Nobody, nobody, ever had anything against the Electoral College, the main supporting column inside our way of life, until November 2016. It was fine until then. Nobody ever thought about it.
To be fair, this isn’t true. They said the same thing about Bush in 2000 when he lost the popular vote but won the presidency. They didn’t push too hard though since he was still a deep state candidate anyway, and the margin was smaller because here in CA we needed more time to get more illegals in and let them multiply. They love the electoral college when it elects them.
Trump’s the first US president in decades that wasn’t part of the inner circle of designated ‘future presidents’. That’s the main reason the media and most of the government’s been raining hell down upon him every single minute of every single day from the time he won the nomination to now. There was no contingency plan for 4Chan winning 2016.
The only upside to Gore would have been the left not biding their time and building up a deeper identity politics platform while he was in office. Bush was the ‘traditional values’ angle so the left polarized to the ‘vagina hat illegal alien’ angle. I think Obama would have sweet talked his way into 2008 either way, but he wouldn’t have done so as a race baiter because there’d have been no need. Being sold out to other countries still would have happened though. Under Gore, it probably would have started via the climate change angle. “American owes the world a debt, and it needs to be paid in a lack of carbon.” Then we’d outsource everything to other countries claiming to be carbon neutral but lying because China’s gotta China.
Haha, yeah I remember that phrase. With the left, it’s always the same shit, bigger megaphone over time. Not the republicans aren’t filled with crooks too.
Karma dictates if they do succeed in destroying the electoral college, it will backfire like any other stupid ideas the left has. Republicans will start winning popular votes and they'll start crying, "we need a system to make sure big chunks of the population don't determine what happens here reeeeeeeee"
Leading up to the 2000 election, all the data showed Bush would win the popular vote, but Gore would win the EC. The news was flooded with news/editorials/Democrat talking heads expounding on the importance of the EC. About a week before the election, the polling all showed that things had reversed, Gore would win the popular vote, but Bush would win the EC. All EC stories IMMEDIATELY disappeared. It was like someone flicked an "off" switch.
As someone already pointed out, they did this in 200, as well... And back then, I was on the bandwagon, as I was a left leaning Bush hater (in more ways than one).
Democrats were praising the "big beautiful blue wall" of the Electoral College when they thought it was going to prevent those idiot conservatard Trump voters from winning in 2016. The instant Trump won, suddenly the EC was antiquated and dangerous and needed to be eliminated. I'm fairly certain I recall one of those side-by-side posts where the same publication had an article extolling the virtues of the EC prior to the election, and then condemning it after.
This is of course from the same side that warned before the election that Trump's voters might not accept the results of the election.
They were bragging how they ran up the score in California, now they made ballot harvesting legal and are threatening to do the same with mail in ballots. With this "pact" you just have to cheat in a few big California or new york districts to win.
The way she was talking was the final straw for me.
I realized I voted for Obama twice because he ran on ending the wars.
I realized it was all a giant fuck you directed at me, a simple, anti-war citizen.
I realized right then and there, that Romney and McCain really were patsies, fall-guys, designed to lose from conception.
Wasn't long after that, that I found /r/The_Donald
... and then, within just months, my training neared completion as I learned more about WW2, the origin of the EU and the UN, Islam, US history, and so, so much more. I had a lot of knowledge going in, mind, but the red pills I found on TD (blessed be the posts in the "new" tab) gave me the history lessons I needed to gain confidence in pol science and economics that I never knew existed. Not saying I don't still have leagues and oceans to learn, but compared to myself 5 years ago? Holeeeeeeshit I've grown.
War is a huge issue here. It's probably why she lost to Obama in the first place. Even if she didn't have these interventionist views, she seems overly willing to have something to prove as a "woman" and would over-extend that way as well.
It's like someone else was saying here: when most women come into power, they emulate all the bad qualities of men and leave out all the good ones, and become caricatures of masculinity. See Hillary, Whitler, and others.
there are a few excellent historians who posit that every revolution in western history has one common indicator:
3 basic factions of power ---> aristocratic elite (wealthy families, lifelong government people, etc), military, and common people (merchant/peasant classes)
power can be kept by any two of those groups in an alliance with eachother.
Power is lost and a revolution is inevitable whenever two of those groups lose representation in the power structure.
This is very nearly the situation we have now. You could say the military is "represented"... but it actually isn't if veterans are treated like shit, funding is cut, troops are made unsafe through poor recruitment, training, and weaponry, and the top eschelons of military are populated with aristocratic elites who do not make decisions in the best interests of the people who actually populate the military. And many LEOs are in the same boat. For instance 7th floor set is not of the same mindset as the actual people who populate and make up the lower levels of the feebies.
It's also regional, i.e., when some regions gain power over others. This is why "rep by pop" is pushed so much by the left, people in large cities, and people advocating for centralization of power. (Cue lawmaking and taxation without representation, and "here, we , go.") This is why Patrick Henry and some others wanted to start the Constitution with "We the States" rather than "We the People." It's also why we weren't supposed to be an unlimited democracy.
Modernfags like to shit on Medieval Europe but there was merit to the way they did things.
I think this is one of the strongest arguments against mail-in voting. It will rip this country apart if we have to wait ten days after Election Day to even know who won. The American People won’t stand for that. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Anyway I just think this phrase of “you have to wait ten days after the election to know who won” is something that even leftists will instinctively revolt against. Normies too. Just the whole idea of that is distasteful. People want to know who the President is on Election Day.
Precisely. To fraud the EV system you'd need to have rampant fraud in many or most states. To defeat the popular system you only need 3 or 4 strongholds in your pocket.
