Trump can count on at least two votes in Florida

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,360
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#2
fortunately for America it sounds like he might have a lot more than two votes...

that's great!! Gotta win Florida!!

She added that it's not the first time she has witnessed this kind of episode. "Sadly, it's something that happens every single day," she said.
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,306
13,686
1,743
#3
fortunately for America it sounds like he might have a lot more than two votes...

that's great!! Gotta win Florida!!

She added that it's not the first time she has witnessed this kind of episode. "Sadly, it's something that happens every single day," she said.
Florida and Pennsylvania always get to decide the election.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,360
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#4
Florida and Pennsylvania always get to decide the election.
I believe that those days are past, because so many stupid States now over-rule their citizens and lump their electoral votes onto whomever the other States like best. CA and NY should dominate the elections from this point forward.
 

Jostate

CPTNQUIRK called me a greenhorn
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
18,306
13,686
1,743
#5
I believe that those days are past, because so many stupid States now over-rule their citizens and lump their electoral votes onto whomever the other States like best. CA and NY should dominate the elections from this point forward.
If that's the case we'll never have another Republican president.
 
Nov 23, 2010
1,156
599
743
#6
I believe that those days are past, because so many stupid States now over-rule their citizens and lump their electoral votes onto whomever the other States like best. CA and NY should dominate the elections from this point forward.
The popular vote compact will only take effect if enough states sign on to have a combined 270 electoral votes. They are still a ways from that and it's a much heavier lift the closer they get.
 

OSU79

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 22, 2009
10,793
10,668
1,743
Back home in God's (Green) Country
#7
The popular vote compact will only take effect if enough states sign on to have a combined 270 electoral votes. They are still a ways from that and it's a much heavier lift the closer they get.
I suspect the compact is not legally binding and if the election does not go the way a particular state's leaders want they will have their electors vote against the compact. When another state(s) inevitably file suit against them they will fall back on the Constitution as their defense.
 

llcoolw

Territorial Marshal
Feb 7, 2005
5,710
3,218
1,743
Sammamish, Washington.Dallas, Texas.Maui, Hawaii
#8
The popular vote compact will only take effect if enough states sign on to have a combined 270 electoral votes. They are still a ways from that and it's a much heavier lift the closer they get.
I suspect the compact is not legally binding and if the election does not go the way a particular state's leaders want they will have their electors vote against the compact. When another state(s) inevitably file suit against them they will fall back on the Constitution as their defense.
Hmmmmm
 

sc5mu93

WeaselMonkey
A/V Subscriber
Oct 18, 2006
9,205
7,748
1,743
Fairfield, CT
#9
The popular vote compact will only take effect if enough states sign on to have a combined 270 electoral votes. They are still a ways from that and it's a much heavier lift the closer they get.
not to mention the Constitutional challenge. The spirit of the compact is just wrong. If you don't like the EC, you amend the constitution, not side-step it with side agreements.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,360
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#10
not to mention the Constitutional challenge. The spirit of the compact is just wrong. If you don't like the EC, you amend the constitution, not side-step it with side agreements.
Constitutionality? Spirit?

The Constitution does not mandate any particular legislative scheme for selecting electors, and instead vests state legislatures with the exclusive power to choose how to allocate their states' electors (although systems that violate the 14th Amendment, which mandates equal protection of law and prohibits racial discrimination, would be prohibited)

  • Enacted – 196 EVs (36.4% of Electoral College)
  • Legislation pending – 88 EVs (16.4%)
196 + 84 = 284
270 needed.

Proposed in the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among the participating states in the compact only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. In the next presidential election after adoption by the requisite number of states, the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, that candidate would win the presidency by securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner.
 

OSU79

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 22, 2009
10,793
10,668
1,743
Back home in God's (Green) Country
#11
Constitutionality? Spirit?

The Constitution does not mandate any particular legislative scheme for selecting electors, and instead vests state legislatures with the exclusive power to choose how to allocate their states' electors (although systems that violate the 14th Amendment, which mandates equal protection of law and prohibits racial discrimination, would be prohibited)

  • Enacted – 196 EVs (36.4% of Electoral College)
  • Legislation pending – 88 EVs (16.4%)
196 + 84 = 284
270 needed.

Proposed in the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among the participating states in the compact only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. In the next presidential election after adoption by the requisite number of states, the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, that candidate would win the presidency by securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner.
My understanding is the compact goes into effect when a candidate wins the national popular vote but doesn't have enough electoral votes to be legally elected. The member states in the compact would then throw all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, no matter the popular vote in their own state.

Edit: after re-reading your post I realize I just said the same thing, only for simpletons such as myself.

