCE IS AN ACT OF REBELLION" -ALBERT CAMUS No brains, no pain. The Difference Between Stupidity and Genius Is That Genius Has Its Limits |
dr0id
User ID: 56575704 United States 01/19/2020 05:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote It's only dangerous to the behind the scenes folk who use electorial collage to direct the result of the elections, instead of going by what the majority want, like a real free country. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 78302339 Mob rule is not freedom. libbylibertarian: "No, we are a Constitutionally limited Republic. We were never meant to be a democracy in any way shape or form. Democracy is simply a tyranny of the majority. Our system protects the minority position by making it more difficult to make changes a simple majority would desire. The word Democracy does not appear in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Pledge of Allegiance for that matter, and that omission is not by accident. Please stop referring to America as a Democracy...that's been nothing more than a branding campaign run by Democrats. If we are ever going to fix this broken system we first have to understand it." "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." ~Benjamin Franklin "Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." ~James Madison, Federalist No. 10 "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." ~John Adams, 1814 "It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." ~Alexander Hamilton Last Edited by dr0id on 01/19/2020 05:56 PM Articles posted do not necessarily reflect endorsement. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72596286 United States 01/19/2020 06:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday has agreed to take up a dispute that questions whether an electoral college member is bound by the state to support the presidential candidate chosen by the popular vote. Quoting: STAX MORE: [link to www.theepochtimes.com (secure)] Of course you people realise that they refer to the popular vote of the state/district represented by the elector and not the popular vote of the whole country. Looks like pretty much an isolated instance of an elector of a district of a state could vote opposite of the will of the people of that district. That would of course be if the elector is permitted to cast their ballot independent of the ballots from the rest of the electors of that state. Some states lump them all together in a winner-takes-all for the popular candidate of the state total votes. While others split the electoral votes, dividing them up by popular votes of the districts represented. This lawsuit challenges rogue electors in states that split electoral votes between both candidates. . |
Regal Beast
User ID: 77587860 United States 01/19/2020 06:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote You have to be bound or else you are ignoring the constitutional authority of the Electoral College. That itself is an unconstitutional action. Question: How many Presidents have been elected by popular vote? Answer: NONE. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77123653 Canada 01/19/2020 06:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Weyoun
User ID: 77989510 United States 01/19/2020 06:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote ... Quoting: STAX Some states lump them all together in a winner-takes-all for the popular candidate of the state total votes. While others split the electoral votes, dividing them up by popular votes of the districts represented. ... The later bolded part is the legal way, the "winner-takes-all" is illegal, and any state that does that should loose representation proportional to the districts that voted one way but the state forced that district's elector to vote a different way via "winner-takes-all". Last Edited by Weyoun on 01/19/2020 06:08 PM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 72309798 United States 01/19/2020 06:10 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
WonderlandAlice
User ID: 73898431 United States 01/19/2020 06:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 74411148 United States 01/19/2020 06:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote Unfuckingbelievabel,you lose an election once and bitch and moan until the rules are changed for the next one.This is tantamount to running race and then saying the loser is the winner because the rules have been changed. What are the cry babies gonna do when they lose the electoral college and the popular vote back to back? |
Weyoun
User ID: 77989510 United States 01/19/2020 06:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: DANGER: Supreme Court to decide if states can bind Electoral College members to state's popular vote If every elector voted according to his district's vote, which is the only constitutional legal way, Trump would still have won 2016. "Winner-takes-all" is illegal and favors commies states like CA and NY. |