• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the SCOTUS allow state legislators to decide election winners?

Not anymore, its about a small handful of right wing democracy hating clowns that get to decide that Republicans will win 100% of the time. The people have lost their voice.

I've been pointing out that Republicans are like the CCP. One-party rule is essential to the CCP, and now it seems Republicans are not only acting like them in power, but wanting to have that one-party rule also. They've been building toward it for decades with the huge propagandization building hate for Democrats and attacking their legitimacy.
 
If this happens then why even have elections?
If the peoples vote means nothing and state legislators decide elections then we really have descended into fascism and authoritarian rule.
We'd still elect the legislatures.

That would be people's chance to get change. Note how Republicans have put huge resources into gaining control of state legislatures as part of this plan, since 2010 at least. They now control both houses in 30 states, reportedly.
 
We'd still elect the legislatures.

That would be people's chance to get change. Note how Republicans have put huge resources into gaining control of state legislatures as part of this plan, since 2010 at least. They now control both houses in 30 states, reportedly.
For now.
And what would stop those state legislatures from deciding all states elections also?
I am proud to say that the state I live in, Colorado, decided by a vote of the people of the state, i.e. the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, where the result would be a president elected by a national popular vote.
 
For now.
And what would stop those state legislatures from deciding all states elections also?
I am proud to say that the state I live in, Colorado, decided by a vote of the people of the state, i.e. the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, where the result would be a president elected by a national popular vote.

We're talking about two very different issues. The presidential election UNDER THE CONSTITUTION can be decided by the legislature, no election required. For them to do that on the legislative elections is totally different, and would be illegal voter fraud, which they ARE trying to do. Yes, I like the Compact a lot.
 
We're talking about two very different issues. The presidential election UNDER THE CONSTITUTION can be decided by the legislature, no election required. For them to do that on the legislative elections is totally different, and would be illegal voter fraud, which they ARE trying to do. Yes, I like the Compact a lot.
I would put nothing past any of these Republican controlled state legislatures.
Legal or not if they can find a way to control all state election outcomes they will.
 
If this happens then why even have elections?
If the peoples vote means nothing and state legislators decide elections then we really have descended into fascism and authoritarian rule.
Not really. There was no presidential election/popular vote in this country until after the civil war.
 
Hmm… isn’t that the idea behind the NVPIC? That ‘deal’ assigns 100% of a state’s EC votes to the national popular vote winner regardless of how that state’s electorate voted.


I hate the idea of this NPVIC. It is designed to make certain of one-party rule. That's why most of the States who've signed on are currently both Democrat strongholds, and have the largest concentrations of population.

This would allow those States to perpetually elect the President, leaving the majority of States which have smaller populations at their mercy. It is a literal attempt to ensure the very thing most Founders feared, a tyranny of the majority.

"Hunger Games" America, there we go!
 
Last edited:
I hate the idea of this NPVIC. It is designed to make certain of one-party rule. That's why most of the States who've signed on are currently both Democrat strongholds, and have the largest concentrations of population.

This would allow those States to perpetually elect the President, leaving the majority of States which have smaller populations at their mercy. It is a literal attempt to ensure the very thing most Founders feared, a tyranny of the majority.

"Hunger Games" America, there we go!

Letting the majority of voters decide the outcome of an election is how all elections work. Except one.

Positing that the GOP will never get a majority of American voters to support it in a national election is a very good argument that a system that keeps giving it power anyway is absolutely terrible.
 
I would put nothing past any of these Republican controlled state legislatures.
Legal or not if they can find a way to control all state election outcomes they will.
It's hard to disagree with that,.

But it's worth noting the legality anyway.
 
Back
Top Bottom