The Virginia House of Delegates passed Tuesday a bill to award its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote as the newly elected Democratic majority sought to join the pact to leapfrog the Electoral College.

The state House voted 51-46 to enter into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, sending H.B. 177 to the state Senate despite opposition from Republicans who argued that the measure would upend the intent of the Framers.

The Electoral College is “part of a quaint thing that we used to call in civics class checks and balances,” said Del. R. Lee Ware, a Republican, on the House floor. “I hope you’ll stick with the checks and balances and not go along with H.B. 177.”

Article here.

So, now the Virginia Democrats want California and New York to determine the outcome of national elections. Delegate Mark Levine (D), was one of the co-sponsors (he's also responsible for many of the gun-grabbing bills moving forward). This man is an enemy of the state. His comments? That the Electoral College was a throwback that “began at a time when the founders actually didn’t think that there would be political parties.”

“They thought that a bunch of white men with property would get in a room in the back and they would decide who the president was,” Mr. Levine said during Monday’s floor debate.

This cannot stand. If you're a Virginian, flood the email inboxes and phone lines of your state senators to defeat this travesty!

I was recently thinking that this might be good for those of us stuck in firmly blue states.

My vote has a chance to count!

Is the state allowed to do that or does it go against set law?

These idiots don't seem to realize that Trump played to win per the rules at the time and Republican voters in states like California and NY, who stayed home the last time due to no chance, will now vote.
There are a significant number of Republicans in those blue states and people like Trump will now campaign there and get them to come out and vote.

quote:

This man is an enemy of the state. His comments? That the Electoral College was a throwback that “began at a time when the founders actually didn’t think that there would be political parties.”

“They thought that a bunch of white men with property would get in a room in the back and they would decide who the president was,” Mr. Levine said during Monday’s floor debate.

First off, it won't happen, because it's unconstitutional.
They are attempting to change the Constitution without going through the process specified.
But more importantly, these clueless dolts need to be educated about the electoral college.

That Compact does not become active until enough States have joined it to total 270 or more Electoral votes. If that happens, there will be a Constitutional challenge based on its provision that States may not compact with each other without the expressed approval of Congress, and there is no possibility that the current Senate would approve such a move. My IMHO.

chellim1, those "idiots" already know all they want to about the Electoral College--it elects people they don't want.

flashguy

Amazing, isn't it? These guys trust big-city residents in other states more than they trust their fellow Virginians. Among the dirty little secrets that they aren't sharing? That if Virginia Republicans take back the majority and the Governor's mansion, Virginia can be withdrawn from the pact. IOW, this is a spiteful insult that serves no real purpose beyond reinforcing divisions between NOVA and the rest of the state.

This reflects what's getting to be something of a trend. New York City is trying to keep the rest of New York State under liberal control, Philadelphia's trying to keep the rest of Pennsylvania under liberal control, Denver's trying to keep the rest of Colorado under liberal control, Las Vegas is trying to keep the rest of Nevada under liberal control, Albuquerque and Santa Fe are trying to keep the rest of New Mexico under liberal control, the more urbanized parts of California are trying to keep the rest of the California coast under liberal control...something interesting is going to happen at some point; this is far too artificial a construct to last forever.

This is COMPLETELY constitutional. States are allowed to allocate their electoral votes as they see fit. Actually READ the constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
That Compact does not become active until enough States have joined it to total 270 or more Electoral votes. If that happens, there will be a Constitutional challenge based on its provision that States may not compact with each other without the expressed approval of Congress, and there is no possibility that the current Senate would approve such a move. My IMHO.

flashguy

WHEN Trump wins a landslide in both Popular and Electoral votes this November, this will put an end to this DemoCrap attempted shit of overthrowing the Constitution. The DemoCraps keeping trying to invalidate the will of the people and they’ll soon learn their lesson.

quote:

New York City is trying to keep the rest of New York State under liberal control,...

Hmm... How can we de-populate some of these over-crowded urban cities?
Maybe the Coronavirus could serve a purpose?

^^ I haven't seen a whole lot of Chinese nationals moving to or visiting the more rural parts of the US.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
This is COMPLETELY constitutional. States are allowed to allocate their electoral votes as they see fit.

Well, that does raise an interesting question, doesn't it? What happens if the majority of the state's voters vote for Candidate A, and the popular vote goes for Candidate B? The state government isn't entitled to arbitrarily overturn a state vote by legislative fiat since that isn't allocation so much as it is a complete and utter hijacking of the vote. So much for the supposed Constitutionality of states allocating Electoral College delegates on the basis of votes held in other states.

They may be allowed to do what the Compact specifies as individual States, but they are not allowed to conspire with other States to do it. It is also possible that SCOTUS would decide against it since it would effectively disenfranchise many, if not a majority, of its voters (if a State that's a party to the Compact found a majority of its voters preferred the other candidate anyway). And there is another potential problem--there is no requirement for a State to even have a popular vote for President (if some other rule for allocating Electors is in place). Unter those circumstances, there would be no "popular vote total" to use.

And I have read the Constitution and most recently the parts pertaining to this situation.

