Posted on 07/28/2018 6:35:27 AM PDT by Kaslin
CA is the biggest bastion of liberalism. But the key # is the “flip factor”—how many Ds have to flip from their 3m edge and that’s 1.5. Steep, not impossible.
The author is an idiot.
“at least I can join up with Republicans in Arizona, Utah, Oklahoma, and 46 other states, to cancel out the Democrats here in California”
Republicans in California teaming up with Republicans in ALL the other states is NOT about hoping to “cancel out the Democrats in California”. It must cancel out the votes of Democrats NATIONALLY. And as the 2016 popular vote shows, IT DIDN’T.
But because, thank G-d, we have the electoral college system, you can look at a map and see the GOP won massively, because what it won was a mjority vote in more COUNTIES in the nation and by doing so acquired the most electoral college votes. If you look at the landmass of the U.S. in GOP read it is huge, and than of the Dim’s is but ribbons of blue in seas of red.
That is A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC with government by REPRESENTATIVES, and an electoral college system that reflects that in the choice of a national president, and NOT A DEMOCRACY.
A national popular vote is a terribly bad idea, offered by those who know it will continue to destroy this republic and by the ignorant who not of what they speak.
If you look at the site, you will find their rationale for using compacts among the states as the constitutional basis for the arrangement. There is no doubt that they are trying to circumvent the need for a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college and allow direct election of a President and VP. It needs to be stopped now.
The left coast, the immigrants, and the “common man” fully predominate in CA.
Then why Jerry Brown still governor?
bump
Wow, even more nonsense. That dog doesn't hunt. The Constitution is the compact between the states that all have agreed to, including the supremacy clause. Some states amongst themselves cannot make a side deal to subvert that bargain that all made in direct violation of that same supremacy clause as well as the clause governing the process of amendment. It is a fundamental tenant of legal construction that where the law provides a way to do something it thereby precludes all unmentioned ways to do the same thing.
The constitutional requirement for amending the constitution is an inevitable (not to be evaded) procedural right possessed by we the people. It isn't in the power of some of the states among themselves to agree to waive that process.
Exactly correct. A stinking end-run around the requirement for a constitutional amendment. This is really fetid and flies in the face of our sacred constitution...but, as we all know, the Progs have for 100 years detested the Constitution, so it is no surprise. What IS surprising is the strong Republican support in various state houses and state house committees that the author cites. That is extremely alarming. It clearly demonstrates how degraded our civics education has been the past 50 years.
That’s just ole’ Satan sayin’ hey come on in here old fella heavens right through this gate ...but you can’t bring your dog....
What you say re the Supremacy Clause is no doubt correct. So, in the end, this would go to the Supreme Court where it would be voided. IF it goes to a strict constructionist court which is always hanging by a thread. If RBG kicks off or retires, then we MIGHT have a hope that a conservative court would reject this over the next 10 or 15 years. But, if the progs get another sympathetic liberal court that legislates from the bench, they could make this work. I would not count on Constitution or fundamental tenets of legal construction stopping this in a liberal la-la land. That is wishful thinking.
Not the least surprising. Disappointing, but we would not be in the dire straits we are in if the Republicans were anything other than the right wing of the uniparty.
"Given the winner take all rule in effect in each of these states, the Republican votes in Texas and California didn’t mean a thing."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Patriots, please consider that “winner takes all rule” of states for electing a president are unconstitutional under the 12th Amendment imo.
Excerpted from the 12th Amendment:"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice- President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate [emphasis added]; …"
Patriots are reminded that the unconstitutional, politically correct changes that misguided states have made to the constitutionally enumerated procedure for electing president are a result of the following imo.
Uniparty crook politicians are not only continuously fighting for control of state powers that the feds have stolen from the states, and continue to do so, but also for control of likewise stolen state revenues uniquely associated with those powers, such revenues stolen by means of unconstitutional federal taxes.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most appropriations laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
In fact, consider that the congressional record shows that constitutional lawmaker Rep. John Bingham had clarified that the Founding States had left the care of the people with the states and not the federal government.
”... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
But how can the states afford to care for the people when the feds are stealing state revenues, evidenced by the corrupt, uniparty Dems and RINOs blatantly ignoring the 12th Amendment?
The states need to eliminate the unconstitutional middleman, the unconstitutionally big federal government, from “helping” to manage state revenues.
The remedy for this mess …
Patriots need to support Pres. Trump in leading the states to repeal the 16th and ill-conceived 17th Amendments (16&17A).
Once those amendments are repealed and Trump politically “forces” Congress to surrender state powers that the feds have been stealing from the states back to the states then consider the following.
The states will ultimately find a tsunami of new revenues that they won’t know what to do with imo.
For starters, the states can establish their own individual healthcare and retirement plans, improve public schooling, increase funding for police and fire departments, and repair infrastructure.
In the meanwhile, patriots now need to be making sure that there are plenty of state sovereignty-respecting, Trump-supporting patriot candidates on the 2018 primary ballots, candidates who will support Trump in leading then states to repeal 16&17A, and pink-slip career lawmakers by sending patriot candidate lawmakers to DC on election day.
And it is as least a blue as it looks. The author is foolish.
That’s because it’s Commie RED.
consider this :
if all you need is to get 51 percent of each district’s votes (or whateverpercentage wins in the vote splitup) in 51 percent of the districts to get ALL of the state’s Electoral College ‘votes’, then a mere 25% of the population can (theoretically) determine the outcome in a national election (with a block like California’s (55 large) then being a major factor overriding/nullifying numerous smaller states)
Its why Gerrymandering districts is such a significant issue, and why illegal aliens voting and election frauds gains can be greatly magnified.
I am not for getting rid of the electoral college system, but perhaps making the votes NOT have to be cast together as all or none into the federal counts.
Maine and Nebraska have such a system and it should go national: 2 electoral votes to the statewide winner; 1 to the winner of each congressional district.
This system should go national not only as an alternative for NPV arguments, but because it demonstrably works. Trump won a district in Maine in 2016 and ObaMao won one in Nebraska in 2008.
The constitution leave it up to the states to decide how to allocate their electors.
Great Idea!
In the last 26 years, Republicans have won the presidential Popular Vote one time - LOL!
“I want my vote to count.”
Best solution for your problem, move to a red state.
One day, both sides will claim that their candidate won. The issue will be irreconcilable. That’s the day that the shooting civil war will commence.
It’s a good thing for us that the liberal nazi scum can’t determine which bathroom to use, let alone figure out which end a bullet exits from a rifle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.