 |
|
| No. of elections | 54 |
|---|---|
| Voted Democratic | 17 |
| Voted Republican | 28 |
| Voted Whig | 3 |
| Voted Democratic-Republican | 6 |
| Voted other | 0 |
| Voted for winning candidate | 44 |
| Voted for losing candidate | 10 |
Posted on 04/01/2019 9:50:19 PM PDT by entropy12
COLUMBUS, Ohio—A proposed Ohio constitutional amendment to award the state’s presidential electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote has cleared an initial hurdle toward making the statewide ballot this November.
A summary of the proposed amendment was certified by Attorney General Dave Yost on Monday as a “fair and truthful statement of the proposed law,” though Yost didn’t weigh in on whether he supported or opposed the measure.
(Excerpt) Read more at cleveland.com ...
True, and as a general proposition, you are correct. However, the states cannot enact a scheme for selecting electors that violates other provisions in the Constitution. For example, a state cannot come up with a scheme for appointing electors based upon race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or age.
The proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution arguably violates the U.S. Constitution for several reasons:
First, Article IV, §4 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees to every state a republican form of government, which is the antithesis of a national popular vote.
Second, the proposed amendment deprives the citizenry of Ohio of their fundamental right to vote, in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, in that even if 100% of the voters vote for Candidate A, they have no say in the electoral process if the national majority vote is for Candidate B. In other words, the Ohio proposal potentially and effectively disfranchises the voters in Ohio if the national public vote differs from the Ohio vote.
Third, the proposal violates "one man, one vote," in that the people of Ohio will have no vote if the outcome in Ohio differs from the outcome of the national majority vote.
They might as well vote for a constitutional amendment that requires the Ohio electors to vote for the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates who carry Los Angeles County, California.
There are more than a few constitutional legal scholars who disagree. Here are some articles expressing their opinions.
https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/04/natelson-popular-vote/
https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2012/02/william-ross-vote-compact/
You do have access to a copy of the Constitution, do you not? It is available online. Find the words therein.
Very true. The states elect or vote for the president.
My point is that there is definitely still some wiggle room in whether states can require electors to vote in a particular way. I'm sure that state laws requiring electors to vote for the national popular vote winner will be challenged in court AND ignored by at least some Republican electors whatever the courts rule.
It's far simpler than that. Each state has a slate of electors for each candidate. If Ohio laws is changed to say that the slate of candidates for the winner of the national popular vote is the slate that is allowed to cast Ohio's votes then what is to prevent them?
Kasich isn’t the Governor of Ohio anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW-NiGp1gys
Which is every bit as likely that Ohio's legislature will do that.
Three, four, five generations of kids pushed through FedGov indoctrination camps for 12-16 years...
It’s pretty easy to trample rights and steer the ship of state to the socialist utopia if the younger generations have NEVER been taught the truth or the history of this grand experiment.
|
|
| No. of elections | 54 |
|---|---|
| Voted Democratic | 17 |
| Voted Republican | 28 |
| Voted Whig | 3 |
| Voted Democratic-Republican | 6 |
| Voted other | 0 |
| Voted for winning candidate | 44 |
| Voted for losing candidate | 10 |
Never gonna happen here.
They also don't say that they are going to go into a compact with other states to decide how they are going to pool or determine how their electors vote.
What there attempting to pass with their laws is how they are going to direct their electors to vote within their own State. There's nothing unconstitutional about that.
all the states currently have laws directing their electors on how they should vote. None of that is unconstitutional.
this will probably be the most difficult fight going forward, waking the sheeple up who live in the smaller States to see that this is not in their best interest to go along with this idea.
What there attempting to pass with their laws is how they are going to direct their electors to vote within their own State. There’s nothing unconstitutional about that.
No there is not. But that is not what the National Popular Vote Compact does. States have always been free to direct how Electors cast their ballot within their own state. Perhaps I misunderstood what Ohio is doing. I thought they were directing electors to vote for the candidate who won the national popular vote.
“Just have the county heads say they will give their portion of the electoral vote to whoever wins the county.”
They can’t do that...
can they? lol
Article 2 Section 1 says that the state legislature appoints the Electors for their state. It cannot force their appointed Electors to vote for a specific person such as the winner of the popular vote.
All electoral votes are sealed and sent to the Senate where the votes are counted.
It is unconstitutional for the state legislature to change an Electors vote as stated in Article 2 Section 1.
This petition was collected by Andre Baird, 15807 Biltmore Ave., Cleveland, Ohio, a representative of:
Fieldworks LLC
PO BOX 9897
Washington, DC 20016
Which, according to the Daily Caller, is a Tom Steyer organization.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/05/22/tom-steyer-felons-renewable-energy/
“The accusations come as another setback for Steyer’s campaign to force renewables on Arizona electricity customers. The campaign he funds — along with its signature-collecting firm, FieldWorks — is already in hot water by the Arizona attorney general’s office in regard to its petition-circulating activities.”
Exactly.
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.