Blue states rally to upend Electoral College, with addition of Connecticut

These super populations will wind up enslaving everyone else

But you don't care that the rich are already enslaving us all??

originally posted by: CB328

These super populations will wind up enslaving everyone else

But you don't care that the rich are already enslaving us all??

Who owns you? I'm no slave. I do what I want when I want to. Everything I do is voluntary.

So who are these so-called rich elites who are enslaving you? Do they crack whips? Are they making you work all day long without respite?

a reply to: Phage

" Against the federal government? Leave the union? That makes a lot of sense."


Seems some People in California think it does . Never going to Happen .

a reply to: CB328

" But you don't care that the rich are already enslaving us all??"


Only the Rich Progressive Liberal Left are a Concern here because they Promote Rebellion .

The bottom line here is that the Democrat's Blue Wall crumbled before Trump and the Dems are losing small percentages of minorities to Trump.

They want to defeat him in 2020 and this is just one of many of their crooked ways to try. Don't see it going anywhere though. It is all Blue States signing up so if all the same Blue States get locked in, the Dems plan will be to concentrate and focus on a few single States like Florida and Ohio if they know the others are in their back pockets.

This tells us they fear losing another Blue State where it is close and if a couple of percentage of their plantation votes run off of the plantation for the prosperity Trump is bringing them, it spells Trump winning again.

The campaign was started in 2007, it has nothing to do with Trump.

If states would divvy up electoral votes proportionally instead of a winner take all system (except Maine & Nebraska, kinda) this wouldn't be an issue.

Winner take all robs voters from all parties of national representation.

a reply to: dragonridr

Up to the states how they want to allocate their delegates.

No , no it isnt.
Well , they can. Most States have penalties for going against popular vote. And the delegates would probably never be able to return to any other election.

Hopefully , one day true US citizens will round up everyone who thinks like this and give em a one way trip to a country in the Middle East (or Venezuela) Their choice.
Wait . Those countries would just send em back for being incorrigible troublemakers there too.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.
Liberty is a well armed sheep protesting the vote.
Unknown

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Phage

" Against the federal government? Leave the union? That makes a lot of sense."


Seems some People in California think it does . Never going to Happen .

Ironically the Democrats tried that once when they owned slaves, and were crushed during the Civil War.

Idiots.

The difference this time will be once the bullets start flying they're all going to scramble for cry closets and bunnies to stroke.

I'm not Republican or Democrat, but from an outside observer, the democrats should all be tried and hung for treason with the way they've been acting lately. I've never seen in my life such a blatant attempt to overthrow the government by the media and Democrats. That alone is enough for a civil war.

a reply to: dragonridr


I am a little confused about their wishes here.

When they wanted gay marriage, the popular vote result was the populace in many states didn't want to re-define marriage. Sane people said no by POPULAR VOTE. The left then went to court and they got that changed. So they forced the majority to bend to the will of the minority.

Now they want to use the popular vote for all elections? So lets say they do get their way. Can we then have a re-vote on gay marriage and by popular vote, recind that madness? You can't have it both ways.

Or does the left get their cake and get to eat it too? What they want is mob rule on their terms. If they dont like the result they go to court?

I have a feeling some day they will get a leader that will rival Stalin or Hitler with what they want. Bernie is already an admitted communist and worships Stalin as a great leader. The left better be careful what they wish for. I think most on the left are like Joy Reid and and only pay lip service to their casue. Deep down they like Joy have a burning hatred for America and humanity in general.

a reply to: Scifi2424

So they forced the majority to bend to the will of the minority.

It's quite simple. I don't think anyone is being forced into a gay marriage so I don't know who, exactly, is being bent. Apart from the fact that gay marriage affects no one but those who get married , an unconstitutional law is is an unconstitutional law. Here's another example:

In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws (also known as miscegenation laws) were state laws passed by individual states to prohibit miscegenation, nowadays more commonly referred to as interracial marriage and interracial sex.

en.wikipedia.org...

This proposal does not seem to be unconstitutional, but would be likely to go where? To court.

a reply to: Phage

But the fallacy in their argument is that mob rule is good in once case but not the other right? I mean the "mob" or popular vote said that most people don't want their definition of marriage changed. These same people that now want mob rule for a POTUS election didn't like mob rule when it came to something that affected them in a very personal way.

You dont think the people in fly over states will take this shell game personally? Mob rule is good only if you are wining it seems. Otherwise its off to court we go.