Our elections are somewhat safe from corruption because of the decentralization inherent in the process. Each precinct or county counts all the votes submitted then submits their numbers to the state. You would need to get tens of thousands on board for corruption to take over this process for each state, that's a lot of mouths to shut up. Mail in ballots are all "counted" by the state in one place. All it takes is one bad actor/manager to change results for the entire state. We should never try to make our elections more centralized, it should become more decentralized over time to make the results even more trusted.
Never said it was perfect just said decentralization helps prevent it. Centralizing the process with mail in ballots is ripe for corruption because it only take a couple people.
Get enough brown people in the country and change to popular vote and only primary in swing states and you have the recipe for an indefinite blue country and the destruction of America and further towards the goal of one world government and the reign of moloch
Why hasn't it gone to court already? 60% of the Electoral College has already either passed or is in the process of passing mandates to override the will of their state's constituents with less than 6 months before the election, and I have yet to hear a peep about it.
Sorry, but every fucking election Democrats are allowed to pull ridiculous bullshit, and every time Republicans swear after they've already lost that lawsuits will happen to undo it, and that shit goes nowhere and is ultimately forgotten within a week or two. How many of those midterm seats lost due to vote harvesting and boxes of "found" ballots were overturned after the fact? None. It's time we get PROactive rather than REactive, or shit's never getting done. Once Democrats have already stolen shit, it's too late.
So before I take the black pill, has this officially happened? Please tell me we can stop this. I mean I know this is unconstitutional but can we stop this?
And what happens when they try to go along with it anyway? What happens when both sides win the election (according to how its supposed to work vs how they are trying to make it work) and we have a completely divided country on who is our current leader?
This is so illegal it's crazy. The United States only exists because of the electoral college, not a national popular vote. SCOTUS needs to end this now or break those "popular vote" states off the union and they are on their own, kiss that Federal Funding goodbye and your citizens won't be allowed in any of the remaining states.
The Constitution grants each state the power to determine how it assigns its electors; also, Article I, Section 10 only prevents states from entering into compacts that undermine the federal government's duties.
Those two parts of the Constitution, unfortunately, give the NPVIC (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact) a leg to stand on in court.
I personally would rule against it for the reasons you outlined, but don't expect this one to be in the bag, especially with Chief Justice John "It's not my responsibility to protect the people from who they voted into office" Roberts at the helm.
It specifically undermines the electoral college. While yes, states can choose electors the way they want, they are choosing to do so specifically in a way meant to circumvent the constitutional method of presidential elections.
Agreed, but their argument will be that each state has the right to assign their electors how they see fit and their compact doesn't violate any explicit duties given to the federal government.
They're wrong, of course, but that will be their argument.
Would it be legal for a state to say "We would have our electors vote for the candidate, whom the electors of another state x are voting for, or that they would vote for the elector whom another group of people, say the supreme democratic party council, chooses"? This NPVIC thing is basically a derivative of that. If you can defend the law I proposed, in the supreme court, then the NPVIC would be able to argue its case there using the same arguments that you would have to give, to defend the law I've stated. If you cannot defend the law I stated, in the supreme court, then using similar arguments used to defeat my law, you could defeat the NPVIC in the supreme court.
Basically, if a California cannot make a law saying "we would have our electors vote for the person other than Donald Trump", then it would be kind of difficult to make a law saying "we would not follow the popular mandate of electors in our own state", for similar reasons.
I completely agree. I'm not a lawyer (much less a Constitutional lawyer) so I can't come up with an argument against that, but I'm sure one could and will attempt it. I hope and pray our justices see through it and strike down any attempt to subvert the electoral college.
There is no implication that this is merely as long as it does not interfere with the federal government - it clearly states "any Agreement or Compact," which clearly refers to a legally-binding agreement or pact, not merely interstate cooperation for legitimate purposes. The NPVIC is a legally binding pact. It falls within an "Agreement or Compact."
I agree with your assessment, but other interstate compacts have been allowed to exist and have been upheld in court since they do not take on the duties of the federal government -- you can see a list here: https://infogalactic.com/info/Interstate_compact
So unfortunately it does give the proponents of the NPVIC some ammo. I don't think this idea is dead on arrival. We need to do everything we can to ensure it never even gets heard in the Supreme Court. I hope each state has some organization working against it; if they do, find yours and get involved.
Irrelevant. They'll claim victory, the media will push the narrative, social media will ban dissenting posts, and they'll use democratic control of the capital and surrounding areas to facilitate the physical coup on the grounds of Trump "not respecting the results" and fear of his starting a tyranny.
The whole point of Virginia pushing gun control as abruptly as they had is because they desperately need to lock down the southern approach into DC and you can't have miles of check points with "assault rifles" behind every blade of grass. They've screwed that so far, but they still have six months to manufacture the final justification.
They don't care about the rules, the rules being on our side mean nothing.
Thank you for this. I really hate the defeatist crap. So much has happened in the last several years that I never thought possible. Why are we acting defeated just as the tide has turned?
Which then brings us to wonder why the hell they are even doing it..... social discord, of course. They are actively trying to further divide the nation and pin it on Trump even though he will be the one upholding the constitution and they will be the one’s trying to rip it up like Nancy did to Trump’s state of the union address. Commies.
This is the stupidest idea ever, so your state Unanimously votes Trump 62%, but national popular vote is decided by 1% usually so your state then hands over the electoral college votes because the rest of the nation voted a different way than your state? WWWHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTT? Then what is the use in having states? Why not just make America one big State and everyone lives and dies under the Federal Government.
...it dragged me into a foreign nation's political squabbles.
