Author Topic: Democrats conspiring to rig electoral college, law passed in 9 states so far  (Read 212 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 50,397
  • “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them
Democrats Conspiring to Rig Electoral College, Law Passed in 9 States So Far

15 April 2014 / 534 Comments


A plan, now stealthily making its way through state legislatures with astonishing speed, would junk the Electoral College and award the presidency to the winner of the popular vote.

The plan involves an Interstate Compact where states would commit to select electors pledged to vote for the national popular vote winner regardless of how their own state voted. When enough states pass this law, sufficient to cast 270 votes which is the majority of the Electoral College, it will take effect.

The Electoral College will become a vestigial anachronism.

So far, nine states and the District of Columbia, casting 136 electoral votes, have joined. This is halfway to the 270 needed to put the compact into effect. The ratifying states are: Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, Vermont, California, and Rhode Island.

Both houses in New York have passed it and it’s on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s desk.

It has already passed in the House in Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon. These states, plus New York, represent 107 votes. Combined with the others they are up to 242 votes. They need 270.

Who is pushing this?

All of those ratifying voted for Obama.

Read More:  http://www.newsmax.com


 
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2014/04/democrats-conspiring-rig-electoral-college-law-passed-9-states-far/#BAQ1RH7F0qcueRiV.99
« Last Edit: April 17, 2014, 06:31:59 AM by rangerrebew »
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. Abraham Lincoln

Online mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 244,820

Support the USO

Online Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,723
From the article:
[[ It has already passed in the House in Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon. These states, plus New York, represent 107 votes. Combined with the others they are up to 242 votes. They need 270. ]]

What follows is a repost of something I put up on TOS on 8/21/10:
===========================================================
This issue will eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

I predict that -- unless the current 5-4 conservative majority is changed through future appointments -- that NPV will be declared unconstitutional.

In that court case, the proponents of NPV will argue that under the Constitution, that the states [via their legislatures] have the choice of assigning presidential electors, and therefore the states are within Constitutional bounds by assigning electors based on a "national majority vote total."

The Supreme Court will disagree -- or more correctly, they will restrict and clarify how electors may be assigned per the Constituion.

Their opinion will state that yes -- states DO have a right to assign presidential electors in the manner that they see fit.

HOWEVER, when a state chooses to hold a statewide election in which voters vote for their choice of of electors, that that state must be bound by the decision of its voters, and to disregard and overrule the outcome of such election for ANY reason amounts to an unconstitutional disenfrancishement of those voters.

To clarify: if a state indeed wanted to choose electors based on "popular vote" in _other states_, yes, it has the Constitution right to do so -- SO LONG AS it DOES NOT have an in-state election by the voters of that state.

The choice will be up to each state:
Either
1. Have an in-state election for electors, and be bound by the decision of the states "internal" vote, or
2. Abolish the in-state election and permit the state legislature to assign electors based on some tally of "the national popular vote" (such tally which must come from a vote elsewhere).

Simply stated -- if you're going to have an in-state election by the state's [resident] voters, you will be bound by the results.

Of course, states like Massachusetts will then be free to abide by NPV if they wish -- so long as they forbid _Massachusetts voters_ to participate IN the presidential election.

How many states are going to be willing to abolish in-state presidential elections?
===============================================================

Again:
To defeat NPV, our side must argue from the point of "disenfranchisement", perhaps using the Fourteenth Amendment ("equal protection of the laws") for support, along with the Voting Rights Act.

Yes, all the states that sign NPV have the right to assign their electors as they wish, but to do so, they must forego conducting a presidential "election" in their respective states.
Because, if they have an election, they are bound to abide by the RESULTS of the election -in their state-, as determined by the voters -in their state-.
As such, they cannot disregard the decision of their state's voters -- UNLESS they cancel the elections altogether.
Then, the legislature can assign the electors any way they wish.

It's worth noting that for years, southern states were able to prevent the votes of blacks from being cast, and by doing so preventing blacks from influencing the outcome of such elections. Hence, The Voting Rights Act. It's time to "turn the tables" on the left, and use the VRA to defeat "National Popular Vote", which is as overt an attempt to disenfranchise white voters, as were the literacy laws and other techniques used for years to do the same to blacks...
« Last Edit: April 17, 2014, 10:12:28 PM by Fishrrman »

Offline happyg

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,822
The large democratic cities will rule the rest of the states. I hate liberals who are communists, and who will turn us into a turd world nation in just a few years.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 42,431
  • #NeverTrumpForever
From the article:
[[ It has already passed in the House in Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon. These states, plus New York, represent 107 votes. Combined with the others they are up to 242 votes. They need 270. ]]

What follows is a repost of something I put up on TOS on 8/21/10:
===========================================================
This issue will eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

I predict that -- unless the current 5-4 conservative majority is changed through future appointments -- that NPV will be declared unconstitutional.

In that court case, the proponents of NPV will argue that under the Constitution, that the states [via their legislatures] have the choice of assigning presidential electors, and therefore the states are within Constitutional bounds by assigning electors based on a "national majority vote total."

The Supreme Court will disagree -- or more correctly, they will restrict and clarify how electors may be assigned per the Constituion.

Their opinion will state that yes -- states DO have a right to assign presidential electors in the manner that they see fit.

HOWEVER, when a state chooses to hold a statewide election in which voters vote for their choice of of electors, that that state must be bound by the decision of its voters, and to disregard and overrule the outcome of such election for ANY reason amounts to an unconstitutional disenfrancishement of those voters.

To clarify: if a state indeed wanted to choose electors based on "popular vote" in _other states_, yes, it has the Constitution right to do so -- SO LONG AS it DOES NOT have an in-state election by the voters of that state.

The choice will be up to each state:
Either
1. Have an in-state election for electors, and be bound by the decision of the states "internal" vote, or
2. Abolish the in-state election and permit the state legislature to assign electors based on some tally of "the national popular vote" (such tally which must come from a vote elsewhere).

Simply stated -- if you're going to have an in-state election by the state's [resident] voters, you will be bound by the results.

Of course, states like Massachusetts will then be free to abide by NPV if they wish -- so long as they forbid _Massachusetts voters_ to participate IN the presidential election.

How many states are going to be willing to abolish in-state presidential elections?
===============================================================

Again:
To defeat NPV, our side must argue from the point of "disenfranchisement", perhaps using the Fourteenth Amendment ("equal protection of the laws") for support, along with the Voting Rights Act.

Yes, all the states that sign NPV have the right to assign their electors as they wish, but to do so, they must forego conducting a presidential "election" in their respective states.
Because, if they have an election, they are bound to abide by the RESULTS of the election -in their state-, as determined by the voters -in their state-.
As such, they cannot disregard the decision of their state's voters -- UNLESS they cancel the elections altogether.
Then, the legislature can assign the electors any way they wish.

It's worth noting that for years, southern states were able to prevent the votes of blacks from being cast, and by doing so preventing blacks from influencing the outcome of such elections. Hence, The Voting Rights Act. It's time to "turn the tables" on the left, and use the VRA to defeat "National Popular Vote", which is as overt an attempt to disenfranchise white voters, as were the literacy laws and other techniques used for years to do the same to blacks...


I tip my hat to you; that is a very well written piece.
Trump does not represent the will of the people.  If we really wanted to respect the decision of "the people," then Clinton would be the president-elect, not Trump, for the simple reason that she won the popular vote.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf