Virginia House Bill 177

[JColumbus]

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding this. If it means what I think it means, essentially the electoral college is all but done away with, not only would I condone but I would hope and pray we have another civil war. IF this is indeed what I think it is, it is a far bigger spark than the gun rights issue. The media and movie/pop stars would all promote leftists and we would never see another conservative and or republican president again.

So yea, please someone clarify this and tell me it’s not what I think it is.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wr...o-national-popular-vote-winner-for-potus/amp/

 

[toddnjoyce]

The National Popular Vote effort (https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation) has been around since 2012, and it’s aimed at assigning all electoral votes in a state to the winner of the popular vote in that state.

Some states have done winner take all elector assignment for a long time. The current effort is very shortsighted...D states are pushing for it as ‘payback’ for 2016.

Karma can be a bitch though, as there are some strange permutations where the popular vote could be won, but due to the numbers of electors, the loser could still be elected.

 

[oldag]

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding this. If it means what I think it means, essentially the electoral college is all but done away with, not only would I condone but I would hope and pray we have another civil war. IF this is indeed what I think it is, it is a far bigger spark than the gun rights issue. The media and movie/pop stars would all promote leftists and we would never see another conservative and or republican president again.

So yea, please someone clarify this and tell me it’s not what I think it is.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wr...o-national-popular-vote-winner-for-potus/amp/

If enough states adopted this approach, it would in effect negate the electoral college.

I would not be surprised to see a lawsuit that goes all the way to SCOTUS on this.

 

[pronstar]

There are so many ways this can backfire in their faces...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[toddnjoyce]

If enough states adopted this approach, it would in effect negate the electoral college.

I would not be surprised to see a lawsuit that goes all the way to SCOTUS on this.

It’s entirely constitutional; states have the right to assign their votes however they want. Then only other issue is that of a faithless elector, which Texas had a problem with in 2016.

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/faq#ecpopulardiffer

 

[BillFairbanks]

It’s going to be hilarious when Trump wins the popular vote


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jrbfishn]

This is a case of "be very careful what you wish for, you might get it".
But if a State Congress full of Democrats is for it, it can't be good and I would not trust them in the least. Especially if it is tied in any way to the popular vote. Electing according to the popular vote would effectively nullify 2/3s of the Country. The east and west coast along with the Great Lakes region would effectively rule the rest of the Country.
Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

It’s entirely constitutional; states have the right to assign their votes however they want.

This. It is only since the late 19th century did most states allow voters to decide. Before that the legislatures of the state decided who the electors were.

 

[JColumbus]

If enough states adopted this approach, it would in effect negate the electoral college.

I would not be surprised to see a lawsuit that goes all the way to SCOTUS on this.

Electing according to the popular vote would effectively nullify 2/3s of the Country. The east and west coast along with the Great Lakes region would effectively rule the rest of the Country.
Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

This is exactly what I'm worried about and believe war would be appropriate over it.

It’s entirely constitutional; states have the right to assign their votes however they want. Then only other issue is that of a faithless elector, which Texas had a problem with in 2016.

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/faq#ecpopulardiffer

My question is, if we're a constitutional republic, and not a democracy, how the hell is it constitutional? Can't be "state's rights" because it's a federal issue...

 

[toddnjoyce]

...My question is, if we're a constitutional republic, and not a democracy, how the hell is it constitutional? Can't be "state's rights" because it's a federal issue...

This is a good question...the EC system is what makes us a representative democracy, which is what a republic is.

Article 2 of the Constitution is where the EC is birthed, and the 12th A makes some adjustments, they create the framework...there’s one rep for each congressional district and senate senate seat.

The U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1) gives the states exclusive control over awarding their electoral votes: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors....”

The National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC) does nothing to change that framework, which would be unconstitutional.

Looking further in Article II, the Constitution is silent on how the states can control the individual electors. In the beginning, there were only 2 or 3 winner take all states: today, 48 states are winner take all in the EC.

This (and the 12thA) was a reaction by the states to the several elections in the 1800s where the popular vote winner was not the EC choice.

The NPVC is today’s response to the 2000 and 2016 election where the same thing happened. The problem is what happens when big states like CA lose EC seats (like there projected to) due to census counts reducing their proportion of seats and awards those seats somewhere else.

Then, we’ll see another effort to try to ‘fix’ something that really can’t be fixed, because change happens.

 

[Whistler]

Majority (mob) rule tramples the rights of the minority. Dems claim to be for the little guy but they are only about control. They are adamant everything must be done their way but in our two party system its an us vs gov game. Hell eight GOP Senators voted with Dems to constrain POTUS regarding Iran. That surely won't embolden them at all...