Wasn't your entire nation founded on something along the lines of "No taxation without representation."?
For all their claims of defending the representation of minorities they sure don't care about the representation of minorities. They have no idea what life is like for people outside their rich megacity bubble yet they claim the right to decide what's best for all of them. People they've made every attempt to dehumanize and disenfranchise.
If those authoritarian fucks wan't total power so badly they should take that water-treading economy they're always bragging about and secede. The reason they don't isn't because it's illegal but because they'd lose power over America.
At the top level, you have the soulless politicians who are just in it for the power and don't really care about any of their policies. They'll push whatever idea gives them more power and money.
The supporters of these ideas that scare me more are the masses of brainwashed zealots. They believe their ideas are moral and "right" and any opposing ideas are immoral and wrong. It's not a debate to them, it's clear black and white. And therefore any and all means are justified to achieve their ends, including ripping up the bedrock of our republic.
It's hard to change the mind of a zealot. A simple factual argument won't do it. The grandparent argument of "my state votes 62% for Trump but hands over all votes for Biden because popular vote went 1% to Biden" doesn't work on zealots because they see voting for Trump as "wrong", simple as that.
I have no idea how I didn't know until now but it made me wonder how many pedes still don't know. I don't care about internet points. Just please vote this up so people can find out what they're doing to our electoral college system.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.
I'm curious if if if if they intend to use this as a lengthy held-up-in-high-kangaroo-courts tactic to waste time during the 2nd Term (along with similar frivolous boondoggles like Peach Mints 2, fallout from "October Surprise 2," Plandemic 2, etcetc.)
So there are some interesting potential consequences from this. The first is that you're right and the court rules it is a compact and therefore unconstitutional.
But an argument could be made that there is no agreement, that each stare passed the law independently of their own accord, and since States are free to decide how delegates are apportioned, they can do this. I don't buy it but a court might.
This would be a legitimate constitutional crisis. Is a state allowed to apportion delegates based on votes that are not representative of the state? Are we all citizens of all the states?
Again, I don't see it getting past a court on the grounds that it looks, smells and walks like a compact, but there is a possibility.
Yup, this is the exact part of these bills that leads me to believe it would be ruled unconstitutional. They'd have a better case if the bills just did popular vote no matter what, but they are contingent on other states doing the same, so it looks like a compact.
It's politics, could be a red OK'd it as a favor to get something else done knowing it would ultimately be thrown out. Or it could always be a RINO/uniparty.
I know people talk about a revolt or civil war rather flippantly these days.
But if this is enacted, it destroys the votes of complete states and shits all over the constitution. Not to mention, since voting measures are handled on a state wide basis, one state can fuck with their own voted enough to overturn a presidential election.
If this is instituted, there HAS to be a civil war. This, more than anything that's happened the last 4 years, would spell a tragic end to America as we know it.
This was one of the primary reasons for the EC to begin with; it was a way to give the smaller states a voice and prevent them from seceding. If this stupid compact is instituted and none of the “flyover” states got a voice in the presidential election, then WHYYYYY would they stick around??
Leftists never learn.
I've talked with a few about this. They say "they might've seceded when this was put in place in the 1700s, but they won't secede now, so we can do whatever we want."
Come on Ohio and Kansas! You promised! I know Trump won 60% of your vote but thanks to California’s 137% voter turn out, sleepy Joe won the popular vote!
That’s what I’m thinking as well. I’m against the popular vote idea, but I don’t think it’ll hurt Trump. If the goal is to win the majority, his campaign would take on a different strategy altogether. He’d campaign in CA more to get those votes. Swing states would get less attention and the focus would be on denser areas. He could’ve won the popular vote in 2016 if he wanted, but that’s not what wins the presidency.
go to you georgia MyVoter page (https://www.mvp.sos.ga.gov/MVP/mvp.do) login and see who your representatives are. Will also check if your registration is still active.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
This “interstate compact” sure sounds unconstitutional.
Arise, arise, Riders of Théoden!
Fell deeds awake: fire and slaughter!
Spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered,
a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises!
Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!
This isn’t the only way they’re trying to completely upend how government is supposed to work. Here in NC their are groups suing stating “current laws were made with a pandemic in mind”. They are trying to change laws by completely bypassing the gop controlled legislature by suing to enact new pandemic friendly voting laws. All this after invalidating a voter passed state constitutional amendment voter is. The judiciary in NC is off the deep end.
I hate to say this, but I believe it could be Constitutional. The Constitution give the States considerable leeway in determining how they select their electors. My only question is the Constitutionality of interstate compacts.
As absurd as the coin flip is in your example, it is likely Constitutional if that's what the individuals State Legislatures choose. What may not be Constitutional is an interstate agreement to do so.
It has been ruled that it is permissible for things like boundary disputes, coordinated flood control and such. Though it has always been thought this is limited to things which do not affect other States, it has not been directly challenged.
Is it not directly unconstitutional to have an "interstate compact" irrespective of what it's for? Many of those states have been pending a long time too--does that mean they are just pending a likely failed vote for example?
I also want to see what they do if Trump were to win the popular vote. He would automatically win those 196 electoral votes, right?
US Constitution Section 10, Clause 3. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Any 'compact' that alters Federal Elections as set forth in the Constitution will be swiftly challenged.
States can't actually negate the electoral college like this. It would be blatantly unconstitutional and you can bet your ass the SC would rule on it in short order. That being said, it's pretty telling how low Democrats will go to win an election.
Even if this some how became legal (which it won't), one day these same rules will blow up in their own faces and they'll be rushing to undo it to go back to the electoral college.
It happen with the Nuclear option. This would just take longer.
The fact that they could have a system In which literally every member of the state votes for one candidate, but all the electoral votes can go to the other candidate, is ridiculous. It needs to be some form of representative model otherwise what's the point?
The globalists are up against the wall.
Everything they tried failed and theyre going for broke.
But Im confident Americans will not let themselves be reduced to slaves.
This right here should be the cause of the next civil war. I don't say "Will be" I say that it SHOULD BE. There are people behind this that need to be DEFEATED.
Long story short; he warns that the 2nd American civil war is fought over this very issue; the ignorance of the general population regarding the constitution and the specific issue of Electoral College versus Popular vote.
Keep in mind he doesn't mention names (e.g. he won't mention Trump) but he does say what he said as far back as 2001. So that's something. It might seem obvious to us now that this is a real powder keg issue, but at the turn of the millennium people didn't believe in time travel let alone an impending civil war. (Some people in the know might have bugged out to the mountains through the decades, but our common knowledge was relegated to fringes like Alex Jones and Coast to Coast for decades)..
Maybe in another timeline Trump tried to run against Hillary in 2004 or 2008
Every ballot should include a verified fingerprint. Every ballot should be checked against active rolls, and against death records. any form of voter fraud should carry a 20 year minimum sentence.
Most of the states that managed this one wouldn't have gone to Trump anyway. My hope, and it's looking more and more likely each day, is that he wins the popular vote and as a result gets the largest electoral landslide in US history as a direct result of this little scheme.
It was tried 180 years ago. Lincoln ignored the part about consent of the governed. The prohibition against secession was a BRAND NEW idea which should have been prohibited by the tenth amendment.
Don't get me wrong. I am glad slavery was abolished, but the damage to the Fed-State balance has been irrevocable including the idea of voiding the rights to representation of felons (specifically pointed at Confederates) for life.
The law of unintended consequences has not been overturned.
But all the blue states are on lockdown so they'll give proxys to their leaders. I KNOW proxy voting in the US House will ultimately be declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Congress can convene elsewhere if the danger in DC is too great.
This defeats the purpose of the electoral college completely
Yes. That is the purpose here. Specifically and literally.
This.
Nobody, nobody, ever had anything against the Electoral College, the main supporting column inside our way of life, until November 2016. It was fine until then. Nobody ever thought about it.
To be fair, this isn’t true. They said the same thing about Bush in 2000 when he lost the popular vote but won the presidency. They didn’t push too hard though since he was still a deep state candidate anyway, and the margin was smaller because here in CA we needed more time to get more illegals in and let them multiply. They love the electoral college when it elects them.
Trump’s the first US president in decades that wasn’t part of the inner circle of designated ‘future presidents’. That’s the main reason the media and most of the government’s been raining hell down upon him every single minute of every single day from the time he won the nomination to now. There was no contingency plan for 4Chan winning 2016.
The only upside to Gore would have been the left not biding their time and building up a deeper identity politics platform while he was in office. Bush was the ‘traditional values’ angle so the left polarized to the ‘vagina hat illegal alien’ angle. I think Obama would have sweet talked his way into 2008 either way, but he wouldn’t have done so as a race baiter because there’d have been no need. Being sold out to other countries still would have happened though. Under Gore, it probably would have started via the climate change angle. “American owes the world a debt, and it needs to be paid in a lack of carbon.” Then we’d outsource everything to other countries claiming to be carbon neutral but lying because China’s gotta China.
Er, no. How old were you then? You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
I remember, they did the bububububububububububububub the popular vote then too. Remember "Selected, not elected"
Haha, yeah I remember that phrase. With the left, it’s always the same shit, bigger megaphone over time. Not the republicans aren’t filled with crooks too.
lol were you alive when the 2000 Election happened? The usual suspects were REEEEEEEEEEEEEing about it then.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/2140/americans-support-proposal-eliminate-electoral-college-system.aspx
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/dec/22/worlddispatch.martinkettle
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-calls-for-end-to-electoral-college/
the reeeeeees were heard from space!
Yes. I didn't remember all that.
This right here. The electoral college is crucial and the union wouldn’t have formed nor lasted without it.
It’s NOT some “eh, nice idea.”
Karma dictates if they do succeed in destroying the electoral college, it will backfire like any other stupid ideas the left has. Republicans will start winning popular votes and they'll start crying, "we need a system to make sure big chunks of the population don't determine what happens here reeeeeeeee"
Leading up to the 2000 election, all the data showed Bush would win the popular vote, but Gore would win the EC. The news was flooded with news/editorials/Democrat talking heads expounding on the importance of the EC. About a week before the election, the polling all showed that things had reversed, Gore would win the popular vote, but Bush would win the EC. All EC stories IMMEDIATELY disappeared. It was like someone flicked an "off" switch.
As someone already pointed out, they did this in 200, as well... And back then, I was on the bandwagon, as I was a left leaning Bush hater (in more ways than one).
Democrats were praising the "big beautiful blue wall" of the Electoral College when they thought it was going to prevent those idiot conservatard Trump voters from winning in 2016. The instant Trump won, suddenly the EC was antiquated and dangerous and needed to be eliminated. I'm fairly certain I recall one of those side-by-side posts where the same publication had an article extolling the virtues of the EC prior to the election, and then condemning it after.
This is of course from the same side that warned before the election that Trump's voters might not accept the results of the election.
2016: "The difference between liberals and conservatives is that if the conservatives lose they'll be angry but if liberals lose we'll be sad."
2017: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
2018: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
2019: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
2020: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
They have nothing but projection.
Glorious queen? Barf.
