Movement to Bypass the Constitution in Presidential Elections

[eyescreamcake]

I really hope they succeed. The electoral college and winner-takes-all system is extremely broken. We need a real election to eliminate government corruption.

[Bigone5555J]

@eyescreamcake, The Constitution requires that ALL votes be counted and reported. There are only two States that have been doing this. What they are now suggesting is a winner take all system, that will totally ignore millions of votes.

[eyescreamcake]

@Bigone5555J What the hell are you talking about? The electoral college votes are counted and reported by all states. How else would the election work? The presidential election will ALWAYS be winner-takes-all, because there can only be one winner. Duh. Currently it's a system that ignores hundreds of millions of votes. We're trying to make it a system where every vote counts.

[Bigone5555J]

@eyescreamcake, Read the information posted under the video.

[williamwagener]

The blonde bimbo misses the point, if the Top states go with the national Popular vote, then those smaller states DO STILL have a voice, Amazed the mike Reagan bought her bimbo line. Guess h e need the Air time. And any way, we already have by-passed the Constitution on gold and silver money, on ACT of WAR being Declared by CONGRESS , not the President, and many other issues.

[Bigone5555J]

@williamwagener, I think you missed the point too. The Electorial system in the Constitution requires the votes to be counted and proportionally reported. In this new agreement being passed by the Democrats, many votes are going to be treated as if they were never cast. Under their system, a candidate receiving 51% of a States vote would receive all of the Electoral votes for that State- 49% of the votes would be applied to the wrong candidate.

[Bigone5555J]

@williamwagener, Now, a candidate could win many small states and when those votes are tallied with the votes from all the other States they may not have carried, they could still win the election. Under this new agreement, those votes from States they didn't carry will be gone-being used as if they were originally cast for the other candidate. The only way around this new system would be that all Conservatives would have to actually move to Conservative majority states.

[Bigone5555J]

@williamwagener, If all conservatives actually did that, in an very short period of time, all the liberal states would probably look like war zones.

[209northsidexiv]

I thought whoever had the most votes won the election? isn't that how it's supposed to work? electoral college is retarded if republicans don't want to win fair and ssquare then they don't deserve to be President. If you cant' get all the people of this country to believe in your ideas and want to vote for you then you haven't done your job and won't do your job well according to the majority

[Bigone5555J]

@209northsidexiv, " electoral college is retarded if republicans don't want to win fair", If the Constitution is followed, the elections would be fair-it's the Democrats that are trying to have the rules changed.

[209northsidexiv]

@Bigone5555J Exactly the Dems are trying to change the rules to MAKE it fair, a simple up and down vote. why isn't that fair? How is it that the minority vote would actually choose the way the majority of the country feels? Especially after that Bush fiasco. votes were lost and they didn't want a recount. why didn't they want a recount? Why did they approve the recount, then that judge denied the recount? how is that democracy? his whole presidency was clouded in shadiness and shame.

[Bigone5555J]

@209northsidexiv, How is discarding the votes given to a candidate fair? You claim that you want the candidate that receives the majority of the votes to win, but, then you back a system that does not do that. Are you going to blame Bush for every little thing that comes down the pike? " his whole presidency was clouded in shadiness and shame", the same can be said about Obama-he claimed he would be the most honest, open and transparent president in history-Where's his Birth Certificate?

[lazor222]

I don't think that if a person gets 51% of the vote, the state gives all it's electoral votes to it. It would still vote for that person by majority, but they wouldn't get essentially "false votes"

[Bigone5555J]

@lazor222, Only Maine and Nebraska come close to following the proportional voting of their electors, as required in the Constitution. Each of the other 48 States have winner-take-all rules, which means that whatever candidate wins the majority of votes in those 48 States, receives all that States electoral votes. That is why it has been possible to win the popular vote and not be elected. Winner-take-all rules should be declared illegal.

[lazor222]

@Bigone5555J

Whoops I forgot to say "Should" give. I agree. They should be illegal.

[Astrobrant2]

There is nothing new about this. People on both sides have been complaining about the electoral college for decades. What the hell is this guy talking about when he says you won't "have a voice" about six times? One person - one vote. The majority wins. What's so complicated about that? Yes, the electoral college, (which would become completely superfluous), will cast all their votes for the person who WON the popular vote. How does that take away anyone's voice?

[Bigone5555J]

@Astrobrant2, " How does that take away anyone's voice?", In this system, the Electors will cast their votes for the winner of the National popular vote, regardless of the election results in your State. In other words, candidate "X" could win at the ballot, in every State in New England, but not receive any Electoral votes for winning those 6 States, because candidate "Y" won in New York. The voters of those 6 States just loose their voice in the election.

[Astrobrant2]

@Bigone5555J Right, and like I said, why would anyone be opposed to an election being decided by the ACTUAL popular vote instead of one where your vote actually IS discarded by your own state if you are not among the majority in that state? The electoral system sucks. There can no longer be any excuse for it -- except by those who like the idea that a candidate who loses the popular vote can actually win the election.

