Colorado Joins 11 States Agreeing to Shift to Popular Vote System

You have to figure out the difference between circumventing a law and breaking a law before we can continue this conversation. You clearly have these two different concepts mixed up, your reference to circumvention not being unconstitutional (which is absolutely not in dispute) shows that you're confusing these two entirely different from legal standpoint things.

Hint:
-Circumventing a law -> violating its intent -> perfectly legal
-Breaking/violating a law -> violating the letter of the law -> perfectly illegal

 

From your link: "Currently, 19% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents favor basing the winner on the popular vote, down from 49% in October 2004 and 54% in 2011."

You might want to read the links you post.

 

What.
Law.

What law are you talking about? What law is being circumvented? How many times do I have to ask before you answer?

My statement SEPERATED the concepts of circumvention and unconstitutionality. That comma is there for a reason.

I'm not asking about unconstitutionality, I'm asking about circumvention. You don't think this reform is unconstitutional. Ok! Great! But you do think that it's circumventive. Okay, great, we're on the same page.

How is it circumventive?

 

Can you explain why a republican majority wanted to end the EC in favor of the popular vote in 2011?

 

I think you will find that tiny little vermont and rhode island in the north where slavery was not common wanted 2 senators and the electorsl college as much as the largest state virgina which did own slaves

The Constitution was a brillent compromise of competing interests and ideas and a milestone in world history

 

All overseas INCOME in excess of $100,000 must be reported to the IRS.

 

More ironic projection duly noted and ignored for derogatory reasons.

 

Ironically amusing when shortcomings are projected onto others.

 

It was perhaps a “great compromise” for its time, I agree. However in my opinion, in today’s elections it serves only to disenfranchise millions of voters and should be replaced by a more equitable system in which every vote counts the same.

 

When someone tries to claim that everything is part of some grand scheme conspiracy designed to dismantle, well... everything, you know the entire conspiracy was concocted within an hour while soaking in a basement bathtub.

 

You might do the same. Notice that the graph from the same organization did not show 61% of Republicans favored a popular vote, as it reported they did in 2013. So how many is it?

Again, I don't know the context or events that were occurring in 2013, or 2012. What I do know is your post #388 linked to Gallup in 2013 claiming @ 62% of Republicans favored eliminating the EC, and then in my link showing that number never exceed 54%.

As it is today, the number is extremely low.

If Progressives want to change how the President is selected, change the Constitution.

 

Without the ec the election would be dominated by a few states and major cities

The president would no longer represent all the people

And if not the EC then why have a senate where every state has two votes irrespective of population?

 

They risk civil war if these states don’t abide by the Constitution.

 

Why does the rightwing persist with this asinine empty threat to the rest of America?

 

Oh yeah? What part of the Constitution?

 

The rationale that if the person for whom you voted loses then your vote was wasted. And in what state did someone wjnthat vote and not win the states electors? And YES the STATES choose the President, why do you struggle so with that basic constitutional principle?

 

Start with the compacts clause then the delicate balance of power the Constitution creates.

 

I'm explaining electoral mechanics, not passing judgement on them.

 

This part.

• The Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the procedure for electing the President and Vice President. It replaced the procedure provided in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, by which the Electoral College originally functioned. The amendment was proposed by the Congress on December 9, 1803, and was ratified by the requisite three-fourths of state legislatures on June 15, 1804. The new rules took effect for the 1804 presidential election and have governed all subsequent pre

See more on en.wikipedia.org · Text under CC-BY-SA license


Any confusion, still?

 

AGAIN we have no national popular vote, never have. We do not all vote in the same election under the same rules. Can you even comprehend what we would have to do to move to a federal election system and how froth that would be with problems?

 

I'm still waiting for you to explain how votes in the California vote for their electors were wasted.

 

Clearly, because you have no idea what you're talking about. The 12th Amendment changed one thing only: it made separate votes for the President and Vice President.

 

Yes it is.

It will be when it is taken to court.

It has to do with the regrets the citizens of that state will have when their vote gets nullified.

What would be unconstitutional about it? What is the sanction all these states are putting in their compact to make sure the other states adhere to it and don't back out when things don't work out as planned?

 

Yes, we do. It just isn't the deciding factor.

If these reforms take hold, it will.

Who said anything about a federal election system?

 

Because if 1 million vote red and 4 million and 1 vote blue, the blues wasted 3 million votes in Cali, which explains why they tend to lose the EC even when winning the popular vote.