2BobTanner--the Democrats will never stop attempting to overturn the Constitution.

flashguy

quote:

This is COMPLETELY constitutional. States are allowed to allocate their electoral votes as they see fit. Actually READ the constitution.

Yeah, well, you may be right.
But they would only shoot themselves in the foot.
I think it would break down quickly if a State like California was forced to cast it's electoral votes for Trump.
It wouldn't happen that Missouri would cast it's electoral votes for Bernie because Missouri wouldn't be so stupid as to dis-enfranchise it's voters in this way.


Article II (Article 2 - Executive)
Section 1

1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

2: 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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Constitution says NOTHING about how states have to allocate their electoral votes. The state could pass a law that the governor could flip a coin to determine who gets the states electoral votes, and, from the standpoint of constitutional law, it would be perfectly legitimate.

As far as state level politics, that's a complete different matter.

But the whole matter of the distribution of electoral votes being done on the basis of popular vote is an issue of state law and tradition. The states can change that at will.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
^^ I haven't seen a whole lot of Chinese nationals moving to or visiting the more rural parts of the US.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
This is COMPLETELY constitutional. States are allowed to allocate their electoral votes as they see fit.

Well, that does raise an interesting question, doesn't it? What happens if the majority of the state's voters vote for Candidate A, and the popular vote goes for Candidate B? The state government isn't entitled to arbitrarily overturn a state vote by legislative fiat since that isn't allocation so much as it is a complete and utter hijacking of the vote. So much for the supposed Constitutionality of states allocating Electoral College delegates on the basis of votes held in other states.

The only thing the compact does is add a layer of enforceability. And that only kicks in if Congress ratifies it.

So without the compact being ratified at the Federal level, while states may agree to do this, they could back out at any time. But if enough of them decide to do it on their own accord, and none back out, there no basis for the SCOTUS to overturn their decision.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
They may be allowed to do what the Compact specifies as individual States, but they are not allowed to conspire with other States to do it. It is also possible that SCOTUS would decide against it since it would effectively disenfranchise many, if not a majority, of its voters (if a State that's a party to the Compact found a majority of its voters preferred the other candidate anyway). And there is another potential problem--there is no requirement for a State to even have a popular vote for President (if some other rule for allocating Electors is in place). Unter those circumstances, there would be no "popular vote total" to use.

And I have read the Constitution and most recently the parts pertaining to this situation.

2BobTanner--the Democrats will never stop attempting to overturn the Constitution.

flashguy

This is just one more attempt to muddy up a win for the left. They are scratching and screaming, kicking the dirt to awaken the dead Democrats to vote. Means justifies the end. This voting cycle could mean another Supreme Justice position or two.

Gun rights are the topic most Virginians hear, but there are many other issues the news conviently omits for the low information citizens.

Such as raising the state minimum wage. A farmer told me today, he would have to quit farming if the minimum wage is raised to $15, as he hires many Mexican workers during the year in his tobacco farm.

Eliminating the yearly inpection on vehicles. I see more and more vehicles these days with lights not working, the vast majority of drivers, would never dream of checking their vehicle weekly or daily.

Decriminalization of marijuana. I won't get into the debate on whether it should or shouldn't be legal, but it's illegal in Va. In my opinion, this will only encourage the drug dealing.

So claimed harassment of elected officials via electronic means. Who decides what is harassment?
Say you are angry about a pipeline transversing your property, and send several emails to your state representative, said delegate gets pissed at 4 emails and claims you were sending excess communication to them.

Election Day. Democrats srapped the Lee-Jackson State Holiday to go wit an Election Day Holiday.
More social justice vengence at work here.
I think every one who is a registered voter should vote. The polls are open from 6am to 6 pm. If you really want to vote, you can get there. And people who can't, will vote absentee.

I'm sure there are other Democrat sponsored bills the forum's Virginia members could list, that go against the grain. Term limits for the Governor is another proposed bill, going from one 4 year term to allowing a 8 year term (2-4 year terms).

A State agreeing to the popular vote process would have no reason to even put the Presidential election on its ballots, since the voting of the Electors would not be tied to the wishes of state voters. If even one State did this, there would be no valid popular voter count. Some States could allocate their Electors by the Party held by its Representatives and Senators--again, no need for the President to be on the ballot.

All it would take to put a kink in this plan would be for a couple of fairly large States (Texas and Florida, for example) to vote to align their Electors all to the Party with a majority of Congresscritters and leave that race off the ballot. In a sense they'd still be doing something like the "winner take all" most States do use, because those people are elected by the voters, but with varying degrees of majority. Without valid voter numbers from those States, any attempt to base Electoral votes based on the popular vote would be invalid.

flashguy

Nothing but a goddamned childish hissy fit because their candidate didn't win.

quote:

The Virginia House of Delegates passed Tuesday a bill to award its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote as the newly elected Democratic majority sought to join the pact to leapfrog the Electoral College.

If this passes and (whichever way the state goes) Trump wins anyway, I'm going to laugh my ass off.

If you can't win using the current rules change the rules.