Do we really think blue states would be talking about this if Kankles won? No they would not. The left can't win elections any other way. Either you are for mob rule or you are not. You can't have it both ways. At least we hope they can't.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

A Constitutional Amendment to Change the Status Quo will not be Supported by the Majority of American Citizens from Any Political Party ...PERIOD .

No Constitutional Amendment is required.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
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.

It is the States, through their electors, who choose the President. There is nothing in the Constitution which determines how Electors are to vote.

www.archives.gov...

If the populace of a State votes for Trump, but the combination of Liberals from California, NY etc creates the national vote total in favor of Hillary.......

Then the people of that State are robbed of their representation. They voted for Trump but their State sends delegates that would vote for Hillary.....

Are they trying to start a new Civil War? States would be exiting the union over such injustice. All because the libs are bad losers.

The way we're doing it now is hardly fairer. Many states have a "winner take all" policy. That meant Texas went for Trump (all the electoral votes), effectively disenfranchising every single one of us who voted for someone else. There've been times when a relatively small number of voters tipped the entire electoral college vote for one state.

Article I, Section 10, paragraph 3 clearly forbids states from going rogue in a conglomerate without the approval of congress. The states law are crafted so none of them are active until enough states join the coup against the Constitution to make up 270 E.V. This careful weasel wording was done so nobody could claim injury or have standing in legal action aimed toward getting this to SCOTUS.

a reply to: Scifi2424

But the fallacy in their argument is that mob rule is good in once case but not the other right? I mean the "mob" or popular vote said that most people don't want their definition of marriage changed

Yes. And that mob "law" is unconstitutional. Voting for a law is quite different from voting for a representative.

a reply to: tkwasny

I think "going rogue" is a bit melodramatic but there is precedent which may make congressional approval unnecessary .

On its face, the Compact Clause does ostensibly prohibit any compact between states lacking congressional consent. However, the Supreme Court has definitively stated that “not all agreements between States are subject to the strictures of the Compact clause.” U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm’n, 98 S.Ct. 799, 469 (1978). Rather, the prohibition is only directed “to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.” Id at 468, quoting Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 519 (1893). Therefore, if the NPVC does not infringe upon federal supremacy, it does not require congressional consent. By that logic, the NPVC is certainly valid as it stands.

www.fairvote.org...

The states already have the power to select the president through the electoral college and this does not give any states any power over the federal government.

originally posted by: rickymouse
That is so wrong. The people of every state need to be heard in the election, not just bow to the most populated areas of the country. These super populations will wind up enslaving everyone else, Our votes will not get heard properly. I actually like the system we have now, quite a few of the presidents have lost the popular but got elected anyway. Even small population states need to be heard.

and that is exactly WHY the electoral collage was set up that way to begin with. in order to keep areas like big cities, which may have one set of needs and wants. from controlling everything, through sheer weight of numbers, to ignore the needs and wishes of everywhere else. in fact if you look at most "free countries", you will notice that they are set up similarly. in Canada for example the popular vote also means nothing. the leader while not chosen separately is appointed based upon which party controls the most SEATS in Parliament, (pretty much their version of congress). each "seat" of course is the representative of one area. voted for by the people who live in that area. and the party that wins the most seats. the leader of that party is the Prime Minister.

the fact is that people who live in rural areas, are just as important, and their needs are just as important, as those who are crowded into big cities. and those high population areas should never be allowed to gain control of government just because they have more people. and the same is true for states. Alaska's needs and wants are just as important as the needs and wants of California or New York. and likewise those states who just happen to have more people should not be allowed to control the country, yet again just because they happen to have more people.

in fact the electoral collage does actually need to be fixed. they should not be able to "overturn" votes in their area at all. they should ALL have to "vote" as per the wishes of voting population of their areas. in other words if most people vote for one candidate, than that candidate is the one that gets the vote for the area. if out of 100 people 40 vote for candidate A, and 41 people vote for candidate B, with the other 19 votes either for someone else or, for no candidate. than that area automatically "votes" for candidate B. since candidate B won the vote in that area, by more people voting for them. it matters not at all that in another area that out of 10,000 votes 9,999 voted for candidate A. both area's votes should have equal weight. that is the only way to ensure that EVERYONE in the country gets a fair balance of power to see to their needs and wants.

a reply to: generik

I agree with you on that. We can't have five big cities that are highly populated dictating the rest of the country.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

We're citizens of our own states, first. Our states are members of the Union. Everyone forgets that. Then there's the part where these lib's want NYC, Chicago & Californian cities effectively deciding every election for the rest of US. F them.

THAT'S exactly the end game that they are going for here.