spat
.950 JDJ
Not just violates, but invalidates.
Supreme Court rules presidential electors must back their state’s popular vote winner
- Thread starter DoD1776
- Start date
spat
.950 JDJ
Nah, just net tax payers.
If you received more money from the government that you paid in taxes you should be ineligible to vote for people who will give you more.
I would also accept property owners only and legitimate tax paying individuals.
I missed this before.
However, this S.C. ruling, IMHO, does not allow a state to declare all of their electors for the NATIONWIDE popular vote. Doing so would obviously potentially invalidate a State's popular vote.
I would love to see the Dem's heads explode if the GOP manage to get the Nationwide popular vote and NY has to send all of its electors to vot GOP.
(I know, I know... it's just a pipe dream)
spat
.950 JDJ
The constitution says the state legislature decides how the electors are selected.I missed this before.
However, this S.C. ruling, IMHO, does not allow a state to declare all of their electors for the NATIONWIDE popular vote. Doing so would obviously potentially invalidate a State's popular vote.
I would love to see the Dem's heads explode if the GOP manage to get the Nationwide popular vote and NY has to send all of its electors to vot GOP.
(I know, I know... it's just a pipe dream)
A state could simply pick a slate of electors who contractually obligated themselves to vote for the national popular vote winner.
Electors can vote however they want, and the state legislature can pick electors however they want.
I don't think there is anything that would prevent electors from signing some sort of legally binding contract in order to be selected.
I would think that would be just more proof of the fraud being perpetrated by our own government.
I would like to think the gallows would start getting built at that point, but realistically we've already gone far beyond that point and no one is cutting lumber.
Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
actually, this is a good thing. It maintains the electoral college. If the country were to allow only the popular vote to win an election, the east and west coast would be electing our leaders*, the middle of the country would be left out.
I think each state should have electoral college, that way big cities, Like NYshitty, would not run the entire state simply because of population density
Basically, if they allowed the electors to vote anyway they wanted, why have a vote at all? Just appoint one or two people to vote for the state.
I think each state should have electoral college, that way big cities, Like NYshitty, would not run the entire state simply because of population density
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
spat
.950 JDJ
Technically the electors *are* people appointed to vote for the state.
Originally the idea was that most people did not have the ability to research the presidential candidates well enough to make an informed decision, so the people would choose electors they trusted enough to do the research for then.
Would be very interesting if we chose electors one election cycle ahead. It would mean you were choosing electors before the candidates were even chosen, so you would be back to the electors name on the ballot, and you picked someone you trusted to make the right choice 4 years from now.
What's wrong with women voting?