[Bigone5555J]

@Astrobrant2, You are still missing the point. With this system, you could be among the majority of voters in your State, and still see your vote discarded. That could never happen if the rules set forth in the Constitution were followed. The Constitution requires all votes to be reported. The problem is not the electoral system, but that 48 states changed the rules, making it possible for the winner of the popular vote to lose the election.

[codyharley1]

@Bigone5555J Why don't they get it Bigone555j are they really that ignorant,or hiptnotised man!

[endisnighe]

Progressive/communists could care less about the Constitution.

If these things happen, I have had it with this country!

Secession is about the ONLY thing left to us!

[johnknoefler]

Obama can't even win a popular vote now.

[FreedomClause]

Any changes from the original procedure is usurpation of power from those the constitution was written to protect. The constitution has been breached, and should be treated like any other contract between states or individuals, it should be deemed null and void. The states would then be free to write a new contract of association that would not be bound by any of the previous legislation or rules of law, such as the commerce clause.

[Bigone5555J]

@FreedomClause, Yes, I could be wrong on this, but, if I believe this would be a violation of the 2nd part of the 14th Amendment. This law takes away the rights of the citizens to vote for electors, and if that is the case, the States signing this agreement should lose all of their Representatives in the House.

[rlunderhill]

You can't change the rules to suit your need's. Whats with that ? The 11 States are loser States anyways. It's the only way to get elected, cheat. Go to hell 11 states.

Don't forget to pay your tax's.

[cloudberry121]

How can they ignore the Constitution? Isn't this illegal?

Obama enjoys ignoring the voters and he wants to make it official. :-(

[Bigone5555J]

@cloudberry121, Yes, I believe it is illegal. The Constitution does allow the States to decide how their electors are chosen, but, it does not say that the States can direct them to vote anyway they feel like.

[tishhead]

@Bigone5555J no one is talking about telling them how to vote. they are talking about the selection of electors, which is up to the states. the candidate who wins the national popular vote will have his/her electors chosen. they won't have to be told who to vote for just as it is now.

[Bigone5555J]

@tishhead Not so. This is an agreement to have all the electors, from each State that signs on to the agreement, to vote for the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of how the citizens of that State voted. I suggest you review the video, and read the articles at the provided links. There is also a link provided, so you can read the actual bill that was just passed in Massachusetts. If the bill changes nothing, as you claim, why pass a new bill?

[tishhead]

@Bigone5555J But no one is directing the individual electors who to vote for, just as they are not directed now. The difference is that the slate of electors pledged to the national pop vote winner will be the one selected. they won't have to be directed how to vote because they will have been chosen based on their loyalty to whichever candidate they represent. in the video, you argue that just 11 states could determine the president. how is that different from now?

[Bigone5555J]

@tishhead, How is that different from now? At present the Electors in my State are chosen according to the ballots cast IN MY OWN STATE. By my State agreeing to this, it is possible that all the electoral votes from my State could be given to someone that didn't even bother to register to be on the ballot in my State, and did not receive one vote from any citizen in my State.

[brickly77]

@cloudberry121 everything this government does is illegal now.

[dlucas90]

The next President should be an Independant, as both the Dems and the Repubs are nothing more than sales teams for whatever the unelected, international central bank(s) want to finance into existence.

[wetweasel56]

If they do this then we MUST have voter ID laws!

What is going to stop people from multiple voting in each state? Or voting the dead, illegals voting?

[wetweasel56]

Does anyone remember the Dems boasting about being in power for the next 40 years?

They are determined to steal it if they can. They have very high level lawyers working on ways to tip the elections into their favor and they will try anything.

[Bigone5555J]

@wetweasel56 , Yes, and that is exactly what they are trying to do. The law even if passed, will not go into effect until they have gotten enough states to form a 270 electoral vote block.

[bpaolucci]

Who is behind the National Populist whatever group that's doing this. Reveal their leaders. And isn't it time we force every state and congress to adhere to the Constitution - afterall they are all sworn to uphold it.

[HeFed5000]

let them keep pushing, itll cost them their lives

[Wyndstarthedruid]

FUCK THIS, LOAD!!!

[fissionman1]

NO VOICE?? The Plains states have 3-10 electoral votes as it is. They're already fly-over states to presidential candidates! This would make the system BETTER, not WORSE.

[Bigone5555J]

@fissionman1, How could this make things better for the plain states? If the Democrats get those States to sign on to this, they could be forced to cast their all electoral votes, for someone they did not support at the polls.

[chestersimpson]

@ 5:00 we have a voice bs either way your vote is worth 1 so you have to vote in a group.... there hasn't been anyone worth voting for in along time.... corp sell outs the lot of um

[USAon3]

"For example in the 2000 election, Al Gore would have become our president, instead of George Bush. And the downside of this is what?"

She answered her own question.

Under Algore, owning incandescent light bulbs would be a felony, and our cars would be running on peanut butter. But don't worry - the government would still be charging us $3/gal for it, and all our cars would be about the size of the hall closet.

