Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jim 0216
And Oh BTW, the electoral SYSTEM cannot be put on any “chopping block” short of a constitutional amendment

The one thing that scares me is hearing about states that are talking about uniting with other states to pledge their EV's to the national popular vote winner rather than to the candidate that wins their state. I think this would be a constitutional way of circumventing the original intent of the electoral process.
102 posted on 12/19/2016 8:47:17 AM PST by mmichaels1970 (Hillary lied over four coffins.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: mmichaels1970

That “pledge our EV’s to the popular vote winner” will last until the day it benefits the Republican.


105 posted on 12/19/2016 8:49:36 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

To: mmichaels1970
The one thing that scares me is hearing about states that are talking about uniting with other states to pledge their EV's to the national popular vote winner rather than to the candidate that wins their state. I think this would be a constitutional way of circumventing the original intent of the electoral process.

C'mon in! They're serving hot cocoa!


106 posted on 12/19/2016 8:50:14 AM PST by COBOL2Java (1 Tim 2:1-3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

To: mmichaels1970
The one thing that scares me is hearing about states that are talking about uniting with other states to pledge their EV's to the national popular vote winner rather than to the candidate that wins their state. I think this would be a constitutional way of circumventing the original intent of the electoral process.

I suspect this scenario would never take place. A state government would be idiotic to ever follow through on this sort of "pledge," because it means no presidential candidate ever has a reason to campaign in that state again.

As someone else pointed out on another thread, no state would ever be obligated to follow through on this stupid pledge anyway. If a candidate won the popular vote overall but lost the vote in a certain state, there is nothing that would prevent that state from passing a law after Election Day and before the Electoral College vote to overturn its "pledge."

116 posted on 12/19/2016 8:58:35 AM PST by Alberta's Child ("Yo, bartender -- Jobu needs a refill!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

To: mmichaels1970

That would also be a way of abandoning their Statehood and the will of their citizens. Governor should send the Guard to stop such treasonous acts.


119 posted on 12/19/2016 9:00:05 AM PST by epluribus_2 (he had the best mom - ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

To: mmichaels1970
The one thing that scares me is hearing about states that are talking about uniting with other states to pledge their EV's to the national popular vote winner rather than to the candidate that wins their state. I think this would be a constitutional way of circumventing the original intent of the electoral process.

Except that every voter in the majority of a state which switched its electors to the loser would have cause to sue for equal protection under the law.

123 posted on 12/19/2016 9:05:51 AM PST by okie01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

To: mmichaels1970
The one thing that scares me is hearing about states that are talking about uniting with other states to pledge their EV's to the national popular vote winner rather than to the candidate that wins their state.

That would render the Electoral College meaningless as every result would be 538-0.

So far, the states are all falling in line with their own popular vote (as it should be). Trump leading 66-27.

Nothing out of Maine. I think all this talk about a faithless elector there is premature.

128 posted on 12/19/2016 9:10:12 AM PST by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

To: mmichaels1970; Jim 0216

“The one thing that scares me is hearing about states that are talking about uniting with other states to pledge their EV’s to the national popular vote winner rather than to the candidate that wins their state. I think this would be a constitutional way of circumventing the original intent of the electoral process. “


I’m not too thrilled with that, either, but here are 3 things to consider:

1) Most states are controlled by a Republican governor and/or at least one house that is Republican...so it won’t be so easy to change it.

2) That cuts both ways.

3) The Dems are not going to be getting those majorities in the popular vote so easily once Trump gets done with getting rid of a lot of illegals AND some kind of anti-fraud statute is passed on a national level. Get a level playing field, and then the Dems won’t do so well.


171 posted on 12/19/2016 9:45:20 AM PST by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

To: mmichaels1970

Doubt if that ever happens due to the smaller states don’t want to be left out of campaigns. But as they say in “Gone with the Wind”, “I’ll worry about that tomorrow”.


209 posted on 12/19/2016 10:01:44 AM PST by bobsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

To: mmichaels1970

Well, state officials and representatives are subject the vote of the people of that state, so ultimately it is up to you and me and the people of each state to understand the representative advantages of the electoral system.


288 posted on 12/19/2016 10:51:06 AM PST by Jim W N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson