General Discussion

Azathoth

(4,677 posts)

78. This is *literally* the same states rights' argument that Trump supporters use to legitimize him

Tue Oct 15, 2019, 01:23 PM

Oct 2019

Two huge liberal states like New York and California shouldn't be able to "disenfranchise" red states.

It's an immoral and illogical argument. Either you accept the principle that every person's vote is equal, or you don't. You can't claim "disenfranchisement" just because the guy your residents like doesn't win.

You keep talking about SCOTUS review, yet you clearly have no understanding of the issue.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

96 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Electoral College [View all] RicROC Oct 2019 OP

we're getting close... krispos42 Oct 2019 #1

I doubt it would hold up in court Polybius Oct 2019 #3

"plenary" and "exclusive" state right mvymvy Oct 2019 #8

The Interstate Compact Clause: onenote Oct 2019 #12

No. mvymvy Oct 2019 #13

The somewhat more comprehensive review of the state of the law by the CRS onenote Oct 2019 #16

Your cut and paste..with no link to the original source(very much not cool) AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #63

What are you talking about? There is no "increase" in power Azathoth Oct 2019 #77

I'm doing no such thing...I'll repeat my question again AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #88

Every vote in every state will matter and count equally mvymvy Oct 2019 #89

"No voter would be disenfranchised - deprived of the right to vote. " AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #90

Every vote in every state will matter and count equally in the national popular vote total mvymvy Oct 2019 #91

A vote reversed is a vote denied no matter how many times you say otherwise AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #92

The Electoral College isn't a state right though Polybius Oct 2019 #22

exclusive and plenary State right mvymvy Oct 2019 #29

What about voter disenfranchiesment? AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #54

Here's another one: Polybius Oct 2019 #57

It's not goimg to survive SCOTUS review...ever. AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #60

Exclusive and Plenary authority mvymvy Oct 2019 #66

Not an option mvymvy Oct 2019 #68

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live mvymvy Oct 2019 #67

Not if a compact state allocates it's electors to a candidate that AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #73

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live. mvymvy Oct 2019 #74

Except in a state that allocated their EC votes counter AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #76

Every vote in every state will matter and count equally mvymvy Oct 2019 #82

I was taught when you cut and paste... you link your sources. AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #84

The presidential election is not a state election Azathoth Oct 2019 #79

Wait...what???? AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #83

This is *literally* the same states rights' argument that Trump supporters use to legitimize him Azathoth Oct 2019 #78

I'll repeat my question.... AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #85

In my opinion the 'National Popular Vote Interstate Compact' is a joke. Captain Stern Oct 2019 #18

NOT a handshake mvymvy Oct 2019 #19

States can easily get around that. Captain Stern Oct 2019 #23

Faithful electors will continue to elect the President mvymvy Oct 2019 #30

Good info, but the stuff you copy and pasted, didn't really address what I said. Captain Stern Oct 2019 #46

So let's say Mississippi joins and Trump wins by 30 points against (let's say) Warren Polybius Oct 2019 #58

No. 270+ presidential electors supporting winner of national popular vote mvymvy Oct 2019 #69

I don't know what you see in this ridiculous bill Polybius Oct 2019 #72

Equality mvymvy Oct 2019 #75

Still a handshake FBaggins Oct 2019 #26

Wrong mvymvy Oct 2019 #31

Not buying it FBaggins Oct 2019 #36

Impairments Clause mvymvy Oct 2019 #37

Have you read ArtI Sec10 of the Constitution? AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #93

Exclusive and Plenary mvymvy Oct 2019 #38

Untrue FBaggins Oct 2019 #42

Binding mvymvy Oct 2019 #39

Doubt it FBaggins Oct 2019 #43

Exclusive and Plenary mvymvy Oct 2019 #44

Terms for Withdrawal mvymvy Oct 2019 #40

The court might also decide it has no authority to tell states how to apportion their electors Azathoth Oct 2019 #80

You'll never get it... brooklynite Oct 2019 #25

status in some Republican states mvymvy Oct 2019 #32

most all of those are now in the fail column Celerity Oct 2019 #45

Nate Silver and 538 infamously did not foresee Trump's victory mvymvy Oct 2019 #48

non sequitur Celerity Oct 2019 #49

You presented as authority mvymvy Oct 2019 #56

Actually you have....though you have yet to show anything .. AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #61

Sounds like the easiest thing to do is eliminate the Electoral College and abqtommy Oct 2019 #2

73% of the way mvymvy Oct 2019 #9

That would require a Constitutional Amendment... Wounded Bear Oct 2019 #10

Thanks, we can use a little luck with all the corruption in our voting process. abqtommy Oct 2019 #15

Changing State laws mvymvy Oct 2019 #20

And has been decided by SCOTUS something of this magnitude.. AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #55

Major Changes using Exclusive & Plenary Authority of States mvymvy Oct 2019 #70

Your point? AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #71

I checked into that a while back. It, surprisingly, would have made no difference in 2016. Captain Stern Oct 2019 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author elocs Oct 2019 #5

I am far more concerned with the wealth of the Congress than just its size... Moostache Oct 2019 #6

Do they represent us? They certainly arent like us. Joe941 Oct 2019 #47

It's a remnant of slavery and obviously shouldn't exist, but good luck getting rid of it. Garrett78 Oct 2019 #7

First, we have to regain a 2/3 majority in Congress (both houses) MineralMan Oct 2019 #11

Changing State laws mvymvy Oct 2019 #21

One quick solution is to lift the cap on the number of House members tinrobot Oct 2019 #14

As I said above, it wouldn't have been a lot closer in 2016. Captain Stern Oct 2019 #17

I think you're mistaken about the larger states being the ones shortchanged. sl8 Oct 2019 #24

This message was self-deleted by its author elocs Oct 2019 #27

not likely as its all in the constitution and no way to get support to even get it to the states beachbumbob Oct 2019 #28

A method for How to award electors is NOT in the Constitution mvymvy Oct 2019 #33

i thought you were suggesting changing the number of beachbumbob Oct 2019 #41

The bill has been passed in 40 state legislative chambers mvymvy Oct 2019 #34

Turnout increases when every vote counts mvymvy Oct 2019 #35

We have never been a "Representative Democracy" grantcart Oct 2019 #50

and the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 mountain grammy Oct 2019 #52

Underrepresented in the House? sl8 Oct 2019 #65

Thanks. mountain grammy Oct 2019 #81

De nada. sl8 Oct 2019 #86

Well said, grantcart saidsimplesimon Oct 2019 #53

National Popular Vote compact PatrickforO Oct 2019 #51

If it holds up in court Polybius Oct 2019 #59

It won't... AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #62

Increasing the number of reps in congress would be a great Bettie Oct 2019 #64

I sincerely hope this will be the last presidential election our democracy is plagued by the EC jcmaine72 Oct 2019 #87

We can't get the ERA...how are you going to get this by 2024? AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #94

We're not a democracy? Fine jcmaine72 Oct 2019 #95

But it won't be eliminated until the Constitution is amended. AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #96