Would you be okay with the GOP controlled states just naming the electors to the Electoral College?

[Individual]

If you are eliminating the Electoral College then you are also eliminating the Electoral College votes. There are no Electoral College votes if there is no Electoral College. The only vote that matters would be the popular vote, which is why only the ten most populous States would rule, and the remaining 40 less populated States would be their slaves. That was the whole purpose for creating the Electoral College in the first place, to prevent the most populated States from dominating over the least populous States.

I never mentioned Electoral College Votes, simply Electoral Votes applied to each State as the result of the Census.
In no way would I support electing a President by national popular vote, but there are many things that I feel should be changed which have effect on our elections.
The census no longer differentiates between citizen and non-citizen, and IMO each States EV count should be based only on their citizen population. Last I looked the non-citizen population of Montana was about 1% and that of California was about 12.5%, which adds about 7 Electoral votes to California.
Our entire election system and immigration/citizenship laws need to be overhauled IMO.
Government, primarily should be strongest at the local level, and Federal laws should result by the consent of a majority of the people in three fourths of the States.

 

[The AntiDonald]

States have the Constitutional right to choose electors in any manner they see fit. They can hold elections. They can draw lots. They can use an owegi board.

Only the misinformed would believe otherwise.

That may be true on paper. But if it happens, the riots you saw last summer would look like a few people taking a walk. Personally, I won't want any legislator to overrule my legal vote. The electoral college is ridiculous and needs to be abolished. One person, one vote, period.

It's real clear to see the slow motion power grab going on by republicans. We need federal legislation to protect the people's right to choose their leaders. Not the other way around.

 

[Airyaman]

I would assume IF the legislature was GOP controlled the state's electorate would slant GOP as well. So, I'm not sure I see the problem.

I'm sure you don't since GA and AZ have a GOP majority.

 

[Colin Norris]

In Wisconsin, gerrymandering gives the legislature to the GOP in spite of a commanding majority of votes going to Democratic candidates.

At present we have a Democratic governor who would veto such an abomination. But there was a window where we had a lame duck Republican governor, Scott Walker, to go with the gerrymandered Republican legislature. When Scott Walker lost the election in 2018, the GOP legislature had a special session to pass legislation to hamstring the incoming governor and attorney general. I wouldn't put anything past them in their effort to get their own way without regard to the will or interest of the people.

They are actually why I am now a Democrat.

When the GOP made Trump their frontrunner in 2015, I left the GOP. But I stayed independent until last year when the GOP put their desire for a state supreme court victory over the health of the state's citizenry near the beginning of the pandemic. My outrage at that pushed me off the political fence. But I know there were a lot of Republicans in the state who were celebrating their shady legislators' extreme poor sportsmanship, to put it mildly.

The proposal sounds a bit dictatorial to me.

 

[Torus34]

Harkening back to the OP, as far as 'red' states go, it would be a distinction without difference.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Clearly you need to read Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution:

[emphasis added]

The State legislatures have always chosen the President, and will continue to do so.

…according to the state’s popular vote.

You are not getting the permanent anti-majoritarian leadership you crave. We’re a Democratic republic. Voters get to choose.

Soooooorry.

 

[Perotista]

How do you figure it throws out how the people of their state voted? It only goes into effect when the popular vote is the opposite of the electoral vote, so the states go with the way their voters voted instead of going with the unequal voting-power of the Electoral "Confederate" College. In other words, I highly doubt that there will ever be the conditions where a state will go Democratic when it voted Republican. The only reason the NPVIC is needed is because 'one person, one equal vote' isn't honored by the EC. 'One person, one equal vote' is the best voting principle; the EC is the worst.

I'll never understand why people want to tear the union of the several states apart. To do away with a constitutional republic and make it one big mass huge direct democracy.

Yes, it would nullify the votes of the people of a state who is part of the compact if that state voted for the loser of the popular vote. It also amazes me you see 55 vs. 3 as unequal. That 55 gets the short end of the stick. The electoral college is based on population of each state, each state receiving an electoral vote for each representative they have. Then 2 more because of senators, for basically be party or a member of the union of the several states.

Does it give small states a larger voice, not really. They get 3 electoral votes, minimum. You talk as if California with its 55 is at a huge disadvantage to say Wyoming who has 3. I'll never understand that. California 55 is being the victim of unequal voting to a state that has 3.

Oh well, to each his own. Now as far as the compact, the state legislatures of those compact states have already decided who they would cast their electoral votes for in any future election once it takes effect. Same difference. Then one should remember it was the state legislatures who awarded the electoral votes in this country's early years, only a handful of states had a popular vote. The idea of a representative republic was the people would vote for their state legislatures, their direct representative and the state legislature would award the electoral votes of the people's representative of that state. This was also used for senators until the 17th amendment was passed further weakening the representative republic.

 

[Mycroft]

Would you be okay with the GOP controlled states just naming the electors to the Electoral College?​

No.

But I am okay with any state legislature...regardless of Party control...being able and willing to take steps to nullify the results of an election that is affected by election fraud.

Now...that doesn't necessarily mean naming their own set of electors. It could mean refusing to let the SoS certify the vote count until complete forensic audits of the fraudulent election has been completed. (And it wouldn't be the SoS or some election board conducting the audit.) It could mean the legislature deciding to conduct a new election if it's shown that the SoS or election boards violated state laws to make the election fraud possible.

There are a number of steps a state legislature can...and should...take to ensure a fraud-free election. If you actually examine the election reform bills that are being passed by the various states, THIS is the purpose...not to allow some legislators to flout the will of the people.

 

[BlueTex]

Would you be okay with the GOP controlled states just naming the electors to the Electoral College?​

No.

But I am okay with any state legislature...regardless of Party control...being able and willing to take steps to nullify the results of an election that is affected by election fraud.

Now...that doesn't necessarily mean naming their own set of electors. It could mean refusing to let the SoS certify the vote count until complete forensic audits of the fraudulent election has been completed. (And it wouldn't be the SoS or some election board conducting the audit.) It could mean the legislature deciding to conduct a new election if it's shown that the SoS or election boards violated state laws to make the election fraud possible.

There are a number of steps a state legislature can...and should...take to ensure a fraud-free election. If you actually examine the election reform bills that are being passed by the various states, THIS is the purpose...not to allow some legislators to flout the will of the people.

Give us an example of a bill that does this? Could a state legislature halt the certification of a vote and delay the electoral college?

 

[The AntiDonald]

Would you be okay with the GOP controlled states just naming the electors to the Electoral College?​

No.

But I am okay with any state legislature...regardless of Party control...being able and willing to take steps to nullify the results of an election that is affected by election fraud.

Now...that doesn't necessarily mean naming their own set of electors. It could mean refusing to let the SoS certify the vote count until complete forensic audits of the fraudulent election has been completed. (And it wouldn't be the SoS or some election board conducting the audit.) It could mean the legislature deciding to conduct a new election if it's shown that the SoS or election boards violated state laws to make the election fraud possible.

There are a number of steps a state legislature can...and should...take to ensure a fraud-free election. If you actually examine the election reform bills that are being passed by the various states, THIS is the purpose...not to allow some legislators to flout the will of the people.

This is one of the few times I agree with you. Now you just have to prove election fraud of the nature that would effect the outcomes.

So far, 8 months later, ZIP. Keeping that in mind, what is the purpose of taking control away from SOSs and Election officials? In my mind, it's to insure that never again can a SOS carry out his constitutional duties and certify a winner that republicans don't like. It's quite obvious. It is clearly limiting the will of the people in an election.

 

[Mycroft]

This is one of the few times I agree with you. Now you just have to prove election fraud of the nature that would effect the outcomes.

That's what the complete forensic audits are for.

So far, 8 months later, ZIP. Keeping that in mind, what is the purpose of taking control away from SOSs and Election officials? In my mind, it's to insure that never again can a SOS carry out his constitutional duties and certify a winner that republicans don't like. It's quite obvious. It is clearly limiting the will of the people in an election.

No...it is to ensure that a rogue SoS cannot incorrectly/illegally certify a fraudulent vote count, as has happened in various states in the last election.

Hell, even Raffens-what's-his-name...the SoS in GA...is trying to tap-dance his way out of the shit-show he created by certifying a fraudulent vote count. If the GA legislature had the tools to deal with this back in November, we wouldn't still be talking about this 8 months later.

 

[The AntiDonald]

That's what the complete forensic audits are for.


No...it is to ensure that a rogue SoS cannot incorrectly/illegally certify a fraudulent vote count, as has happened in various states in the last election.

Hell, even Raffens-what's-his-name...the SoS in GA...is trying to tap-dance his way out of the shit-show he created by certifying a fraudulent vote count. If the GA legislature had the tools to deal with this back in November, we wouldn't still be talking about this 8 months later.

Your right. Trump would have won Georgia and no one would be worried about any fraud. See where I am going there.

 

[Mycroft]

Your right. Trump would have won Georgia and no one would be worried about any fraud. See where I am going there.

We don't know if "Trump would have won Georgia" because of the election fraud. But...it would be nice to know who ACTUALLY won, don't you think?

 

[BlueTex]

We don't know if "Trump would have won Georgia" because of the election fraud. But...it would be nice to know who ACTUALLY won, don't you think?