Shorten queen are if beef to queef and barf again
And many successful murders
>"Madam president" LOLCATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>also
>"Dewey Defeats Truman"
>and
Bonus lulz from Ben Garrison (At least the "response" artwork he did ahead of time was designed\destined to be useful!)
They were bragging how they ran up the score in California, now they made ballot harvesting legal and are threatening to do the same with mail in ballots. With this "pact" you just have to cheat in a few big California or new york districts to win.
And just what magical thing would she be doing right now while in office. She certainly didn't mention anything on the campaign trail.
She mentioned war. More war.
The way she was talking was the final straw for me.
I realized I voted for Obama twice because he ran on ending the wars.
I realized it was all a giant fuck you directed at me, a simple, anti-war citizen.
I realized right then and there, that Romney and McCain really were patsies, fall-guys, designed to lose from conception.
Wasn't long after that, that I found /r/The_Donald
... and then, within just months, my training neared completion as I learned more about WW2, the origin of the EU and the UN, Islam, US history, and so, so much more. I had a lot of knowledge going in, mind, but the red pills I found on TD (blessed be the posts in the "new" tab) gave me the history lessons I needed to gain confidence in pol science and economics that I never knew existed. Not saying I don't still have leagues and oceans to learn, but compared to myself 5 years ago? Holeeeeeeshit I've grown.
War is a huge issue here. It's probably why she lost to Obama in the first place. Even if she didn't have these interventionist views, she seems overly willing to have something to prove as a "woman" and would over-extend that way as well.
we came, we saw, he died! cackle cackle cackle
It's like someone else was saying here: when most women come into power, they emulate all the bad qualities of men and leave out all the good ones, and become caricatures of masculinity. See Hillary, Whitler, and others.
At that point, you are getting a large percentage of the population that are being taxed without representation.
I think you know what happened the last time there was a large percentage of the population that had taxation without representation.
If it get that far, then we should do the same, and form a new nation.
there are a few excellent historians who posit that every revolution in western history has one common indicator:
3 basic factions of power ---> aristocratic elite (wealthy families, lifelong government people, etc), military, and common people (merchant/peasant classes)
power can be kept by any two of those groups in an alliance with eachother.
Power is lost and a revolution is inevitable whenever two of those groups lose representation in the power structure.
This is very nearly the situation we have now. You could say the military is "represented"... but it actually isn't if veterans are treated like shit, funding is cut, troops are made unsafe through poor recruitment, training, and weaponry, and the top eschelons of military are populated with aristocratic elites who do not make decisions in the best interests of the people who actually populate the military. And many LEOs are in the same boat. For instance 7th floor set is not of the same mindset as the actual people who populate and make up the lower levels of the feebies.
It's also regional, i.e., when some regions gain power over others. This is why "rep by pop" is pushed so much by the left, people in large cities, and people advocating for centralization of power. (Cue lawmaking and taxation without representation, and "here, we , go.") This is why Patrick Henry and some others wanted to start the Constitution with "We the States" rather than "We the People." It's also why we weren't supposed to be an unlimited democracy.
Modernfags like to shit on Medieval Europe but there was merit to the way they did things.
Just kick a few cities out of your current one.
I think this is one of the strongest arguments against mail-in voting. It will rip this country apart if we have to wait ten days after Election Day to even know who won. The American People won’t stand for that. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Anyway I just think this phrase of “you have to wait ten days after the election to know who won” is something that even leftists will instinctively revolt against. Normies too. Just the whole idea of that is distasteful. People want to know who the President is on Election Day.
Put that into eighteenth century English and write it with a goose quill pen, and you have exactly what the Founding Fathers would have posted here.
Precisely. To fraud the EV system you'd need to have rampant fraud in many or most states. To defeat the popular system you only need 3 or 4 strongholds in your pocket.
Our elections are somewhat safe from corruption because of the decentralization inherent in the process. Each precinct or county counts all the votes submitted then submits their numbers to the state. You would need to get tens of thousands on board for corruption to take over this process for each state, that's a lot of mouths to shut up. Mail in ballots are all "counted" by the state in one place. All it takes is one bad actor/manager to change results for the entire state. We should never try to make our elections more centralized, it should become more decentralized over time to make the results even more trusted.
Never said it was perfect just said decentralization helps prevent it. Centralizing the process with mail in ballots is ripe for corruption because it only take a couple people.
Have another child. It's the one thing anybody can do.
Get enough brown people in the country and change to popular vote and only primary in swing states and you have the recipe for an indefinite blue country and the destruction of America and further towards the goal of one world government and the reign of moloch
Nope. We 1776 before that happens....
All 36 of us.
Well theres over 1000 of us in just one discord that im in so... Although like 100 of them are probably feds lol.
Howto neutralize the Electoral College
Why hasn't it gone to court already? 60% of the Electoral College has already either passed or is in the process of passing mandates to override the will of their state's constituents with less than 6 months before the election, and I have yet to hear a peep about it.
Sorry, but every fucking election Democrats are allowed to pull ridiculous bullshit, and every time Republicans swear after they've already lost that lawsuits will happen to undo it, and that shit goes nowhere and is ultimately forgotten within a week or two. How many of those midterm seats lost due to vote harvesting and boxes of "found" ballots were overturned after the fact? None. It's time we get PROactive rather than REactive, or shit's never getting done. Once Democrats have already stolen shit, it's too late.
So before I take the black pill, has this officially happened? Please tell me we can stop this. I mean I know this is unconstitutional but can we stop this?
Thank God and thank Trump!
I don’t get why Americans want to throw away democracy for swamp monster globalism. It doesn’t make sense.