The funny thing to me is once a state selects its electors to go to DC they could actually vote for any candidate. That's why state party officials must carefully select who will represent them.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,360
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#12
The funny thing to me is once a state selects its electors to go to DC they could actually vote for any candidate. That's why state party officials must carefully select who will represent them.
Note to Self: Figure out way to get nominated as an Elector in CA.

actually, it doesn't sound like State's need to be that careful.

Dig this ----- a CA democrat sued to use his electoral vote for Trump (Hillary won the CA popular vote), in an attempt to get such laws overturned so that Electors from GOP States would be freed from having to cast their vote for Trump.

Did you get that?

The California elector, Vinz Koller, filed a lawsuit to block a law that requires him to vote for the winner of his state’s popular vote — in this case, Hillary Clinton. A legal victory, he had hoped, would undermine similar “binding” laws in 28 other states, including many Republican states that voted for Trump. That would have aided a strategy that Koller and a group of mainly Democratic electors are pushing to persuade Republican electors to break from Trump and support a more mainstream GOP alternative.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/anti-trump-electoral-college-fight-judge-232749
 
Last edited:

sc5mu93

WeaselMonkey
A/V Subscriber
Oct 18, 2006
9,205
7,748
1,743
Fairfield, CT
#13
Constitutionality? Spirit?

The Constitution does not mandate any particular legislative scheme for selecting electors, and instead vests state legislatures with the exclusive power to choose how to allocate their states' electors (although systems that violate the 14th Amendment, which mandates equal protection of law and prohibits racial discrimination, would be prohibited)

  • Enacted – 196 EVs (36.4% of Electoral College)
  • Legislation pending – 88 EVs (16.4%)
196 + 84 = 284
270 needed.

Proposed in the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among the participating states in the compact only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. In the next presidential election after adoption by the requisite number of states, the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to the candidate with the largest national popular vote total across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, that candidate would win the presidency by securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner.
Very true, the Constitution does not mandate particular legislative scheme for selecting electors. But essentially eliminating electors and relying on the popular vote (not the votes out of the state for which the electors represent), essentially removes the electoral college from the picture without amending the Constitution.
Additionally, by switching to NPV, the underlying Connecticut Compromise which was the basis for congressional apportionment and by which elector apportionment is based is to be weakened. This agreement was the one of the founding agreements to which got all the original colonies on-board. <-this is what I mean by the "spirit" of it. By going to NPV, congressional apportionment in presidential elections becomes irrelevant without meeting the burden of Constitutional amendment.
 

OSU79

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Oct 22, 2009
10,793
10,668
1,743
Back home in God's (Green) Country
#14
Note to Self: Figure out way to get nominated as an Elector in CA.

actually, it doesn't sound like State's need to be that careful.

Dig this ----- a CA democrat sued to use his electoral vote for Trump (Hillary won the CA popular vote), in an attempt to get such laws overturned so that Electors from GOP States would be freed from having to cast their vote for Trump.

Did you get that?

The California elector, Vinz Koller, filed a lawsuit to block a law that requires him to vote for the winner of his state’s popular vote — in this case, Hillary Clinton. A legal victory, he had hoped, would undermine similar “binding” laws in 28 other states, including many Republican states that voted for Trump. That would have aided a strategy that Koller and a group of mainly Democratic electors are pushing to persuade Republican electors to break from Trump and support a more mainstream GOP alternative.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/anti-trump-electoral-college-fight-judge-232749
I wasn't aware of the states' binding legislation for electors. I think in general that is good - the one situation where I might think otherwise would be if a situation arose or came to light between election day and the electoral vote that a majority of Americans agreed should be disqualifying but wasn't illegal - would so many selectors be legally bound they could not NOT elect the candidate?

Obviously very unlikely, but I've got too much free time at the moment. Also, My apologies for the RA sentence above.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
16,360
2,585
1,743
So Cal
#15
Very true, the Constitution does not mandate particular legislative scheme for selecting electors. But essentially eliminating electors and relying on the popular vote (not the votes out of the state for which the electors represent), essentially removes the electoral college from the picture without amending the Constitution.
Additionally, by switching to NPV, the underlying Connecticut Compromise which was the basis for congressional apportionment and by which elector apportionment is based is to be weakened. This agreement was the one of the founding agreements to which got all the original colonies on-board. <-this is what I mean by the "spirit" of it. By going to NPV, congressional apportionment in presidential elections becomes irrelevant without meeting the burden of Constitutional amendment.
I understand the points....

I think what is missing is that we the people are getting screwed since the States no longer have any real rights. The Connecticut Compromise was an attempt to maintain some power at the State level (supposedly on behalf of the citizenry).

If there is to be a switch to NPV then the EV's should be disbursed based upon that vote, and not "winner take all" that the States mandate upon us. For example, CA's EV's should be awarded to both the Dem and the Rep, based on how either population voted for each candidate.

the method that they are now adopting to enforce NPV on us is nothing more than mob-rule.