Among likely voters, it's Biden 49%, Trump 45%

Show me where the Constitution states your right to vote for President.

 

When were we the United People?

It is called The Great Compromise do you know why?

Still waiting where does the Constitution state the President shall be elected by a popular vote of the Citizens. Yes each state legislature decides how the STATE's electors will be choose amd eventually all decided on a popular vote, some winner take all some not. There is NO UNIFORM mandated vote. Any state could choose to end their voting and the statw legislature and/or governor choose and you would have no case in court opposing it.

 

Certainly after the Revolutionary war through the 1840's at least. We became more and more united after the civil war and were extremely united from the attack on Perl Harbor until the mid 1960's

The EC was created because many states worried, as Hamilton explains in Federalist 68, that an nu-educated electorate would be vulnerable to a glib conman. The great compromise wasn't actually the EC but how electors would be aportioned, it counted slaves as 3/5ths of a person when determining how many electors a State would have. Which was obvisously done away with during reconstruction.

How States choose the President and Vice President is left up to the individual State legislatures, but, as I pointed out, all states have their citizenry vote for the President/VP ticket and then most if not all States, now, require their appointed Electors be faithful to the results of the general election.

How voting is done is left to the States Legislatures.

I don't think that is entirely true, it would probably depend on the State and how voting is addressed in it's State Constitution.

 

It doesn't, it leaves how the President and the VP are elected up to the individual States.

 

Show me where the Constitution says that the VP can ignore EC votes and pick and choose "alternate" votes instead. Show me where the Constitution says that the VP can declare the EC votes of entire states invalid and declare a winner based on the majority of the remaining instead. Show me where the Constitution says that the VP can just throw the votes to the House instead of relying on the EC votes. You can't. And, yes, that is what you've previously supported. That's what the Eastman memo is about.

 

It is quite clear on how the President is selected, it is done by the States in the Electoral College. It leaves up to each state legislature how that state will choose it's electors and it does NOT require a vote by the citizens. So the entire "one persons vote in one state has more weight that someone else in another state" argument is just a canard of the left that want's a national vote by the People which is never gonna happen.

 

The individual state laws DO require votes from the citizens. But you've defended even ignoring EC votes as a legitimate "legal theory."

 

Our FEDERAL government has never been the United States of America, since the Constitution we have been the United STATES of America. BEFORE the Revolutionary war we became the United States have you never read the Declaration of Independence????

In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States

And established the manner in the the President of the United STATES would be selected by the STATES and how the House would represent the People by apportionment and the Senate the States by the 2 per State. It balance the interest of the States which was not merely based on population.

Yes after the first two elections all the states had passed legislation to allow the citizens to vote some winner take all some by apportioning but again not regulated and standardized by the federal government.

Whether or not there is a vote AT ALL is left to the state legislatures although and I should have noted some states added it to their state constitutions so a change would require approval by the citizens. That being said were that to happen in a state where it is in their constitution and a state legislature passed such a bill, then it gets challenged to the state supreme court and on up the argument could be made that the state constitution cannot override the federal constitution which gives that plenary power to the state legislature.

Would make a very interesting case but I cannot imagine that it would ever occur. Many states do have to provisions that in the case, such as almost happened in Florida 2000, the outcome of the vote is still not determined that the state legislature can appoint a slate of electors. Of course that played into various challenges in the EC counting both by Trump and prior to him.

 

Despite your best efforts, the ECA and the Constitution still exist. The Eastman memo recommendations violate both.

 

As it stands today, in spite of unrelenting tRumpublican efforts to change it, every citizen of every State, including the District of Columbia, can vote for President and Vice President of The United States by State law as provided for in the Untied States Constitution.

"Voting in the presidential general election
In the presidential general election, citizens who are registered can:

• Vote even if they did not vote in their state’s primary elections
• Vote for any presidential candidate, regardless of the party they are registered with or who they voted for in the past

Most people vote on Election Day, which is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Depending on where you live, the voting period may be extended to include absentee ballots, mail-in ballots, and early voting."
https://www.usa.gov/presidential-general-election

The (Supreme) court has recognized it in a handful of decisions dealing with the meaning of those amendments. “Undeniably the Constitution of the United States protects the right of all qualified citizens to vote, in state as well as in federal elections,”
https://www.nytimes.com/article/voting-rights-constitution.html

There are many Amendments to the Constitution guaranteeing the right to vote that superseded or replace what Article II says on the matter.

Never is a long time.

 

All very true, I often say THESE United States to emphasize those points. But you're, again, changing the argument; as you so like to do.

YOU ASKED.

I REPLIED

Why do you do that, why be so devious?

But that has been superceeded by Constitutional Amendments and Federal Law; which have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Until after the Civil war and into the 20th Century when many Civil rights laws and amendments were passed.

Not so much anymore.

Well, who knows what this Supreme Court might do, but previous courts have upheld an individual right to vote.

Yeah, all bets are off with this cOrt.

 

ONLY if your state legislature has decided you can have such a vote. All that does is protect those votes that DO occur, currently in all states, and must end by a certain date. They can begin when the state decides and how the electors are apportioned is still up to the state. And again you only vote for ELECTORS to represent your state, there is no direct vote for the President who is selected by the Electoral College.

 

Which state legislature says you don't have the right to vote and why do you think it is a legitimate "legal theory" to exclude the EC votes of entire states? Which, yes, is what the Eastman memo says.

 

What do you mean despite I am the one which supports both. Quote me saying I supported what Trump was trying to do in the EC vote count through his various plans INCLUDING those Eastman was pushing.

 

Not really anymore, many civil rights laws protect an individual right to vote and have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

That's true.

 

YES because the individual STATE LEGISLATURE decided to do it that way NOT the Constitution or Federal Government. There is no constitutional right to vote for the President only IF you state legislature decides to let you can you then vote for the Electors to represent your state.

I believe I called such theories to be only by some miracle to occur.

 

That's Article II, which has been superceded by the 14th Amendment and many Civil Rights - Right to vote laws; which have been upheld by the Supreme Court.

That's just gobbledygook nonsense. There is nothing to prevent an amendment that replaces the EC with a popular vote.

 

the 14th does not require an election, it protects your vote in those elections that DO occur and that is not limited to ones for state Electors.

There is a huge thing preventing it, getting enough states to vote for it, it takes more than a Democrat Congress passing a law and it's not done by a national popular vote, that we are a republic not a democracy thingy.

 

You said that the Eastman plot was a legitimate legal strategy. If you have changed your mind, thank you for coming to your senses.

 

Name one state whose legislature has said that their citizens do not have the right to vote for the President.

 

The 14th didn't supersede Article II's requirement for an election.

But there is nothing to prevent an amendment "thingy" from replacing the EC with a popular vote "thingy".

 

Where have I claimed a STATE legislature HAS. Do you know the difference between a state legislature and the federal government and Constitution?

Which one grants you the privilege of voting for your state electors?

 

Article II does not require an election by the people. The 14th protects ALL voting. And yes there are several thingy's preventing it, first getting Congress to pass such an amendment, second getting enough States to ratify it. If nothing it preventing it then why hasn't it happened?

 

So you admit that your "observation" has nothing to do with modern elections. Cool. Thanks for the white flag.

 

Nope, the 14th does. Article II requires an election.

Times change. The EC is an anachronism that no longer achieves it's purpose of keeping unqualified people from becoming President of the United States; if it ever did. Someday the EC will be gone, if tRaitor tRump doesn't destroy These United States first.