The newest voter suppression tactic by the GOP and Trump!!

[Condor060]

Trump is a socialist. So is the GOP. Watch the next round of support. Since the GOP suppresses the vote to keep a minority party in power that hates the People, the Democratic Party and the majority of the voters are going to have to take back this country, and they can do it constitutionally.

So you elected not to answer the questions but respond with some drivel about Trump being a socialist? So now you are claiming Bernie voters will vote for Trump? Delusional.

Are those questions too scary for you?

Expand voting rights to who?

How do you have a popular vote and the electoral college at the same time?

So you would be fine if we do that right now and fill those seats with Conservative judges huh. Or you just want that to happen if a Democrat comes to power?

 

[Condor060]

It is not illegal or unconstitutional.

There is no substantive illegal voting.

Some States require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote of their state. These pledges fall into two categories. Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not state electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called faithless electors may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector.

Several electors were disqualified and replaced in 2016 for failing to vote as pledged. It is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.

Best of luck with electors voting outside their states popular vote.

 

[marke]

Some States require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote of their state. These pledges fall into two categories. Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not state electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called faithless electors may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector.

Several electors were disqualified and replaced in 2016 for failing to vote as pledged. It is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.

Best of luck with electors voting outside their states popular vote.

It is a sad fact that politicians and government officials can do things which may not be in the best interest of all voters in a state or the nation. For one example, tens of millions of voters opposed the House impeachment of Trump, but the politicians in the majority had the liberty to do as they pleased, while Americans who disapproved had no say. If state law is wrong, if tradition is wrong, if practice is wrong, those errors cannot be changed by public opinion or polls. They must be changed in the legislatures working in conjunction with the courts. If those practices cannot be changed in that manner then Americans will just have to live with what we have until they can be changed in the future, if needed.

 

[jamesbyoung]

So you elected not to answer the questions but respond with some drivel about Trump being a socialist? So now you are claiming Bernie voters will vote for Trump? Delusional. Are those questions too scary for you?

I responded with the truth and facts to your drivel, which scares the heck out of you. :Trump is a socialist. So is the GOP. Watch the next round of support. Since the GOP suppresses the vote to keep a minority party in power that hates the People, the Democratic Party and the majority of the voters are going to have to take back this country, and they can do it constitutionally."

You can emigrate if you wish.

 

[jamesbyoung]

Some States require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote of their state. These pledges fall into two categories. Electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not state electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called faithless electors may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector.

Several electors were disqualified and replaced in 2016 for failing to vote as pledged. It is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.

Best of luck with electors voting outside their states popular vote.

Please know before you talk. The states control the voting, thus the states may enact NPV. The EC is going nowhere, podjo.

 

[Far right dem]

Really? Show me

Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Under the U.S. Constitution the president and vice president are chosen by electors, under a constitutional grant of authority delegated to the legislatures of the several states. The Constitution reserves the choice of the precise manner for creating electors to the will of the state legislatures. It does not define or delimit what process a state legislature may use to create its state college of electors. In practice, the state legislatures have generally chosen to create electors through an indirect popular vote, since the 1820s. Most states have a "winner-take-all" system in which the candidate with the most votes in the state gets all the electoral votes.[6] Maine and Nebraska allow individual congressional districts to elect one elector.

 

[Condor060]

Please know before you talk. The states control the voting, thus the states may enact NPV. The EC is going nowhere, podjo.

Yeah, didn't we hear this before when leftist states were trying to eliminate any presidential candidates from the ballot that didn't provide their tax returns.

And we all saw how that turned out, didn't we.

 

[Condor060]

I responded with the truth and facts to your drivel, which scares the heck out of you.

Then why didn't you answer the questions if its so scary for me?

 

[Condor060]

Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia


Under the U.S. Constitution the president and vice president are chosen by electors, under a constitutional grant of authority delegated to the legislatures of the several states. The Constitution reserves the choice of the precise manner for creating electors to the will of the state legislatures. It does not define or delimit what process a state legislature may use to create its state college of electors. In practice, the state legislatures have generally chosen to create electors through an indirect popular vote, since the 1820s. Most states have a "winner-take-all" system in which the candidate with the most votes in the state gets all the electoral votes.[6] Maine and Nebraska allow individual congressional districts to elect one elector.

You stated

I dont think you read the constitution. It says the states have the right to allocate their votes how ever they want.

Where does it say that

 

[Far right dem]

You stated



Where does it say that

I suspect you are trying to move the goalposts.

 

[Condor060]

Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia


Under the U.S. Constitution the president and vice president are chosen by electors, under a constitutional grant of authority delegated to the legislatures of the several states. The Constitution reserves the choice of the precise manner for creating electors to the will of the state legislatures. It does not define or delimit what process a state legislature may use to create its state college of electors. In practice, the state legislatures have generally chosen to create electors through an indirect popular vote, since the 1820s. Most states have a "winner-take-all" system in which the candidate with the most votes in the state gets all the electoral votes.[6] Maine and Nebraska allow individual congressional districts to elect one elector.

