Posted on 12/11/2017 10:14:06 AM PST by Oshkalaboomboom
If you read Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which was later amended through the 12th Amendment, it seems as if the founders of this country anticipated that the “House tiebreaker” process would happen on a fairly regular basis. This would be the case if you had regional parties and more than two major candidates in any presidential election who had enough regional appeal to win electoral votes in a presidential election.
Yeah, no problem except fraud in a handful of precincts in Chicago and CA can throw the entire election!
As states go, California has almost as many electoral votes as #2 and #3 combined. The winner-take-all version in use in most (?) states should be replaced with a proportional system, anyway.
However, the NPV "reform" would probably make it damned difficult for the Demagogic Party to ever again occupy (that's Occupy) the White House, assuming nitwits like Flake, Corker, McConnell, Ryan, and Romney aren't in charge.
Right now the Pubbie turnout in CA is depressed thanks to decades of gerrymandering, illegals, single party rule most of the time (assuming one accepts that Ahnold was a Republican), etc. If their turnout is keyed on, that is, they are motivated by the fact that when they turn out they flip a bunch of smaller NPV blue states' Electoral Votes right into the Republican column, they will be incentivized to turn out, despite the futility at the state level.
Thanks Oshkalaboomboom.
Here’s the `black letter’ authority:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
Where in Article 2 can it be shown that the framers did not want a “winner take all electoral college”?
Or what secondary authority supports that position? The Federalist Papers? Which one? A letter from one to another?
Another remarkable statement: the electoral college will be “broken” only if the Constitution is amended.
We have already experienced the damage that resulted after ignoring the “natural born citizen” requirement in the same article.
If the Democrats want to start stealing elections legally they will have to change the US Constitution first.
The article allows electors to vote for only two candidates.
What proponents of the National Popular Vote don't tell you is that the compact is not necessary.
Any state can pass a law now to award their Electoral College vote to the winner of the national popular vote on its own. Why will no state step up and unilaterally do this to be a leader for the cause?
Why are they hiding behind this need to have a compact of 270 votes lined up before making the change? Why won't some liberal state lead by example, take that first step, and just do it now?
Could it be that, deep down, they know their voters would reject the idea of other states determining their state winner for them?
-PJ
The other thing worth noting in this election is that the population of the U.S. was somewhere around 10 million in 1824, and yet only 356,000 votes were cast. This might come as a huge surprise to a lot of SJW-types who like to complain about "white privilege," but the truth is that most white men didn't have the right to vote back then.
| Hillary's | |||||||||||
| Trump | Hillary | Margine of Victory | |||||||||
| National | Vote | ||||||||||
| Popular vote | 62,984,825 | 65,853,516 | 2,868,691 | ||||||||
| California | Vote | ||||||||||
| Popular vote | 4,483,814 | 8,753,792 | 4,269,978 | ||||||||
| National Vote Minus Hillary's California Margin of Victory | |||||||||||
| Popular vote | 62,984,825 | 61,583,538 | 1,401,287 | ||||||||
| Without California, Trump's popular vote totals exceded Hilary Clinton's by 1,401,287 votes. | |||||||||||
| 49 states gave Trump the popular vote by a margin of 1,401,287 votes. | |||||||||||
| National Vote Source: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016 | ||||||||||
| popular vote right side box | |||||||||||
| California Vote Source: | http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2016-general/ssov/pres-summary-by-county.pdf | ||||||||||
| bottom of page 3 | |||||||||||
Nope how about a ironclad federal law that some
lib states can’t interpret or circumvent
Yeah exactly. I’d imagine a lot of Trump supporters in New York, Illinois, and New England also stayed home since they knew Hillary had those states in the bag.
More Salem NeverTrump claptrap
It's idiotic to even suggest this. It would be like adding the total points scored by each football team and the most points wins, instead of which team wins the most games.
👍
Its evident from the debates at the federal convention. Their purpose was to devise a way to elect a man who wasn't beholden to any party or faction. They believed most presidents would be elected by the House, one vote per state. They would freak out at how the political parties hijacked the system, such that electors are limited by law to the candidate of one of two outright factions who put their interests ahead of the country.
Donald Trump is from the Framers' mold, who arrived in office without political or monetary debts of any kind. It is among the reasons the Deep State wants him gone.
Donald Trump: The Echo of our Framers' Uncorrupted President.
The additional two electoral votes per Senator should represent the wishes of the state legislature, hence the need to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Under the current winner take all system large urban political parties can skew the election through voter fraud, and massive get out the vote drives.
Our founding fathers knew that the urban area vote could be manipulated, and hence set up the Electoral College, to avoid larger states and population area dominating elections. They created a Republic not a Democracy to avoid mob rule.
Indeed
This Rachel, whoever the hell she is, has a screw loose.
A National Popular Vote would mean illegals and moonbats in Los Angeles and New York would choose the president.
I would rather dissolve this so-called “union” and make each state a separate country than have loons and illegals pick the president.
“I’m afraid, Dave.”
Hitlery “won” New Hampsire by 3,000 votes. It’s already been proven that Pickles Clinton stole New Hampshire.
New Hampshire allows busloads of Massachusetts residents to vote. When asked, “Do you plan to establish a domicile in New Hampshire?” they allow you to vote there if you say “Yes.”
Hopefully, the new Republican governor will change that.
Maine splits it’s electoral votes. Trump won Maine’s Second District, which covers 80% of the state, by 10 points for one electoral vote.
Hellary won the First Congressional district for one electoral vote also.
She won the statewide vote by 2.7%, which gave her two more electoral votes.
If candidate Trump had advertised here in Maine more, I believe he could have taken the entire state.
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.