Durbin: More States Should Sign on to End Run Around Electoral College

[driftdiver]

This is what this sack of s**t swore when he joined the Senate -

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

@skeeter

People keep expecting the left to be honorable and have integrity.    Please wake up.   They'll do and say anything to further their agenda.

[skeeter]

@skeeter

People keep expecting the left to be honorable and have integrity.    Please wake up.   They'll do and say anything to further their agenda.

Yeah, I know. But it doesn't hurt to be reminded what lying pieces of trash these threats to our existence are.

[INVAR]

You cannot slow, stop or retract the push for tyranny via civil means.

Period.

[Cyber Liberty]

You cannot slow, stop or retract the push for tyranny via civil means.

Period.

There may have been a time when we could have, but we may be well past that point now.

[Doug Loss]

States can allocate their electoral votes however they want.


Whether the pact is legally binding is another question entirely.

It is not.  They even call it an interstate compact, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution unless agreed to by Congress (which this has not been).  And if a state decided to hold a presidential election and then award its electors to the losing candidate based on such a law, the state would immediately be taken to court for violation of the Constitution under both Article IV, Section 4 ("The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,") and Amendment 14, Section 2 ("But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.").

If a state doesn't hold such an election but just awards the electors to some candidate it couldn't be found liable for either of those violations, but then its vote count wouldn't exist for the purpose of triggering the NPV law either.

[240B]

Democrats want the ability to be able to change the rules of the Presidential race at the last minute if they think they may lose. That is, the Dem States want to be able to assign their electoral votes in whichever way will make their guy win.


This confuses the campaign, because the candidates would not know how to run. Do I go for the popular vote, or for the electoral vote? This would require two wholly and completely different campaign strategies. For example, Trump did not campaign in California at all because there was no point to it, with the electoral system. Most Republicans in California did not vote for the same reason, there just isn't any point to it. However, if they are campaigning for the popular vote, everything would be different. And Republicans all over the country, including those in deep blue States, would have a reason to vote.


Whatever the Leftist wackos want to do, the rules would have to fixed at least two years ahead of the election. Otherwise, the election would be chaos and no one would know what is going on.


As has been said, most of the time when the Democrats think they are changing the rules to their advantage, it winds up helping Republicans more than them. This may be the same case. If the Dems want the popular vote, Republicans could wind up burying them, as long as we all know the rules of the game ahead of time, and not after the fact as happened this last time.


In a one hundred yard dash race, it does not matter if Hillary ran two hundred yards. That does not make her the 'winner'. You cannot change the rules of a race, after the race has been run. And yet, that is just the Liberals are doing.

[Cyber Liberty]

Whatever the Leftist wackos want to do, the rules would have to fixed at least two years ahead of the election. Otherwise, the election would be chaos and no one would know what is going on.

Chaos would suit the Dems just fine.  Look how they've been trying to ruin the results of every election they don't win.  If they can't win, the strategy is to poison the well so badly NOBODY can govern, then they'll blame the "do-nothing" government that results (while the press covers their story).  Win-win for them.

[driftdiver]

It is not.  They even call it an interstate compact, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution unless agreed to by Congress (which this has not been).  And if a state decided to hold a presidential election and then award its electors to the losing candidate based on such a law, the state would immediately be taken to court for violation of the Constitution under both Article IV, Section 4 ("The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,") and Amendment 14, Section 2 ("But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.").

If a state doesn't hold such an election but just awards the electors to some candidate it couldn't be found liable for either of those violations, but then its vote count wouldn't exist for the purpose of triggering the NPV law either.

@Doug Loss

Who would take the state to court?   The DOJ?
I won't hold my breath.

They don't even pay lip service to being a nation of laws anymore.  The globalists are setting the agenda.

[Doug Loss]

@Doug Loss

Who would take the state to court?   The DOJ?
I won't hold my breath.

They don't even pay lip service to being a nation of laws anymore.  The globalists are setting the agenda.

Any voter in the state would have standing.  Especially those whose candidate won the state vote but whose electors were refused for the others. 

If you don't think that there's any possibility of winning, why even bother fighting?

[240B]

Chaos would suit the Dems just fine.  Look how they've been trying to ruin the results of every election they don't win.  If they can't win, the strategy is to poison the well so badly NOBODY can govern, then they'll blame the "do-nothing" government that results (while the press covers their story).  Win-win for them.

I agree. And that brings up the bigger point. It brings up the 'real' goal of all of this.


It is a thinly veiled secret that most Democrats, and many establishment Republicans with them, would love nothing more than to end elections altogether. When they speak of the electoral college as being anachronism, they are almost but not quite saying that elections in general are an anachronism.


The establishment in both parties would love to be able to lock-in their positions for life. Especially after Trump. For the first time in decades the establishment is scared to death. If Hillary can lose, then anybody can lose. And that is simply not how things are supposed to be.


Elections are not supposed to be 'real'. It is the whole concept of a real, actual, election that they can't control that they are all scrambling to 'fix'.

[Cyber Liberty]

The establishment in both parties would love to be able to lock-in their positions for life. Especially after Trump. For the first time in decades the establishment is scared to death. If Hillary can lose, then anybody can lose. And that is simply not how things are supposed to be.

Elections are not supposed to be 'real'. It is the whole concept of a real, actual, election that they can't control that they are all scrambling to 'fix'.

'Zackly.  I would argue almost all Republicans are in solid agreement with the Dems on this point.  I've yet to meet a politician (of any party) who didn't eventually out himself as pond scum.

This is why I'm glad to see Trump win.  It's not because of any particular policy position he's taken, or who he'll pick for Judges (although those are very important topics), but that he jams a pole in the spokes of their little bicycles, and it tickles me to see these bastids shaken up a bit, and take a face plant over the handlebars.

Sometimes I'm just into chaos a little myself.... 

[driftdiver]

Any voter in the state would have standing.  Especially those whose candidate won the state vote but whose electors were refused for the others. 

If you don't think that there's any possibility of winning, why even bother fighting?

@Doug Loss
Oh I think there's a possibility of winning and all fronts should be used.   I just think the precedent is against us to expect our govt to enforce laws limiting the power of tyranny.   

The Obamacare ruling is only one example.

If all you play is defense then you will lose.  I'm not advocating violence but we need to stop allowing these bastards to set the agenda.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Doug Loss
Oh I think there's a possibility of winning and all fronts should be used.   I just think the precedent is against us to expect our govt to enforce laws limiting the power of tyranny.   

The Obamacare ruling is only one example.

If all you play is defense then you will lose.  I'm not advocating violence but we need to stop allowing these bastards to set the agenda.

They didn't get away with it in 2000.  I'd like to hope a similar court would react in a similar manner, but I just don't trust courts anymore.  It's worthy of note the highest court in Floriduh got every decision they made wrong.  They don't base their findings on the law nowadays, only on how it affects people (as they see it).