trump is a crook

  • O Really?


    Please quote where the constitution mandates *how* a state may apportion their electoral votes.


    :blacksmile

    Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:

  • Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:

    And therefore a state can send their electoral votes to whomever wins the national popular vote... if that's how said state wants to do it.


    This isn't difficult to understand unless you're determined to make it that way.

  • Electoral scheme? Are you serious? Why are you so patronizing about what the southern part of North America does? "White supremecists" are the lie of the left. This must have originated out of their guilt for having fostered any that did what historically happened. It was the Republicans who put a stop to that.

    Get over it. The people whom you are trashing have continued to keep the best values exhibited today and produce far fewer head cases than anywhere in the nation.


    Are you even able to say anything decent about anyone???????? Your language sucks bigtime too.

    Do you need a safe-space?


    :meltdown

  • And therefore a state can send their electoral votes to whomever wins the national popular vote... if that's how said state wants to do it.


    This isn't difficult to understand unless you're determined to make it that way.

    There is no such thing as national popular vote. Although the left wants to make it a thing after the 2016 ass kicking.


    And I for one would have no problem with it. But if we're gonna go that route I think each state should only get 1 representative in the House and 1 in the Senate. I mean that makes sense right? Think of all the money we'd save. Maybe pay for that free healthcare thingy.

    MNN on 6/18/19

    "chump will assuredly lose 2020 barring an event that cancels the election - he just cant keep his scummy yankee mouth shut"


    MNN on 6/24/19

    Chump is going to tote an ass kicking nov 2020


    MNN on 11/14/19

    fact is it is within a year of the election, the Senate will not allow him to appoint her successor. Nov 2020 he will lose.

  • There is no such thing as national popular vote.

    That's a stupid argument.



    ...Although the left wants to make it a thing after the 2016 ass kicking.


    And I for one would have no problem with it. But if we're gonna go that route I think each state should only get 1 representative in the House and 1 in the Senate. I mean that makes sense right? Think of all the money we'd save. Maybe pay for that free healthcare thingy.

    Give it time and Obama's 57 states are gonna be a real thing.

  • And therefore a state can send their electoral votes to whomever wins the national popular vote... if that's how said state wants to do it.


    This isn't difficult to understand unless you're determined to make it that way.

    However that has not been the custom. Most all states until recently chose to maximize the choice of her citizens and the winner take all way of electoral allocation.


    Maine and Nebraska (IIRC) chose to send the 2 state votes to the state winner and then each district sent to whomever won that district.


    No state has used the national popular vote as a metric for how the voted electorally.

  • However that has not been the custom. Most all states until recently chose to maximize the choice of her citizens and the winner take all way of electoral allocation.


    Maine and Nebraska (IIRC) chose to send the 2 state votes to the state winner and then each district sent to whomever won that district.


    No state has used the national popular vote as a metric for how the voted electorally.

    Key word in your argument being "most". As in *not all*. Therefore said 'custom' is clearly not binding.


    Now, you may hold on to that weak argument and claim that there *is* a binding custom by which no state has ever directly and totally contradicted the clear will of their electorate within that state. That'd be a fair statement, and I'd be interested to see how it plays out. But I'd counter with:


    1. That's a hypothetical scenario that may never happen. And unless/until it does, not one goddamn American will have standing to sue.


    2. Nowhere in the constitution is it stated that the intent of any group of voters may not be violated. In fact the constitution deliberately sets up numerous circumstances where the will of even the ENTIRE popular vote can be commonly overturned. You know, the fucking electoral college.


    Dipshit.

  • Key word in your argument being "most". As in *not all*. Therefore said 'custom' is clearly not binding.

    That's why I mentioned Maine and Nebraska. Did you read that part?


    Are you arguing or agreeing with me?

  • At this point the dems are pretty sure they can't win fairly.


    Not sure what their thinking was on this. it seems moot... a protest thing... more womanly beta boy sound and fury shit.


    No red state is going to give up it's EC power.


    Everyone would like to jerk the process around to advantage their side. In my case.... I would like California to give it's EC votes based on how each district voted. What this would do would be that the candidates would no long ignore and take California for granted. Course... there would probly never be another dem POYUS but...


    lazs

    "Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something."



    Pancho Villa, last words (1877 - 1923)

  • In so long as the dems are in control;, they would strive to redistrict as has been done in the past.