Posted on 04/01/2019 5:24:47 AM PDT by Kaslin
Sounds like collusion to me...
It’s absolutely unconstitutional and an end-around the amendment process. Imagine how undemocratic it is for a state to award its electoral votes to a candidate who lost the popular vote in that state.
The Constitution was designed to do exactly what it did in the last election - stop a regional candidate from controlling the government. Hillary was a NY / CAL candidate.
The article is correct unfortunately that eventually the leftist vote will spread to other regions and democrats will win. It’s all about immigration.
“The compact is 100 percent constitutional and consistent with the intent of the Founding Fathers, who explicitly gave states the authority under the Constitution to form agreements among themselves for any number of reasons.”
Um, no they didn’t. In fact they explicitly forbade it:
Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.”
Another Fredocon speaks. Ignore her.
L
This ignores the open borders and its millions of foreign nationals voting in our elections.
My take on this, once I researched it, is that it is one of those “be careful what you wish for things. That is, a state that votes overwhelmingly for candidate A, gives all their votes to candidate B, because B won California and NY and got the majority of popular vote.
This would, IMO, kinda tick off the voters in that first state. It also demonstrates why this whole thing makes no sense, unless your goal is to steal elections by going for voter fraud only in those states where you get more bang for the buck with illegals, etc.
And as I’ve said many times, WHENVER trump leaves, we will be on the cusp of the equivalent of the Russian and French revolutions - it will be nothing like the American revolution.
For an explanation of the differences:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dwz_Z62e0s
How about this: States that want to give up the Electoral College would stop electing Representatives, give up all of their seats in the House and give Nancy all of their votes.
Yes this author is sure full of smartitude!
And thanks for the sad story about the GOP losing in Oregon- it made no sense, but it’s nice to know how much you care that the GOP gets to win.
We’re sure you have our best interests at heart.
The states countervailing the Constitutional requirement for an Electoral College are entering into a “compact”, which is prohibited by the US Constitution.
Article 1, Section 10, US Constitution
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any
Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of
Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another
State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless
actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not
admit of delay.”
In an election fought under the compact, the 12-state election model becomes a 50-state contest in which candidates are compelled to chase down every single voter in every nook and cranny of the nation. The states are essentially working with other states to make their votes more relevant.
———
This shows a complete lack of understanding of the effect of the Electoral College on campaigns.
"Intact" is an odd word with regard to this compact.
My dog has been neutered but I wouldn't call him "intact".
It’s definitely unconstitutional. People in those states would be denied their vote under he current constitutional framework if the State decided to ignore the electoral college and give their EC votes to the popular winner in the other candidate won the state.
republic -> democracy -> socialism -> Communism -> anarchy -> lather -> rinse -> repeat.
No one has mentioned that under such a system, it will matter more than ever who counts the votes, as Stalin famously said.
Precinct level cheating in 100% turnout deep-city Dem pits will be the norm. Ballot boxes will be found for weeks. The fight to harvest the last vote will go on forever. Recounts will last years.
This is the big lie. The problem with the compact is that it would cancel out voters from Kansas, as an example, with voters from NY or CA. These two states, and any irregularities in their voter lists, voter fraud, vote harvesting, etc. would eliminate an opposing vote in East Bumrush, anywhere, USA.
I strongly disagree with the author's premise that the compact is being promoted with facts and honesty.
So what?
"Democracy" is killing this nation, we shouldn't be advocating for more of it.
Exactly
The enemies of the republic are going to have to put it all on the line to make this 330 million zoo a pure democracy.
No one has a constitutional right to cast a vote for President (except for an Elector appointed by his State Legislature).
My, that's some breathtaking "logic" there. "No voter in any state would have their vote cancelled out because they didn’t go along with the majority of others in their state"... but it is okay if their vote is cancelled out because they didn't go along with the majority of others in the nation.
We is smart!!
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.