- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Dems trying to circumvent the Electoral College; would it be legal?
Posted on 3/19/19 at 8:22 pm
Posted on 3/19/19 at 8:22 pm
If after an election, candidate 1 won according to the electoral college, and candidate 2 won by the electoral college circumvented "agreement", how would the supreme court rule?
I have no doubt that if (when?) this occurs, it will end up at the supreme court.
I have no doubt that if (when?) this occurs, it will end up at the supreme court.
This post was edited on 3/19/19 at 8:23 pm
11
Posted on 3/19/19 at 8:42 pm to OmniPundit
If the state legislatures vote that their states' electoral votes be awarded to the winner of the nationwide popular vote, it's totally legal. I learned a long time ago in civics and history classes that electors technically don't even have to award their votes according to who wins their state.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 8:47 pm to OmniPundit
No it would not be legal.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 8:48 pm to TigersFan64
quote:
If the state legislatures vote that their states' electoral votes be awarded to the winner of the nationwide popular vote, it's totally legal. I learned a long time ago in civics and history classes that electors technically don't even have to award their votes according to who wins their state.
Doesn't matter what the State legislatures vote.
The Electors are party loyalists. When you vote for a presidential candidate you are also voting on that political parties electors.
Electors that are selected by any political party are not going to vote against their parties candidate when the electoral college meets.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 8:48 pm to BamaScoop
Wrong.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 8:49 pm to OmniPundit
Once dems stack the court anything they want will be legal
Posted on 3/19/19 at 8:49 pm to Loserman
quote:
Doesn't matter what the State legislatures vote.
Wrong.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 8:50 pm to OmniPundit
On a one-by-one basis they could. But the "popular vote pact" underway now - that doesn't take effect until they reach 270 electoral votes - would NOT be Constitutional as it would violate Article 1, Section 10 which says in part:
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.
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.
This post was edited on 3/19/19 at 8:52 pm
Posted on 3/19/19 at 8:54 pm to Loserman
quote:
Electors that are selected by any political party are not going to vote against their parties candidate when the electoral college meets.
As I said, electors are technically not bound to cast their votes for the winner. It has happened on very rare occasions in history where the electors did not cast their votes for the winner of their state.
Again, if the state legislatures vote in a law that their states' electoral votes be awarded to the winner of the general popular vote, it's perfectly legal. Not only that, it's right. Only people who are un-democratic and believe in minority rule (like Trumpees) would be against that.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 9:04 pm to TigersFan64
quote:
Electors that are selected by any political party are not going to vote against their parties candidate when the electoral college meets.
quote:
As I said, electors are technically not bound to cast their votes for the winner. It has happened on very rare occasions in history where the electors did not cast their votes for the winner of their state.
Yes there have been faithless electors throughout history.
But you are in dreamland if you think that a political parties loyalists are going to give the Presidency to the other political party if their candidate won the electoral vote but lost the national popular vote.
Again it won't matter what the state passed as a law.
And if the State tried to fine and or imprison the electors who didn't go along with this new fangled bullshite the left is trying to pull, the electors would appeal it in Federal Court and it will be overturned.
The only way that the popular vote will decided the presidential election will be with a constitutional amendment which also won't ever happen in my lifetime.
This post was edited on 3/19/19 at 9:06 pm
Posted on 3/19/19 at 9:16 pm to OmniPundit
I have read both sides of the argument in here. No doubt it would end up in the court, but one thing is for sure. If this ever happens it will be what triggers the second American Civil War , no doubt about it.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 9:22 pm to TigersFan64
No I’m not wrong just because younport it on a message board. You would have to change the constitution to do away with electoral college.
Posted on 3/19/19 at 9:23 pm to Ponchy Tiger
My guess it is will happen sooner or later. The states "agreement" is finding a lot of support, particularly in large blue states.
This could happen as early as 2020 if the dems find a popular candidate instead of running a socialist.
My guess is that if a majority of the judges are strict constitutionalists the decision would be in favor of the candidate which won by the electoral college. And, if the majority of judges are of the make it up to suit your own wishes, the "agreement" winner would be named president.
And I agree with you; however the court rules, all he!! will break loose.
This could happen as early as 2020 if the dems find a popular candidate instead of running a socialist.
My guess is that if a majority of the judges are strict constitutionalists the decision would be in favor of the candidate which won by the electoral college. And, if the majority of judges are of the make it up to suit your own wishes, the "agreement" winner would be named president.
And I agree with you; however the court rules, all he!! will break loose.
This post was edited on 3/19/19 at 10:06 pm
Posted on 3/19/19 at 11:00 pm to TigersFan64
quote:
As I said, electors are technically not bound to cast their votes for the winner. It has happened on very rare occasions in history where the electors did not cast their votes for the winner of their state.
It's hardly rare. There were 7 in the last election even.
This post was edited on 3/19/19 at 11:01 pm
Posted on 3/20/19 at 2:26 am to OmniPundit
This is so dumb. It’s like a baseball team crying that they lost a game but had more hits than the other team. It ain’t the hits that count, and if it were to change to that, EVERYONE else will adjust. They were too dumb to not play by the current rules.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 2:45 am to TigersFan64
quote:
Again, if the state legislatures vote in a law that their states' electoral votes be awarded to the winner of the general popular vote, it's perfectly legal. Not only that, it's right. Only people who are un-democratic and believe in minority rule (like Trumpees) would be against that
Damn. You let your agenda slip out. There goes your credibility.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 3:29 am to OmniPundit
All the states doing this are states that will never vote red again at least in our lifetime. It's going to be absolutely hilarious to watch them freak out when Trump wins the popular vote in 2020 so he end up with all their electoral votes as well
Posted on 3/20/19 at 3:31 am to TigersFan64
quote:
If the state legislatures vote that their states' electoral votes be awarded to the winner of the nationwide popular vote, it's totally legal. I
I am leery of any law that is written to the effect of = "this law only goes into effect if it allows our side to win. If the other side wins, this law is not in effect."
Which is what this whole = 'contingent on enough other states adopting the law if and only if the total of those states electors exceeds 270"
This is pure tyrannical bullshite.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 3:35 am to TigersFan64
quote:
Only people who are un-democratic and believe in minority rule
Only people who are anti-republic i.e. anti-constitution, would believe otherwise.
This nation is not - was never intended to be - a mob dependent democracy.
In fact the entire constitution was written and adopted precisely to prevent that horrible occurrence.
only anti-American tyrannical idiots would be against our constitution provisions.
Posted on 3/20/19 at 3:40 am to OmniPundit
quote:
would it be legal?
Why even ask that question? Has legality ever slowed them down before?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News