The electors take an oath. Those who don't vote as their states popular vote prescribes are called faithless electors. They can be fined, jailed, and/or replaced. And some were in 2016. Nowhere does it say anywhere that electors can vote any way they want too.

 

[Condor060]

I suspect you are trying to move the goalposts.

I dont think you read the constitution. It says the states have the right to allocate their votes how ever they want.

Its your statement. Now that I am asking you to provide information that supports that statement I am moving the goal post?

 

[jamesbyoung]

Yeah, didn't we hear this before when leftist states were trying to eliminate any presidential candidates from the ballot that didn't provide their tax returns. And we all saw how that turned out, didn't we.

The people will elect enough Dems to end GOP voter suppression. Get ready for it.

 

[jamesbyoung]

Its your statement. Now that I am asking you to provide information that supports that statement I am moving the goal post?

Yes, you are moving the goal posts. The lege in the state sets HOW the voting goes. Tough.

 

[jamesbyoung]

Then why didn't you answer the questions if its so scary for me?

Your questions have nothing to do with the OP. GOP voter suppression will be end and the GOP will become a permanent minority party.

 

[Condor060]

Your questions have nothing to do with the OP. GOP voter suppression will be end and the GOP will become a permanent minority party.

They were your statements. I asked questions about YOUR statements which you refuse to answer. And now they have nothing to do with anything?
Ooookkkkaaayyy

 

[Far right dem]

The electors take an oath. Those who don't vote as their states popular vote prescribes are called faithless electors. They can be fined, jailed, and/or replaced. And some were in 2016. Nowhere does it say anywhere that electors can vote any way they want too.

Strawman. The discussion was on how states can choose the electors. Not how to electors are supposed to vote. The constitution allows states to choose electors however they want. The winner take all system has been tradition and not a constitutional mandate.

 

[Condor060]

Its your statement. Now that I am asking you to provide information that supports that statement I am moving the goal post?

Yes, you are moving the goal posts. The lege in the state sets HOW the voting goes. Tough.

I'm just going to let those post speak for themselves as they need no further comment.

 

[Condor060]

The people will elect enough Dems to end GOP voter suppression. Get ready for it.

Yeah, like running presidential candidates with obvious dementia and idiots like AOC. Hows that working for ya. :lamo

 

[Condor060]

Strawman.

Well, now we know you have no clue what a strawman argument so lets move on to the discussion.

The discussion was on how states can choose the electors. Not how to electors are supposed to vote. The constitution allows states to choose electors however they want. The winner take all system has been tradition and not a constitutional mandate

The discussion was about your statement of how states can allocate their votes. Not how states can choose electors. Per your own post.

I dont think you read the constitution. It says the states have the right to allocate their votes how ever they want.

Really? Show me

Article Two of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

The electors take an oath. Those who don't vote as their states popular vote prescribes are called faithless electors. They can be fined, jailed, and/or replaced. And some were in 2016. Nowhere does it say anywhere that electors can vote any way they want too.

So in keeping with the conversation, there is no law or constitutional ruling that says electors can vote how ever they want.

 

[Far right dem]

Well, now we know you have no clue what a strawman argument so lets move on to the discussion.



The discussion was about your statement of how states can allocate their votes. Not how states can choose electors. Per your own post.









So in keeping with the conversation, there is no law or constitutional ruling that says electors can vote how ever they want.

Moving the goal posts. Your replaced choose with vote. States can indeed choose electors however they want.

 

[Condor060]

Moving the goal posts. Your replaced choose with vote. States can indeed choose electors however they want.

yeah, now you're just lying. We were never discussing states choosing electors. We were discussing electors giving their vote to the popular votes of other states.

If you're going to lie about your own post I have no further interest.

Have a good day

 

[jamesbyoung]

Yeah, like running presidential candidates with obvious dementia and idiots like AOC. Hows that working for ya. :lamo

Dementia? You mean Trump, of course. Biden will beat him like a drum.

 

[jamesbyoung]

yeah, now you're just lying. We were never discussing states choosing electors. We were discussing electors giving their vote to the popular votes of other states.

If you're going to lie about your own post I have no further interest. Have a good day

You are lying, Condor060. If you keep acting like a GOP Russian bot, I will buy bye. You were explained how the rules work for the NPV, the EC, and SCOTUS, and I don't care if you like them or not.

But you are going to be made to live by them.

 

[Bullseye]

"Monday’s decision came from the same three-judge court that invalidated North Carolina’s gerrymander of the state Legislature in September. Following that ruling, the plaintiffs—who are backed by Eric Holder’s National Democratic Redistricting Committee—filed suit against the state’s congressional map. The court found that this plan had the same infirmities as the legislative map: GOP legislators discriminated against Democratic voters, drawing maps behind closed doors with the aid of gerrymandering guru Thomas Hofeller. Their map “packed” most into a few deep-blue districts then “cracked” the rest throughout red districts. “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,” the legislator in charge of redistricting declared upon presenting the plan. “So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.”"

Just try winning a goddamn election FAIRLY for a change, instead of whining every two years "It's not fair, it's not fair".

Maybe if you offered platforms people want and addressed the needs of common people and families, like the Democratic Party USED TO, you'd get somewhere.