Blue states band together looking to bypass Electoral College

The Hill ^ | 03/03/19 | Michael Burke

[rxsid]

"Doesn’t a change to the electoral college require a constitutional amendment?"

A change to the electoral college itself, yes.
But how each state's E.C. voters vote? No.

"What is the Electoral College?

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators. Read more about the allocation of electoral votes.

Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated 3 electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College. For this reason, in the following discussion, the word “state” also refers to the District of Columbia.

Each candidate running for President in your state has his or her own group of electors. The electors are generally chosen by the candidate’s political party, but state laws vary on how the electors are selected and what their responsibilities are. Read more about the qualifications of the Electors and restrictions on who the Electors may vote for.

....

Most states have a “winner-take-all” system that awards all electors to the winning presidential candidate. However, Maine and Nebraska each have a variation of “proportional representation.” Read more about the allocation of Electors among the states and try to predict the outcome of the Electoral College vote."

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

Anyone reading this who is NOT in a border state, still think illegal immigration isn't that important?

[goodnesswins]

"John Koza, the chairman of the National Popular Vote, a group that advocates for the compact, said the Electoral College “distorts” public policy by incentivizing presidents to cater to key swing states while in office, particularly in their first term."

idiots...same would happen with popular vote

[rxsid]

No, the states can choose how their E.C. should vote.

"What is the Electoral College?

[stanne]

You mean steenkin’ constitutional amendment

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

So, the smaller blue states want to dance to any tune called for by California and New York?

[SpaceBar]

Let’s just party like it’s 1861 again.

[rbg81]

The worst part is that you will have states like CA and NY with illegals openly voting + all kinds of other voter fraud.

Also, suppose the national popular vote were within the “margin of error” (less than 0.50%). Imagine the spectacle of a recount on a NATIONAL level??

[foreverfree]

bump

[rxsid]

"Not to worry Tx will soon beVERY BLUE!! Thousands of thousands of invaders have already settled here and ready to vote for the RATS plus the influx of blue communists sickos coming from cali! Az has just about tilted over into the blue toilet water..Tx is next!!"

Your right. And people "on our side" who laugh at this notion, will be shocked when it happens (unless our current course changes....drastically).

One doesn't need to look further than the following two examples:

 

1. Where Ted Cruz’s close victory over Beto O’Rourke stands among Texas' historical election results

"With a loss Tuesday night by about 2.6 percentage points or around 223,000 votes, U.S. Rep. Beto O'Rourke got closer to toppling an incumbent Republican senator than anyone has in 40 years, which could portend a shifting Texas electorate."

 

2. On a Typical Day in Fiscal Year 2017, CBP...

CONDUCTED:

• 851 apprehensions between U.S. ports of entry
• 21 arrests of wanted criminals at U.S. ports of entry (how many wanted criminals arrested between ports of entry?)
• 592 refusals of inadmissible persons at U.S. ports of entry (how many inadmissible persons refusals between ports of entry?)

SEIZED:

• 5,863 pounds of narcotics; disrupted 222 pounds of narcotics
• $265,205 in undeclared or illicit currency
• $3.3 million worth of products with Intellectual Property Rights violations

IDENTIFIED:

• 1607 individuals with suspected national security concerns (this one alone defines this as a national emergency!)

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/typical-day-fy2017

 

In FY 2018, an average of more than 33,000 were apprehended on the southern border EVERY month. A small cities worth of population, month after month after month after month.

Nearly 400,000 were caught FY 2018 alone.

**** Keep in mind, these numbers represent those who were caught. How many were not caught? ****

Southwest Apprehensions By Fiscal Year

	Total Apprehensions
Sector	FY 2018	FY 2017
Big Bend TX	8,045	6,002
Del Rio TX	15,833	13,476
El Centro CA	29,230	18,633
El Paso TX	31,561	25,193
Laredo TX	32,641	25,460
Rio Grande TX	162,262	137,562
San Diego CA	38,591	26,086
Tucson AZ	52,172	38,657
Yuma AZ	26,244	12,847
USBP Southwest Border Total	396,579	303,916

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/usbp-sw-border-apprehensions
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/usbp-sw-border-apprehensions-fy2017

Texas apprehensions FY 2018 - 250,342
Texas apprehensions FY 2017 - 207,693

Arizona apprehensions FY 2018 - 78,416
Arizona apprehensions FY 2017 - 51,504

California apprehensions FY 2018 - 67,821
California apprehensions FY 2017 - 44,719

Note: For the Las Cruces (NM) station, see El Paso Sector.

How many actually showed up for any kind of immigration hearing? Less than 10%? How many are actually deported? Less than 5%? Of those deported, how many try to sneak back in again, 100%?

That also doesn't take into account those who are NOT apprehended.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

We were told for years that there were 11 million foreign nationals in our country unlawfully. It was a lie.

Yale, MIT study: 22 million, not 11 million, undocumented immigrants in US [1]

And 22,000,000 undoubtedly, is under estimated as well.