Like Obamacare did? Don't take anything for granted.
And what happens when they try to go along with it anyway? What happens when both sides win the election (according to how its supposed to work vs how they are trying to make it work) and we have a completely divided country on who is our current leader?
The day Texas flips blue, there will be a civil war.
Yeah no, giving up blue areas to commies is fucking retarded.
Hey guise let's give up the best coastline on the planet to filthy commies.
It defeats the purpose of individual states completely
It defeats the purpose of the United States.
This will lead to secession.
It’s about time for the boog.
Organize in your local community. If it comes to that, you'll want to be ready, not behind the curve. Organize now. Prepare.
This is so illegal it's crazy. The United States only exists because of the electoral college, not a national popular vote. SCOTUS needs to end this now or break those "popular vote" states off the union and they are on their own, kiss that Federal Funding goodbye and your citizens won't be allowed in any of the remaining states.
Scotus wouldnt step in until after it was material. At this point it is too early.
Since when have leftists cared about the law?
Thank you for this info, it is very helpful
Nice!
Yes, thank you to op and the founding fathers for their insight.
The Constitution grants each state the power to determine how it assigns its electors; also, Article I, Section 10 only prevents states from entering into compacts that undermine the federal government's duties.
Those two parts of the Constitution, unfortunately, give the NPVIC (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact) a leg to stand on in court.
I personally would rule against it for the reasons you outlined, but don't expect this one to be in the bag, especially with Chief Justice John "It's not my responsibility to protect the people from who they voted into office" Roberts at the helm.
Well, it would have to specifically undermine one of the roles given to the federal government outlined in the Constitution.
It specifically undermines the electoral college. While yes, states can choose electors the way they want, they are choosing to do so specifically in a way meant to circumvent the constitutional method of presidential elections.
Agreed, but their argument will be that each state has the right to assign their electors how they see fit and their compact doesn't violate any explicit duties given to the federal government.
They're wrong, of course, but that will be their argument.
Would it be legal for a state to say "We would have our electors vote for the candidate, whom the electors of another state x are voting for, or that they would vote for the elector whom another group of people, say the supreme democratic party council, chooses"? This NPVIC thing is basically a derivative of that. If you can defend the law I proposed, in the supreme court, then the NPVIC would be able to argue its case there using the same arguments that you would have to give, to defend the law I've stated. If you cannot defend the law I stated, in the supreme court, then using similar arguments used to defeat my law, you could defeat the NPVIC in the supreme court.
Basically, if a California cannot make a law saying "we would have our electors vote for the person other than Donald Trump", then it would be kind of difficult to make a law saying "we would not follow the popular mandate of electors in our own state", for similar reasons.
I completely agree. I'm not a lawyer (much less a Constitutional lawyer) so I can't come up with an argument against that, but I'm sure one could and will attempt it. I hope and pray our justices see through it and strike down any attempt to subvert the electoral college.
I agree with your assessment, but other interstate compacts have been allowed to exist and have been upheld in court since they do not take on the duties of the federal government -- you can see a list here: https://infogalactic.com/info/Interstate_compact
So unfortunately it does give the proponents of the NPVIC some ammo. I don't think this idea is dead on arrival. We need to do everything we can to ensure it never even gets heard in the Supreme Court. I hope each state has some organization working against it; if they do, find yours and get involved.
Here's the one for Colorado: https://protectcoloradosvote.org/
I hate it, but I honestly don't know that I would kill it based on the Constitution. As least as I remember it from the last time I looked into this.
This is basic disenfranchisement, taking your vote away and relegating it to the masses. That's not how our Republic was built.
They care about the constitution since when??
Irrelevant. They'll claim victory, the media will push the narrative, social media will ban dissenting posts, and they'll use democratic control of the capital and surrounding areas to facilitate the physical coup on the grounds of Trump "not respecting the results" and fear of his starting a tyranny.
The whole point of Virginia pushing gun control as abruptly as they had is because they desperately need to lock down the southern approach into DC and you can't have miles of check points with "assault rifles" behind every blade of grass. They've screwed that so far, but they still have six months to manufacture the final justification.
They don't care about the rules, the rules being on our side mean nothing.
Thank you for this. I really hate the defeatist crap. So much has happened in the last several years that I never thought possible. Why are we acting defeated just as the tide has turned?
Which then brings us to wonder why the hell they are even doing it..... social discord, of course. They are actively trying to further divide the nation and pin it on Trump even though he will be the one upholding the constitution and they will be the one’s trying to rip it up like Nancy did to Trump’s state of the union address. Commies.
They're doing it because the left continuously tries to break the law and every once in a while they get away with it and everything's worse forever.
It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the internal Dem strategy on this is: "Well, it's worth a shot!"
The left is never wrong and they never have to pay for their mistakes.
That’s Lawrence “Literally the DNC’s strategist” Tribe to the normies.
This is the stupidest idea ever, so your state Unanimously votes Trump 62%, but national popular vote is decided by 1% usually so your state then hands over the electoral college votes because the rest of the nation voted a different way than your state? WWWHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTT? Then what is the use in having states? Why not just make America one big State and everyone lives and dies under the Federal Government.
...it dragged me into a foreign nation's political squabbles.
Wasn't your entire nation founded on something along the lines of "No taxation without representation."?
For all their claims of defending the representation of minorities they sure don't care about the representation of minorities. They have no idea what life is like for people outside their rich megacity bubble yet they claim the right to decide what's best for all of them. People they've made every attempt to dehumanize and disenfranchise.
If those authoritarian fucks wan't total power so badly they should take that water-treading economy they're always bragging about and secede. The reason they don't isn't because it's illegal but because they'd lose power over America.
