Posted on 09/07/2016 5:01:38 PM PDT by NoLibZone
Electoral votes for a state depends on population. Democrats flood blue states with illegal aliens, and raise the electoral vote count for those states.
Patriots beware !
Today's politically correct electoral college for electing POTUS has little to do with the constitutionally enumerated process for electing POTUS established by the early states as evidenced by Clause 2 of Section 1 of Article II and the 12th Amendment.
The electoral college is now all about controlling 10th Amendment-protected state powers and associated state revenues that the anti-constitutional republic Progressive Movement has been stealing from the states for many generations and continues to do so.
A part of the problem with the corrupt electoral college is that citizens have grown up with it and consequently think that it is constitutional.
Nothing lasts forever. Bush I crushed Dukakis. Bush II in 2004 won well. Reagan crushed it twice. In 2012 Obama vs Romney, if Romney won CO, OH, FL, NV and picked up 1 of ME’s Congressional Districts he would have defeated Obama 271 to 269.
Nothing really new, the same states hold the balance as always. But this could be seen as a positive for GOP because there are reasons why these states have not gone to the extreme like their neighbors IL, NY, CA. The more those states sink themselves into economic abyss the more their borderline neighbors should take a defensive posture. People living in OH and NV do not want to pay IL and CA style taxes. GOP does not do enough posturing in these battleground states but they should. People in PA should be reminded about the corruption that pervades Albany. People in OH should be reminded of the corruption in Springfield, and the insurmountable deficits that IL is facing. In 20 years Chicago may end up looking like Detroit because it has no choice but to crush residents with massive tax hikes to pay off its public service union obligations that the State Supreme Court ruled cannot be amended! IL is on a crash course with destiny it is just a matter of time and is a cautionary tale for its neighbors. Indeed, many will flee IL to these states which is another reason to make the case to both prevent new residents from importing their political views as well as to ensure current residents push back hard.
VA remains a mystery to me, too tied into DC and fancies itself part of New England corridor I suppose. But its 13 EC votes matter.
You get an “A+” for the day.
There is NOTHING requiring EC voters to vote as the are suppose to. Obamatons have infested every single aspect of the federal system that they will do the Obama’s bidding with or without his orders.
Guess this isn’t in the Constitution:
Article II
Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Nope nowhere does this appear in the Constitution. /s
Yes there are Constitutional Amendments to this specific clause starting with the Twelfth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twentieth, Twenty-second, Twenty-third, Twenty-fourth, Twenty-fifth, and Twenty-sixth. Last I checked the Amendments are part of the living document we all covet so well. That document is called the United States Constitution. So I guess the Electoral College - the group of electors as stated in Article II Section 1 - is not part of the Constitution. Now I could be wrong but then again nahhh.
Deporting illegal immigrants and halting new immigrants who will vote left would fix this.
Statewide (winner take all results) would not be used to give all Electoral Votes to one candidate.
Look at how each Congressional District voted in the last two elections, and you will find that the winner (Obama) might not have been elected. There's a lot of red on that map.
If it favors dems so much, why are they hell bent on abolishing it?
The only way I would like to see the E.C. system changed would be to award E.V.s by Congressional Districts.
If a candidate gets a majority in a C.D. he gets 1 E.V. The candidate gets 2 E.V.s for winning a majority (or plurality) of the vote of the state as a whole.
Had this system been in place in 2012 Romney would have won.
http://cookpolitical.com/story/5606
” Obama won 209 districts while the Romney won 226.” (Romney won 24 states. Awarding 2 E.V.s per state won would have given him 274 E.V.s total and the win)
“2012 represented the first time since 1960 that the winner of the election did not win the popular vote in a majority of congressional districts. As President Obama was reelected, the reduction of his overall percentage of the vote from 53.7 in 2008 to 52.0 in 2012 also resulted in a majority of districts voting for Romney.
Go to individual electoral college delegates and not to state winner take all. A lot of republicans vote in California.
And with the memory of Bernie dimming, Hillary has taken up his "Free Stuff" lines.....
Agree
. . . but not in the Electoral College. The state legislatures have the authority to “rig” the system at their discretion:The states do not even have to hold presidential popular elections. They could select Electors by lottery, if they wanted to. More to the point, if they wanted to help Republicans at the expense of city slickers, they could adopt the Nebraska Plan.
- Article II Section 1:
- Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Under the Nebraska plan only two Electors stand for election statewide (rather than all Electors, as in 48 of the states). The rest of the Electors stand for election in their Congressional Districts. The Pennsylvania Legislature threatened to install that system here, back about ten years ago, but the Dems pulled a bait-and-switch to convince the Republicans not to do it.
The Neb. Plan works to the disadvantage of a party whose voting strength is geographically concentrated. Can you say, “inner city?” It does so for the same reason that the Congressional Districts are so - namely, that if you do not gerrymander intentionally, there will be CDs in Philly and Pittsburg which the Democrats win overwhelmingly, while the Republicans - with the same or even fewer total popular votes - win a lot of CDs by a modest margin.
It is shocking to see how the Republicans dominate the Pennsylvania delegation in the House of Representatives. Quite simply, there are not that many more Republicans than Democrats in Pennsylvania. How long has it been since a Republican presidential candidate won here??? The same phenomenon is at work in the state legislature, in PA and elsewhere. Thus putting Republicans in a good position to gerrymander even more than is natural due to mere geography. If all the purple states adopted Nebraska, the EC would tend strongly Republican. The Democrats would have no incentive to adopt it in a blue state, in which they will win all EVs without the Neb Plan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.