Jump to content
Scorpio64

10th Circuit Takes a Whizz in Dems Cornflakes.

Recommended Posts

From Daily Wire.  The article explains how the Dummycrats scheme to game the electoral system by awarding electoral collage votes to the national popular vote winner, and not necessarily the states popular vote winner, how the plan is doomed, doa, stillborn, impotent, oh, and also unconstitutional.  They got a proper beat down by the 10th Circuit.

Quote

On Tuesday (8/20), the Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that the Colorado secretary of state violated the Constitution when he removed an Electoral College delegate who had chosen to vote for John Kasich instead of Hillary Clinton. The secretary of state nullified the vote of the delegate and installed a new delegate who voted in accordance with the popular vote of the state of Colorado.

Michael Baca, a loyal Democratic voter, was elected as a delegate to the Electoral College in November 2016. By voting for Kasich instead of Hillary, Baca was attempting to be a part of a movement by Electoral College delegates across the country to pull away votes from both Trump and Hillary so as to send the election to the U.S. House of Representatives. The Constitution provides that if no candidate receives 50% plus one vote (270 Electoral College votes), then the top three candidates in the Electoral College are to be presented to the House of Representatives and the House is to select the next president.

Baca's plan was dependent upon other Republican Electoral College delegates also voting for Kasich. Trump received 304 Electoral College votes and, for the plan to succeed, 35 Republican delegates would have also had to cast their votes for Kasich. While Kasich would not have received any votes in the general election, his third-place finish in the Electoral College would have made him eligible for the Republican-controlled House to elect him as president of the United States.

Needless to say, this was just the first attempt by Democrats to try to remove Trump from the White House. And this week, the 10th Circuit dealt a serious blow to the Democrats' latest scheme to try to circumvent the Electoral College. In another diagnosed case of "Trump Derangement Syndrome," many Democratic leaders have encouraged state legislatures to enter into an agreement wherein the states in the compact award all their Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. This agreement is to take effect as soon as enough states have joined so that there are at least 270 Electoral College votes guaranteed by the compact.

Many Democrats hate the Electoral College because they feel it deprived them of the White House in 2000 and in 2016. Democrats hate the fact that they can't win the race for the White House according to the Constitution, and they have thus decided that it is in their political self-interest to change the rules so that they can try to win the presidency more often.

At this time, there are 15 states plus the District of Columbia that have entered into the agreement. To date, the compact has 196 out of the 270 Electoral College votes it needs before going into effect.

The problem with this harebrained scheme being promoted by the Democrats is that it attempts to circumvent the U.S. Constitution and the process to properly amend the Constitution. In order to amend the Constitution, three-quarters of the states must ratify a proposed constitutional amendment that has already passed by either a two-thirds vote by Congress or via a constitutional convention called for by the states.

Democrats know that they cannot get three-quarters of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. As such, rather than give up on their desire to abolish the Electoral College, they instead have decided to change the rules on how the Constitution can be amended.

The good news is that the 10th Circuit, with its ruling on Tuesday, has telegraphed the beginning of the end of the Democrats' latest scheme to end the Electoral College. If a state cannot require that its delegates vote in accordance with its own state's popular vote, it will therefore also never be able to require that its delegates vote in accordance with the nation's popular vote.

While the 10th Circuit decision does not directly deal with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, the reasoning of this decision will be used when lawyers argue the eventual unconstitutionality of the compact. Tuesday's court ruling is a brick in the wall that will hinder the Democrats' unconstitutional attempts to amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College.

This is not over yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could just get rid of an antiquated system that was invented to make up for the inability of Americans to communicate votes super fast like in the 1800s. As technology has changed, so should our voting system.

  • FacePalm 1
  • Disagree 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scorpio64 said:

From Daily Wire.  The article explains how the Dummycrats scheme to game the electoral system by awarding electoral collage votes to the national popular vote winner, and not necessarily the states popular vote winner, how the plan is doomed, doa, stillborn, impotent, oh, and also unconstitutional.  They got a proper beat down by the 10th Circuit.

This is not over yet.

It’ll go to scotus who will rule that a state bureacrat can not co-opt the vote of state electors.  Then it will be over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Greenday said:

We could just get rid of an antiquated system that was invented to make up for the inability of Americans to communicate votes super fast like in the 1800s. As technology has changed, so should our voting system.

You don’t want to get rid of it for any reason other than you think it gives Rs an advantage.  If it gave D’s an advantage.... you would say the EC is a sacred institution that MUST be preserved.

Be honest.  If the popular vote and the EC vote both favored Trump in the last election...would this have ever been brought up?  Are these claims of antiquated crap -really- this issue?  Really????  THAT is why this came up?  It had NOTHING to do with Trump?

lol...

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 8:53 PM, Greenday said:

We could just get rid of an antiquated system that was invented to make up for the inability of Americans to communicate votes super fast like in the 1800s. As technology has changed, so should our voting system.

Dafuq?

How did the EC know who to vote for if the system couldn't count votes fast enough? 

What's the difference between communicating a states popular vote to the EC, and then the EC votes to the fed?

If it was about the inability to communicate fast enough, the EC would have been eliminated as it clearly is an extra step in the process.

 

I mean that's just common friggen sense...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ruling itself isn't that good. In fact it creates a system where the EC can vote for who ever they want... This is a double edged sword.

 

The ruling should stipulate the members of the EC in each state are required to vote in accordance with the state popular vote.. Otherwise, wtf is the point? Why bother having a voting election if the individuals of the EC will just be allowed to vote however they want?

 

Here is the fact in this case.... the ruling HURT republicans. The Courts said it was A-OK for the EC to take away votes from Trump in states that he won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JackDaWack said:

In fact it creates a system where the EC can vote for who ever they want

the ruling does not "create a system".  The EC system has existed like this since the beginning.  Conservatives loose nothing with the ruling, progressive libtards that want to game the system loose something because they cannot force the Electors to do their evil bidding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Scorpio64 said:

the ruling does not "create a system".  The EC system has existed like this since the beginning.  Conservatives loose nothing with the ruling, progressive libtards that want to game the system loose something because they cannot force the Electors to do their evil bidding.

Just out of curiosity, how would you feel if Trump lost the next election if electors wrote in names again instead of voting in favor for the party they represent?

Very close minded statement that the conservatives lose nothing, as this ruling directly enabled republican electorals to help Clinton win an election by taking vote away from the only person capable of beating her.

If people were worried before about getting in trouble, imagine what they might do in 2020 now that they have the green light?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JackDaWack said:

Very close minded statement that the conservatives lose nothing

Not closed minded my friend.  It's just stating the facts, whether you or I like it, or not.. 

Conservatives do NOT loose anything, because NOTHING has changed.  It was the Dems that are looking to force Electors to vote a certain way ( national popular vote).  Dems are trying to leverage the tyranny of the majority with the pact, and hypothetically award the electoral votes to a Dem when a Republican has won a state.

If a state is won by a republican with 80% of the vote, and an Elector gave the votes to someone else, there would be lawsuits on top of lawsuits, on top of lawsuits.  It is within the Elector's powers to do that, but they do not have the final word.

I stand on what I said.  Conservatives loose nothing because nothing has changed.  The Dems have "created" nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will have to revisit this conversation in November 2020 to see who really benefits from it. I agree with the overall ruling to an extent, but the EC are there to represent their parties nominee, not who they want to represent, or who the state wants them to represent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...