At the top level, you have the soulless politicians who are just in it for the power and don't really care about any of their policies. They'll push whatever idea gives them more power and money.
The supporters of these ideas that scare me more are the masses of brainwashed zealots. They believe their ideas are moral and "right" and any opposing ideas are immoral and wrong. It's not a debate to them, it's clear black and white. And therefore any and all means are justified to achieve their ends, including ripping up the bedrock of our republic.
It's hard to change the mind of a zealot. A simple factual argument won't do it. The grandparent argument of "my state votes 62% for Trump but hands over all votes for Biden because popular vote went 1% to Biden" doesn't work on zealots because they see voting for Trump as "wrong", simple as that.
It's all so fucked.
Careful, you're going to excite lefties so much they lose control and cream their pants.
I was gonna say they're working on it
Now you see.
Here's a link for your reading pleasure.
Some more info on the NPVIC here.
I have no idea how I didn't know until now but it made me wonder how many pedes still don't know. I don't care about internet points. Just please vote this up so people can find out what they're doing to our electoral college system.
Uhh yeah... Seeing as how it's in direct conflict with the Constitution and all
I'm curious if if if if they intend to use this as a lengthy held-up-in-high-kangaroo-courts tactic to waste time during the 2nd Term (along with similar frivolous boondoggles like Peach Mints 2, fallout from "October Surprise 2," Plandemic 2, etcetc.)
since when did liberals care about that????
this is terrible, the popular vote is A LOT easier to rig
So Hillary would've won in 2016 with this?
Implying Democrats care about the Constitution.
So there are some interesting potential consequences from this. The first is that you're right and the court rules it is a compact and therefore unconstitutional.
But an argument could be made that there is no agreement, that each stare passed the law independently of their own accord, and since States are free to decide how delegates are apportioned, they can do this. I don't buy it but a court might.
This would be a legitimate constitutional crisis. Is a state allowed to apportion delegates based on votes that are not representative of the state? Are we all citizens of all the states?
Again, I don't see it getting past a court on the grounds that it looks, smells and walks like a compact, but there is a possibility.
Yup, this is the exact part of these bills that leads me to believe it would be ruled unconstitutional. They'd have a better case if the bills just did popular vote no matter what, but they are contingent on other states doing the same, so it looks like a compact.
And New York bigot
I'm surprised how many red states want to be a part of this bullshit.
Some like PA still have blue gov even though they are red. Now GA idk wtf is goin on. This is all news to me.
Gerrymandering.
It's politics, could be a red OK'd it as a favor to get something else done knowing it would ultimately be thrown out. Or it could always be a RINO/uniparty.
I think GA is relatively recently red.
I know people talk about a revolt or civil war rather flippantly these days.
But if this is enacted, it destroys the votes of complete states and shits all over the constitution. Not to mention, since voting measures are handled on a state wide basis, one state can fuck with their own voted enough to overturn a presidential election.
If this is instituted, there HAS to be a civil war. This, more than anything that's happened the last 4 years, would spell a tragic end to America as we know it.
This is the civil war. It is a direct overthrow of the US governmental system.
Meaning, we'd be a completely different country if this somehow passes into law since we'd no longer be a Republic.
They'd have succeeded in their desire to destroy the US.
This was one of the primary reasons for the EC to begin with; it was a way to give the smaller states a voice and prevent them from seceding. If this stupid compact is instituted and none of the “flyover” states got a voice in the presidential election, then WHYYYYY would they stick around?? Leftists never learn.
I've talked with a few about this. They say "they might've seceded when this was put in place in the 1700s, but they won't secede now, so we can do whatever we want."
Civil war cant be the knee jerk answer to every time dems try to cheat.
First state courts, then appeal if needed. Then state supreme court.
Then US supreme court. Then appeal if needed.
Also, just like they changed the laws, we can just change them back!
Civil war is not the only answer.
No. But it may be the only one that preserves our Liberty.
You would be pretty crazy to think that this would stand up in court...
You mean they can't just leave their printers running and elect any President they want?
Or votes will keep falling from the sky in those states until dementia Joe is elected
says video unavailable
Come on Ohio and Kansas! You promised! I know Trump won 60% of your vote but thanks to California’s 137% voter turn out, sleepy Joe won the popular vote!
That’s what I’m thinking as well. I’m against the popular vote idea, but I don’t think it’ll hurt Trump. If the goal is to win the majority, his campaign would take on a different strategy altogether. He’d campaign in CA more to get those votes. Swing states would get less attention and the focus would be on denser areas. He could’ve won the popular vote in 2016 if he wanted, but that’s not what wins the presidency.
If you want to be a superstate, you only get two senators.
This should be the top comment
Great point.
good bloody idea.
go to you georgia MyVoter page (https://www.mvp.sos.ga.gov/MVP/mvp.do) login and see who your representatives are. Will also check if your registration is still active.
Article I section 10
This “interstate compact” sure sounds unconstitutional.
>Implying they care what the constitution says.
Revolution
Arise, arise, Riders of Théoden! Fell deeds awake: fire and slaughter! Spear shall be shaken, shield be splintered, a sword-day, a red day, ere the sun rises! Ride now, ride now! Ride to Gondor!
Red pill as many people as possible. We are already gaining many new constituents. The left is bleeding support.
Sending this to the Supreme Court could be bad or good. Imagine if they ruled it constitutional though...
So it's treason then.
So, if Trump loses a state like New York, but wins the popular vote, do you think the Democrats would scrap this compact?
Exactly. That means Trump came within a few percent of winning CA, NY and IL! That’s a recipe for a 2020 Trump landslide if I ever heard one.
