woodguru

States are scrambling to pass legislation that allows red states to simply declare e******ns in their state invalid for one trumped up reason or another. They give secretaries of the state, e******n boards in counties, or the governor the power to declare at some level they do not agree with the outcome of e******ns, and they simply install e*****rs that v**e for the loser of the state e******n.

Now the new law being looked at on a federal level has language in it that allows governors to choose a slate of e*****rs, thereby making it to where the state has no legal recourse to challenge the reasons they would do such a thing...of course this causes a direct contradiction to the supreme court position which is that states have control of what they do, and here the GOP wants GOP governors to have the unchallenged power to decide they don't agree with an e******n and overturn it for that state.

It's bad enough that a state loses the v**es of 50% of it's citizens that lose an e******n even though they v**ed for the other candidate, but the GOP wants governors to simply overturn the e******n because they want to...and it is not like these stop the steal republicans wouldn't do that in a heartbeat.

https://www.rawstory.com/christina-bobb-oan/?utm_source=push_notifications

Liberty Tree

NWR

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

Really ?
If I was you , I would’ve had a lot to say about that.
This is equal to allowing the candidates to pick their own V**ers.
There’s there’s a thought .
I don’t know why nobody thought of it before.

MatthewlovesAyn Loc: Ohio

I like to read the articles you post mostly for the hilarity. It's nice that you found something worse and more worthless than yahoo news to post. The first major flaw in thinking was they were "false" e*****rs. They were simply e*****rs preparing themselves "if" T***p w*n, not to usurp e*****rs for the candidate that actually did. I'm sure there were lefty e*****rs in Florida preparing to v**e for the fleabag installed in the White House. The other major flaw in your post is you b***hing about federal laws being passed which don't conform to your demented views. Your side has BOTH houses of congress and the presidency. How are we going to pass something the left doesn't like. One thing good about your posts, every time I read one, the more I'm convinced how awful you people are.

MatthewlovesAyn Loc: Ohio

I read it because it wasn't yahoo news. You're right, it wasn't.

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

Why shouldn’t the e*****rs reflect the Popular V**e ?
There is no such thing as e*****rs preparing themselves…. Blah blah blah.
Nonsense.
For chrissakes !!!

Milosia2 Loc: Cleveland Ohio

Awful because we don’t respond well to your insane nonsense?

Simple Sam Loc: USA

First, the e*******l college is the body that elects the president, not popular v**e. There are two states that are not 'winner take all' Maine and Nebraska. There have been four presidents who DID not win popular v**e: Bush, Harrison, Hayes, and Adams.

As for two sets of e*******l v**es, yes....it happened in 1969.

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago

***This is equal to allowing the candidates to pick their own V**ers.
>>>They do in Illinois and Chicago

woodguru

It's one thing to have e*****rs, wh**ever that horse crap is, cast their v**e according to the results of a state's e******n, it's another to have to deal with the first attempt at subverting this which was faithless e*****rs, now red states are simply saying it in the open, that they will disregard the e******n (which is the will of the people) and appoint e*****rs that will v**e for the loser.

And again...we need e*****rs why? What is the purpose of the e******n if the sates are going to v**e for who they want anyway?

woodguru

I ask you, literally, do you have the capability to do the low level thinking necessary to figure out what is wrong with allowing a governor to choose e*****rs that will v**e for the loser?

You have no right to use a name like logically of you can't begin to show some.

woodguru

I realize how stupid your question sounded given the topic, which is allowing governors to choose the e*****rs they want.

woodguru

My god, can you really slip the boundaries of logic this badly?

What is the e*******l college based on? Quick, it's very basic...the popular v**e, it's all about the popular v**e, not that giving half the v**es of the population away to the loser in a state makes any sense.

So this is getting further away from the popular v**e saying a legislature or governor can simply choose e*****rs for the loser even though the other party won.

No, the e*******l college is not the body that elects the president, they are actually symbolic in that they are representing the outcome of the state they are v****g for. This idea that the state can pick the e*****rs they want is ludicrous, they are decided by the outcome of the popular v**e in each state, it is only a few states that can't or don't want to adhere to the rules regarding how the e*****rs are decided.

woodguru

It is theoretically a matter of pure formality how e*****rs are supposed to cast their v**es for their states, the popular v**e determines how a state v**es it's e*****rs for the president.

The idea that there is any other way of looking at this is severely r****ded and shows us just how determined the republican party is to c***t because they cannot win due to the fact that they have less v**ers in many states than democrats do.