It would be nice if politicians would not throw around the word fraud so loosely...

 

[The AntiDonald]

We don't know if "Trump would have won Georgia" because of the election fraud. But...it would be nice to know who ACTUALLY won, don't you think?

Well, yes I do. After 8 months of audits and re-counts, if we don't know now, we never will.

 

[Mycroft]

Well, yes I do. After 8 months of audits and re-counts, if we don't know now, we never will.

Again...that's why we needed a complete forensic audit 8 months ago. Not those bogus half-audits that the crooked counties and SoS's tried to foist onto the public to validate their election fraud.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Again...that's why we needed a complete forensic audit 8 months ago. Not those bogus half-audits that the crooked counties and SoS's tried to foist onto the public to validate their election fraud.

Well, I'll say this about that. The entire election administration in Georgia was in the hands of republicans. I don't know what else to say.

Trump lost Georgia. The 2020 election is all over.

 

[BlueTex]

Again...that's why we needed a complete forensic audit 8 months ago. Not those bogus half-audits that the crooked counties and SoS's tried to foist onto the public to validate their election fraud.

Where in Georgia law is an "audit" authorized?

 

[Razoo]

Some of the states are discussing laws that would allow their legislatures to overturn the vote of its citizens and have the GOP controlled legislature just name the electos that suited their candidate. Now if all six of the swing states did this, it could control presidential elections, even if their candidate lost by millions of votes. Would you be okay with the states if they passed those laws and carried out the meaning of the laws by insuring every election went if favor of their candidate? I am not suggesting this will happen, but am asking your opinion about whether you would approve if they did?

Abolish the electoral college it has never represented the people.

 

[Mycroft]

Well, I'll say this about that. The entire election administration in Georgia was in the hands of republicans. I don't know what else to say.

Irrelevant...unless you are naive enough, after all that has happened since 2016, to think all Republicans support Trump.

Trump lost Georgia. The 2020 election is all over.

This isn't about redoing the 2020 election. The fraudsters won. This is about making sure the fraud never happens again.

 

[Mycroft]

Where in Georgia law is an "audit" authorized?

The state legislature has always had authority to conduct an audit.

 

[BlueTex]

The state legislature has always had authority to conduct an audit.

An audit to overturn election results? Where in the Georgia statutes is this outlined?

 

[The AntiDonald]

Irrelevant...unless you are naive enough, after all that has happened since 2016, to think all Republicans support Trump.


This isn't about redoing the 2020 election. The fraudsters won. This is about making sure the fraud never happens again.

But don't you have to find the actual fraud to make sure it never happens again? Or are you OK with legislators just passing a whole plethora of new laws just in case it may stop fraud?

That's all I see happening across the US. And by the way, there is nothing wrong with stopping fraud. I'm all for it. Making it harder for minorities and elderly to vote is not stopping fraud. It's a way of saying (read between the lines) we'll never lose another election, so we really don't give a sh** about fraud. Wining is all that matters to most of these hard core conservatives, the will of the people be damned.

 

[Glitch]

I never mentioned Electoral College Votes, simply Electoral Votes applied to each State as the result of the Census.
In no way would I support electing a President by national popular vote, but there are many things that I feel should be changed which have effect on our elections.
The census no longer differentiates between citizen and non-citizen, and IMO each States EV count should be based only on their citizen population. Last I looked the non-citizen population of Montana was about 1% and that of California was about 12.5%, which adds about 7 Electoral votes to California.
Our entire election system and immigration/citizenship laws need to be overhauled IMO.
Government, primarily should be strongest at the local level, and Federal laws should result by the consent of a majority of the people in three fourths of the States.

The Electoral College Vote is the Electoral Vote. Just dropping the word College does not change anything. If you abolish the Electoral College then you also eliminate any vote by the Electors. No State will have any Electoral votes, or Electoral College votes, or College votes, or any other vote you wish to misconstrue. At that point the States can no longer determine who becomes President at all, only the popular vote will matter and you will have enslaved 80% of the States.

The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and the federal government is subservient to its authority. The States must also acquiesce to the US Constitution and the authority that document grants to the federal government, as well as the powers it prohibits the States from exercising. The counties, boroughs, parishes, as well as the cities and towns are all sub-divisions of the State and must submit to its authority.

Making local government the strongest authority is utterly ridiculous, and exactly the opposite of how it really works.

 

[Glitch]

…according to the state’s popular vote.

You are not getting the permanent anti-majoritarian leadership you crave. We’re a Democratic republic. Voters get to choose.

Soooooorry.

Only the States can determine who will be the President. It was never up to the people, and we have never been a democratic republic. You should actually read the US Constitution for a change instead of just making up BS or regurgitating your leftist indoctrination courses.