Seriously?!!!
Wtf!
This isn’t the only way they’re trying to completely upend how government is supposed to work. Here in NC their are groups suing stating “current laws were made with a pandemic in mind”. They are trying to change laws by completely bypassing the gop controlled legislature by suing to enact new pandemic friendly voting laws. All this after invalidating a voter passed state constitutional amendment voter is. The judiciary in NC is off the deep end.
There is nothing new about Judicial Tyranny.
No but it’s the first time I’ve seen a lawsuit proposing law changes rather than just in opposition to a law.
correction: they're pushing for civil war
I swear with every fiber of my being if the electoral college get wrecked I will personally enact a hot war on the left.
In another words one areas voter fraud could decide the entire election no matter how much of a blowout Trump wins everywhere else by
I hate to say this, but I believe it could be Constitutional. The Constitution give the States considerable leeway in determining how they select their electors. My only question is the Constitutionality of interstate compacts.
As absurd as the coin flip is in your example, it is likely Constitutional if that's what the individuals State Legislatures choose. What may not be Constitutional is an interstate agreement to do so.
It has been ruled that it is permissible for things like boundary disputes, coordinated flood control and such. Though it has always been thought this is limited to things which do not affect other States, it has not been directly challenged.
Congress Run by Pelosi
Is it not directly unconstitutional to have an "interstate compact" irrespective of what it's for? Many of those states have been pending a long time too--does that mean they are just pending a likely failed vote for example?
I also want to see what they do if Trump were to win the popular vote. He would automatically win those 196 electoral votes, right?
So now they can just ballot harvest from blue friendly states until they have what they need.
I can envision California casting 200,000,000 votes.
US Constitution Section 10, Clause 3. No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Any 'compact' that alters Federal Elections as set forth in the Constitution will be swiftly challenged.
States can't actually negate the electoral college like this. It would be blatantly unconstitutional and you can bet your ass the SC would rule on it in short order. That being said, it's pretty telling how low Democrats will go to win an election.
Even if this some how became legal (which it won't), one day these same rules will blow up in their own faces and they'll be rushing to undo it to go back to the electoral college.
It happen with the Nuclear option. This would just take longer.
This has been in the works for a long time - to the tune of 20-30 years.
The fact that they could have a system In which literally every member of the state votes for one candidate, but all the electoral votes can go to the other candidate, is ridiculous. It needs to be some form of representative model otherwise what's the point?
The globalists are up against the wall. Everything they tried failed and theyre going for broke. But Im confident Americans will not let themselves be reduced to slaves.
This right here should be the cause of the next civil war. I don't say "Will be" I say that it SHOULD BE. There are people behind this that need to be DEFEATED.
You should look up John Titor the time traveler.
Long story short; he warns that the 2nd American civil war is fought over this very issue; the ignorance of the general population regarding the constitution and the specific issue of Electoral College versus Popular vote.
Keep in mind he doesn't mention names (e.g. he won't mention Trump) but he does say what he said as far back as 2001. So that's something. It might seem obvious to us now that this is a real powder keg issue, but at the turn of the millennium people didn't believe in time travel let alone an impending civil war. (Some people in the know might have bugged out to the mountains through the decades, but our common knowledge was relegated to fringes like Alex Jones and Coast to Coast for decades)..
Maybe in another timeline Trump tried to run against Hillary in 2004 or 2008
Not should be, WILL be.
I am no fortune teller, nor time traveler, but I assume it might happen. I just know that it should.
Every ballot should include a verified fingerprint. Every ballot should be checked against active rolls, and against death records. any form of voter fraud should carry a 20 year minimum sentence.
Death
This explains why California is pushing mailed ballots so hard.
They can tip the popular vote by millions.
God i fucking DESPISE these leeches, time to go scorched earth on them
It's lookin' boog...
When Free men can no longer find peaceful representation in their own land, violent revolution becomes the only course of action.
once it hits 270, time for 1776
270 = .223.
270= .30 I'm old.
This isn't even Constitutional. Nothing to worry about. You can't just give up your states ability to be represented.
This kind of agreement is blatantly unconstitutional. And here I am, a fan of the 9th and 10th. WTF
Civil war
Guerilla War. It's MUCH more effective.
You haven't been listening. It's about to go hot.
Most of the states that managed this one wouldn't have gone to Trump anyway. My hope, and it's looking more and more likely each day, is that he wins the popular vote and as a result gets the largest electoral landslide in US history as a direct result of this little scheme.
This is going to be the second time I'll have to fight the commies. Let's make it permanent this time.
This is how states defect.
It was tried 180 years ago. Lincoln ignored the part about consent of the governed. The prohibition against secession was a BRAND NEW idea which should have been prohibited by the tenth amendment.
Don't get me wrong. I am glad slavery was abolished, but the damage to the Fed-State balance has been irrevocable including the idea of voiding the rights to representation of felons (specifically pointed at Confederates) for life.
The law of unintended consequences has not been overturned.
Can't do this without permission from Congress. Believe Article 1 Section 10.
https://constitutingamerica.org/april-13-2011-%E2%80%93-article-i-section-10-clause-3-of-the-united-states-constitution-%E2%80%93-guest-essayist-julia-shaw-research-associate-and-program-manager-at-the-b-kenneth-simon-center-f/
Dear Georgia and the Carolinas,
We need to have a talk.
But all the blue states are on lockdown so they'll give proxys to their leaders. I KNOW proxy voting in the US House will ultimately be declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Congress can convene elsewhere if the danger in DC is too great.
Just in time for massive mail in voter fraud in states like California .