- Status
J
JimG
Guest
I’m not sure what will happen if Democrats win. If they lose, though, they will be convinced that it was only because of vote fraud–someone cheated them out of it.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And in the process, we lose another key Constitutional provision – that State legislatures decide how elections are run and make binding decisions on the outcomes. Instead, it will be lawyers and courts that decide this.
B
BioCatholic
Guest
Hate to tell you Vern, but there are already mesaures getting set to be put on the ballot next year that will allocate a State’s electoral votes to the candidate that wins the National popular vote. They wont go to the candidate that wins that state.
California is one of them. And there isnt a single. solitary thing the Federal gov’t can do about that. if the measure pass, we will end up with alot of states casting electoral votes for candidates that DO win their state, and a few others that cast for the popular vote winner.
wont that be fun???
R
rlg94086
Guest
That doesn’t make any sense…the State is going to send their electoral votes to the winner of the National popular vote? So, you are telling me that California is going to send it’s electoral votes to a Republican, if the National popular vote elects a Republican…regardless of Californian’s votes?
I’m confused.
Do you have a link to an article about this…maybe it would be clearer.
I’m confused.
Do you have a link to an article about this…maybe it would be clearer.
B
BioCatholic
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Theorectically, this could cause total confusion for Congress to certify the votes at the beginning of each term. And it would be so much fun to watch.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Like rlg94086, I’m not sure what you mean here.
Are you saying that, regardless of how many votes a candidate gets in California, the Electoral College votes go to the guy who the people in Texas voted for?
E
estesbob
Guest
The law only goes in effect if states with a majority of the elctoral vote ratify a similar law.
B
BioCatholic
Guest
I understand that, but if it does happen, then the presidential winner will be determined by popular vote and NOT through the electoral college system currently winning state-by-state.
this is perfectly legal to do under the Us constitution, and it would most definitely survive any challenge short of an Amendment or Federal Constitutional Convention.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
The idea behind it is to remove the importance of the Electoral College and make the presidential election more democratic. The only way to do so directly is to amend the constitution, which is nearly impossible to do these days. Another way is to do it indirectly by changing how electoral votes are awarded. There are many ways to accomplish the goal. One way would be to split the votes proportionately based on the results of each statewide election. Another way is to get several big states, like California, to award all its electoral votes to the candidate who wins the most votes in the popular race. If enough states do so, then it’s no longer a state-by-state thing but a truly nationwide election as the popular vote will determine the outcome.
E
estesbob
Guest
No-regardless of who texas votes for their electoral votes would go to whever got the most votes nationawide. The idea is to cut out of the process pretty much everyone who does not live on The east Coast and the west coast from the process.
Haivng failed to steal the elction in 2000 the democrats now want to put a law into effect keeping states from having anything to do with electing the President.
B
BioCatholic
Guest
Still, you cant say this is Unconstitutional. Elections are left up to the states. And if a majority of the states decide to do this, theres nothing the rest of the Us can do, EXCEPT amend the Constitution.
I think it gets conservative people riled because the states that do have the most votes, are democaratic and liberal. It it still within the law though
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
My point was, if California is not in the majority, their electoral college votes go to the guy California citizens voted against.
California (and the other large states) would like to do away with the Electoral College – but the small states aren’t about to let them.
I think this is typical fuzzy thinking. Consider two possibilities:
- California votes for the candidate with the most votes, nation-wide. The new idea has no effect. California’s electoral college votes go to the man Califormians voted for.
- California votes for the candidate with the least votes, nation-wide. The new law means that California’s electoral college votes go to the man Califormians did not vote for.
B
BBoy
Guest
Lets pray that they don’t. EVERYONE VOTE FOR LIFE:thumbsup:
R
rascal_one
Guest
Here in Maryland there is a little known event where some court said that Gay Marriage in Maryland will be decided by the Maryland Legislature and the Govenor. Our Democrat majority state legislatures will no doubt go for it - and if Democrat O’Malley gets elected over Erlich then Gay Marriage will be a reality.
Problem is not many know about it. But look for it to happen should O’Malley be Gov!
Seems like the Democrat party is about as anti-Catholic as it gets.
Problem is not many know about it. But look for it to happen should O’Malley be Gov!
Seems like the Democrat party is about as anti-Catholic as it gets.
S
steveandersen
Guest
The Electoral College is a very undemocratic institution (as is the Senate)
There have been several instances of candidates loosing in the popular vote but winning in the college.
The small states will never go along with abolishing the system
One solution might be to raise the ceiling on the number of house members.
That would put the electoral vote closer (but still not an exact match) to the popular vote.
There have been several instances of candidates loosing in the popular vote but winning in the college.
The small states will never go along with abolishing the system
One solution might be to raise the ceiling on the number of house members.
That would put the electoral vote closer (but still not an exact match) to the popular vote.
B
BioCatholic
Guest
You are 100% correct as to what the Senate USED to represent. But now not that senators are popularly elected.
The Senate was meant to represent the state Legislatures, which is why the original text of the Constitution said that Senators were to be appointed by the Legislative or Executive authority of the state.
The House was meant to represent the People, and the Senate represented the actual Legislatures who dealt with day to say operations of the state.
That is why budgetary bills can only originate in the House, and Judiciary nominees and Public Counsels and Ministers go to the Senate for confirmation.
The People decide how money was spent, and the represenatives of the Legislatures (Senators) consented to people they thought best to work in the Federal Gov’t, because the Legislatures knew how things really worked on a political and mechanistic level.
The Senate is no longer the “Upper” house, at least in theory. but you’d think the way some Senators act, that they are God’s gift to Politics…
R
rlg94086
Guest
I believe what Steve is referring to is the fact that each state gets 2 senators, regardless of size.
Personally, I think it is a good thing to have states with equal representation. It balances out the needs of the country. It would be great if the federal government would stick to what the Constitution calls it to do and leave the rest to the states.
Personally, I think it is a good thing to have states with equal representation. It balances out the needs of the country. It would be great if the federal government would stick to what the Constitution calls it to do and leave the rest to the states.
J
JimG
Guest
Which, as I understand it, was intentional. The founders did not intend to establish a pure democracy, but a republic.
With daily polls and near instant communications, we are approaching something more resembling a pure democracy in some respects today. The results have not been good. Pure democracy makes demagoguery more likely.
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
WARNING
This thread has wandered off topic. Please return to the topic of the original post
This thread has wandered off topic. Please return to the topic of the original post
- Status