That's more people than the ENTIRE state of Florida, and darn near as many as the whole state of Texas! An entire large state's worth of foreign nationals who have disrespected our sovereignty and rule of law and are living here illegally, many (most, who really knows?) receiving taxpayer paid for housing, food, medical, dental, legal, schooling and other "welfare."

Five Million Latin Americans Coming to U.S. in Next 12 Months
and an estimated 42 million more say they want to enter the country.
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/246563/million-border.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=TOPIC&g_campaign=item_&g_content=What%2520If%2520There%2520Were%252042%2520Million%2520at%2520the%2520Border%3f

According to a recent Gallup "World" poll, 158 MILLION people would "immigrate" to the United States if they could.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/245255/750-million-worldwide-migrate.aspx

At a miniumum, every single illegal alien is guilty of violating federal law 1911. 8 U.S.C. 1325 -- Unlawful Entry, Failure To Depart, Fleeing Immigration Checkpoints, Marriage Fraud, Commercial Enterprise Fraud.

Every single illegal alien who was deported and illegally entered again is guilty of violating federal law 1912. 8 U.S.C. 1326 -- Reentry After Deportation (Removal)

[DownInFlames]

The Constitution is very clear. Try to circumvent the electoral process and your votes will not be counted. The states EV is allocated when the state carries the vote. No indication is given for popular vote.

[DownInFlames]

Not only their voters, the rights of all the states. This flies directly in the face of a guaranteed Republican form of government.

[RedMonqey]

Hey! No Tennessee!

[IrishBrigade]

‘Doesn’t a change to the electoral college require a constitutional amendment?’

this doesn’t change the electoral college; electors will still cast votes to elect the president...what changes is the methodology behind alloting winner take all votes from the individual states, which requires no constitutional action...

[rlmorel]

This is appalling.

I am ashamed to admit I knew very little about this endeavor until the last few weeks, and even though I consider myself tied in politically though I don’t read newspapers or watch television, I had only heard passing comments about it, a faint echo. I had no idea they had that many states signed on, including my own.

This is appalling.

Maybe someone can correct me, but I have the distinct impression this has deliberately been run under the radar, which is the way Rats do things anyway. I had no idea this was this far along. 181 electoral votes is alarming to me.

I understand that this could ostensibly work in the favor of conservative Presidential campaigns as well, but in the same way things like gerrymandering and ballot harvesting are done mostly in leftist efforts to get by chicanery what they cannot get by an outright vote, this falls right into line with that.

There are two things that seem immediately apparent to me when I consider this effort:

1.) This is an end run by the Left around the Constitution.

2.) This has been done quietly as to avoid any national scrutiny of this.

Again, I am appalled by this. Living in a blue state, this is a repudiation and rape of my voting rights. It is not hard to understand why the Left wants this, as it has its foundation in large population centers.

It is clear that they are doing this in a reactionary mode against the the electoral college as it is currently constituted, simply because they lost. If the Left had won, you would not see this, end of story.

Now that I am aware of this, I have to find a way to oppose this. My opposition to this is not based on winning or losing elections. My opposition is based on the fact that my vote will now be the equivalent of having to jump off a bridge because a large number of stupid people jumped off a bridge.

This is even more destructive than the combination of loosening of voting procedures, harvesting ballots, voting fraud, and leftist litigation of elections.

[Leaning Right]

> Doesn’t a change to the electoral college require a constitutional amendment? <

Not in this particular case. The Constitution gives the states great latitude in how they assign their electoral votes.

So if a state wants to give all its electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, that would probably pass muster with the Supreme Court.

And the argument that this would disenfranchise the state’s voters...that argument is weak. Because the votes would still count towards the national total.

But a smaller state would be stupid to agree to this. Any national vote scheme would shift the power to the big states, New York and California especially.

[adorno]

Only reason that democrats do well in the popular vote nationwide, is because republicans haven’t bothered to campaign in NY or California or Illinois or Massachussetts or other heavily liberal states.

If campaigning were to be required by regulations in every state, there is no doubt that democrats would end up losing there too, and they would rue the day they asked for the popular vote total to determine the presidency.

[IrishBrigade]

‘It’ll be interesting if Trump wins the popular vote and they have to give their states votes to him!’

as the article states, this compact will not go into effect for 2020...

[vpintheak]

Leftards hate America. Hate our Republic. Love communism, which is direct democracy. They know most voters on the coastal states are morons and vote with their emotions and how they are told to vote.
This is also a huge waste of time. They need a Contsitutional amendment to change the constitution. That ain’t gonna happen for this reason.

[UnwashedPeasant]

The Left-controlled states would escalate their vote fraud.

California alone would easily manufacture millions of extra votes.

[IrishBrigade]

‘They will never ever ever overrule their voters and give Trump the electoral votes.’

you couldn’t be more correct, as Trump will be ineligible to run by the time this compact ever sees the light of day...