IT PASSED: Swing State Votes to Give Electoral Votes to Winner of Popular Vote

Young Conservatives ^ | May 22, 2019 | Editorial Staff

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Can we charge these states with treason, i.e. overthrowing the Constitution of the United States?

I’d love to see DOJ start with one weak Democrat state and destroy them.

[enumerated]

Clinton won the popular vote in Nevada and all of state’s 6 electoral college votes were assigned to Clinton. Had this law been in effect in 2016, it would not have changed the outcome one iota.

[enumerated]

All this will do is give President Trump a heads up about how to focus his campaign.

[enumerated]

Umm. This is fake news.

Nevada is already a “winner take all” state, as are all of the states except Maine and Nebraska. Whoever won the popular vote in Nevada already got the state’s 6 electoral college votes, as Clinton did in 2016.

So this law changes nothing.

[dfwgator]

No, the electoral votes are for the NATIONAL popular vote, not the state popular vote.

[enumerated]

Yeah. I realized that after my post. I should have read it more carefully.

Anyway, this will backfire on them badly when President Trump wins the national popular vote, and they realize they gave away any leverage they may have had as a state.

[MMaschin]

I just saw something else, Section 2 of the 14th Amendment reads

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

The point of this was to insure that states did not deny former slaves the right to vote for Presidential electors, if they did then they would lose Congressional representation. So for an example is Alabama had 6 Congressional districts, but denied former slaves the right to vote, and 50% of the over 21 males where former slaves, then Alabama would lose 50% of their Congressional seats.

So, if one of the states in this compact sends electors other than those selected by the majority voters in that state, they will have done the same, denied those voters the right to vote for Presidential electors.

So lets say Colorado voters select a GOP candidate, by the Dem candidate wins the national vote. If Colorado sends electors for the Dem candidate those electors will be reduced by at least half AND Colorado will lose at least half of its Congressional seats!

[MMaschin]

The point of this section was to insure that there was a significant penalty if states denied former slaves the right to vote specifically for the Presidential electors the state sends. If you have a vote specifically for the electors and you then disregard the majority result of that vote it is of the same effect as not ever having allowed the majority to vote.

If a state in this compact were to send electors other than those selected by citizens of that state then the state will lose proportional (at least half) of its representation. This would mean that the number of electors AND the number of Congressional seats would be reduced by at least half.

[Magnum44]

Article I, section 10. “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.”

That's interesting. I would like to understand better the legal interpretation of this. What does that include/exclude? For example, reciprocity of honoring CC permits. That's not an agreement between states? I agree with all that electoral voting by national popular vote disenfranchises voters of the state, but not sure how this Article 1, section 10 is applied as compared to so many other states agreements.

[Mr.Unique]

If a state in this compact were to send electors other than those selected by citizens of that state then the state will lose proportional (at least half) of its representation. This would mean that the number of electors AND the number of Congressional seats would be reduced by at least half.

Clearly a Constitutional mechanism for dealing with this stupidity.

[ek_hornbeck]

Deciding elections by popular vote would be even worse than your map would suggest. It would mean a system where elections mostly driven by votes in New York City, Washington DC, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Miami metro areas. With a nation-wide popular vote, mostly Republican rural votes even in states like Texas get washed out by the mostly Democrat metro urban-suburban vote.

[SoCal Pubbie]

As I understand it, the court has ruled that’s its okay for states to enter into compacts that don’t infringe on the sovereignty of the federal government without congressional approval. So I believe New York and New Jersey operate the ports collectively, or some sort of common entity, and that’s not an issue. However two states could not have a compact to create their own army outside of the federal structure. Since this compact clearly affects the federal government, it should violate this constitutional provision.

[Magnum44]

That makes perfect sense, though its not clear in the plain text of the Constitution. So this is a case where stare decisis applies? Anyway, hope all this nonsense is squashed and I get to once again hear the lamentations of the lib women....

[qaz123]

That’s very true, but the Dem’s cannot survive on their own. They’re incapable of being self sufficient. If the country did break up, and I think it will, it’ll be the West Coast, New England down to Virginia and into North Carolina, and then the Middle (Southeast, Midwest and Mountain states). Florida is screwed. Northern Florida is going with Georgia, ‘Bama, & Mississippi. Southern Florida may as well be soaked up by Cuba or Haiti.

If it were to break up like that, where is all the farm land, cattle ranches, military bases, energy infrastructure? The Liberals won’t have any idea what to do. They think tomato’s grow in the vegetable aisle.

The issue then becomes...say Cali, Washington and Oregon go it alone. The coastal areas in those states are where the insanity is. What happens when the people of interior Wash, Oregon, and Cali, say they want out and want to be part of the middle. Most of Colorado would want to do the same. The bottom half of Ohio, Illinois, Indiana the same. Western New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

While the Left does control the major population centers, the country is about as RED as it can get. Significant parts of Jersey and NY are pretty Conservative, those folks are just stuck like they are in Cali.

[Sivad]

I’m inland NorCal and if the shitstorm commences we
will say adios to the coastal libtard butt nuggets.

I’ve posted before that inclusion of the electoral
system in the Constitution is what made it palpable
to the less populous states. Take it away and those
states have a right to dissolve the compact....in my
book, anyway.

[DouglasKC]

This will be great. Trump is GOING to win the popular vote by a landslide. This will get repealed on day 1 of the 2nd trump term.

[central_va]

Wow, aren’t you so wrong.

[Reily]

Nothing will lead the road to disunion faster then the loss of the electoral college!

[central_va]

Why would the red state country stop trading food with the new blue country?

[qaz123]

And I doubt you’re the only one. If I remember correctly, I didn’t even mention what the eastern half of Washington and Oregon would do. The coastal areas, filled with “libtard butt nuggets” won’t know what to do. They’ll have slivers of real estate and that’s it.