Posted on 05/22/2019 10:20:46 AM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
That map looks like what the country in the Hunger Games might look like.
All the “small” states in the middle that have no vote must produce and provide for those in the other four states.
President Snow from The Hunger games approves.
I will have to look at the elements of the offense to be sure, but this does touch on the overthrow of the United States government (by subverting the constitutional election process) and that is treason.
No. This scheme is specifically designed to comply with the constitution. That's the point of it.
The compact would take effect after states totaling 270 electoral votes, and with Nevada, the total would reach 195.
from the other topic I saw.
Can you point me to a website or provide a link where the “this is constitutional” rationale is spelled out?
If this compact passes, expect them to do a neck-breaking about face in repealing their law if Trump wins the popular vote.
these idiots will be the first to scream for a lawsuit if Trump wins the popular vote. Trump may end up with 500 electoral votes if he does win the popular vote. And these are all Democrat states shooting themselves in the foot so actually not one thing has changed.
No, I can tell you. The constitutional system of electoral votes is not changed by this. Even under the compact, each state is picking it's prescribed set of electors and they are voting for the President. All that's changed is the method by which the electors are chosen. And there, the constitution gives the state legislatures carte blanche. Each state may pick its electors by whatever method each decides. They don't have to even hold an election and could instead simply pass a resolution giving the state's electors to a candidate.
Since this scheme only changes how states pick their electors, not what the electors do or how the system works, there's nothing unconstitutional about it.
As the article alludes, if this passes Constitutional muster there will be a big rise in 3rd (and 4th and 5th and 6th) parties. Individual candidates and parties will campaign heavily in just a small number of states, such that no single person will ever win the popular vote by more than 50%. Imagine how the country will react when a person who got 35% of the vote is ‘anointed’ by these states.
As the article alludes, if this passes Constitutional muster there will be a big rise in 3rd (and 4th and 5th and 6th) parties. Individual candidates and parties will campaign heavily in just a small number of states, such that no single person will ever win the popular vote by more than 50%. Imagine how the country will react when a person who got 35% of the vote is ‘anointed’ by these states.
This magnifies the reason why if we do not get elections purified to have required picture ID plus voting on one day with no absentee ballots except for military and no early or late voting and no mail in ballots and requirements that voters must show up at the polls in person and be verified by positive ID, the Republicans have won their last national election. As it is the largest SocialDemocrat controlled city in each state will determine the total vote for the state, which in Republican states will be a significantly higher vote total than eligible voters in the state. The concept was dry run in 2016 and 18 in a few states and received no actual blowback i.e. they got away with it clean. It will be done with wild abandon in 2020 and the Republicans can be counted on to simply accept their total extinction in national politics.
If any of the several States decide to appoint their electors by this system, they are empowered to do. To be sure, the Founders would be bashing their heads into their desks if they ever knew this hare-brained scheme had a ghost of a chance of being enacted.
That’s one reason why I can’t think this will pass Constitutional muster. So if the people of Nevada vote in a clear majority (50%+) for a candidate who doesn’t win the popular vote, a couple of state legislators have decided that their votes don’t count? It is disenfranchisement of the highest order - something I thought Democrats were railing against.
Just another example that Democrats want power at any cost, and another example of their psychological projection. They run around crying, without evidence, that voter ID laws are disenfranchising citizens while in fact they are pushing to disenfranchise the will of the voters of entire states.
The USSC won’t hear this case until there are enough States signing on to actually have it take effect.
Hey have always to go. All the usual States have signed on but it gets tough to impossible from here on out.
Also a State signing on can easily remove itself if the control of its Legislature or Governorship should change hands and decide to vote themselves out.
“It will be delicious when Trump wins the 2020 popular vote and all these blue/purple states go to him”
That won’t happen, because all these stupid laws don’t actually go into effect until the states that pass them have enough electoral votes to have a majority. In other words, they don’t change anything unless the whole coalition would win every election anyway, in which case the laws still would affect nothing. It’s all hot air.
They should save time and just pass a resolution that their state’s electors will always vote for the democrat national nominee.
NO,There will have to be a Constitutional Convention
Domocrars coming up with a new way to cheat on National Elections.
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.