[Bigone5555J]

@USAon3, Yes, the Electoral system works well. There were only 4 elections in the past 223 years, in which the popular vote winner was not elected, and this was the fault of the winner take-all-rules, which should not be allowed; they also hurt third party candidates. I agree Gore's loss was a plus for our nation. The liberals can't keep their story straight. Before they said that Bush stole the election, but, now it is the electoral system that was the problem.

[doc7474]

This is absolutely terrible.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote".

You want mob rule, i.e. democracy? You'll get it with rules like Massachusetts' new ruling. You can definitely count me out as one of those who would be for it.

[Bigone5555J]

@doc7474, Yes, if you read the actual legislation, it does not go into effect until the liberals have created a 270 electoral vote block. It is being passed in blue states, so this will give the Democrats a machine to keep them in power.

[CartoonPoem]

RON PAUL!!!

[CartoonPoem]

Fuck Them!

[AlembicVapor]

It time for States to begin seceding from the Union.

[johnknoefler]

@AlembicVapor I agree with you on this one. Arizona even has grounds to secede.

[DanUuNoel]

Fox News defending the U.S. constitution? This is laughable. What is the problem if the U.S. government president is elected the way her/his colleagues are elected in civilized countries?

The electoral college was put in place because the direct election of a head of state, 200 years ago, looked very risky. Things have changed.

Finally, the U.S. president is little more than a puppet anyway, as the 9/11 cover-up reminds us.

Love,

[Bigone5555J]

@DanUuNoel, Yes, the Founders put the Electoral system in place to help equalize the voting power of the States. Most forget our nation is not a democracy, but, a democratic republic. Originally even our Senators were chosen by the State legislatures rather than by the popular vote. True, a direct election was risky back then, and it still is today. If you doubt that, look what happened last month, in the SC Senate primaries with Alvin Greene.

[DanUuNoel]

@Bigone5555J A direct election, risky? Is it risky in Mexico, in France, in Colombia? All civilized countries with a strong presidency have direct elections. Why not this one?

The only civilized country with indirect presidential elections are those where the president has little power: Israel, Germany, Italy, etc.

And anyway, the U.S. president hardly answers to "us the people," behold Clinton/Bush/Obama's shameful cover-up of the 9/11 false flag.

Love,

[Bigone5555J]

@DanUuNoel, Well, if you think that Columbia, Mexico or France is so much better, why not move there? I'm sure you won't have any trouble finding people to help you pack. Bye

[Wyndstarthedruid]

@DanUuNoel your uneducated. blinded, and stupid. i have nothing to say, a response wont be read libfuck

[cristabell7]

The American constitution always gets in the way of the left. They want to bypass it, obliterate it, ignore it and stomp on it. It is all about power and nothing else.

[vashguud]

The problem is the diebold machines....

[TriggerFinger338]

We've entered into a Trans- American dictatorship! Get used to it.  Do you know how to handload? Better learn.

[Raycheetah]

So, when is the Federal gub'mint gonna sue these states for this violation of the law? ='[.]'=

[Bigone5555J]

@bythefault, It is not the electoral system that is at fault, it is the winner-take-all rules. Now 48 states will cast all their votes for candidate X if he gets 51% of the vote, and candidates Y and Z receive none. The Constitution requires that the votes for all candidates be reported and tallied by the President of the Senate. The winner-take-all rule, discards votes that should be counted. Under the new plan entire state's votes will be meaningless.

[yosoydame]

the down side is that Al gore woulda been president. Can anyone see someone worse then al gore? I know obama's pretty darn bad but i mean... Al Gore?

[machaeroguy]

@bythefault Electing Senators was originally also under the purview of State legislatures, i.e. one of the powers explicitly granted to the States by the Constitution. The 17th Amendment changed election of US Senators to a popular vote in the State, increasing pure democracy at the price of eroding federalism. Your suggestion of nationalized Senate elections, quite frankly, is similar to two wolves and a lamb voting upon what to eat for dinner.

[machaeroguy]

@bythefault You have to understand the Federalist system that the sovereign States agreed to when ratifying the Constitution. The idea was to set up a system of dual sovereignty where the Federal government was supreme on some matters and the State governments were supreme on other matters. This decentralization of power is what makes the US system superior, in fact, so that a slight majority cannot impose drastic measures upon a large minority, a clear danger of any pure democracy.

[TexasRevolution2010]

@machaeroguy We are not a democracy, we are a Republic!

[altops]

Wow this will lead to violence, with guns, bombs, why? this is an out right war provoking tactic if I ever saw one. Right out in the open election theft. . But nothing this Pres. is Constitutional any way.

[hubristime]

Michael Reagan is a turd. I specifically remember his calling for the execution of Mark Dice, and stating he would pay for the bullets. No apology from him was ever forthcoming.

[TruthseekerIL]

Can't believe it!

[mrmakemakkara]

VERY VERY VERY NICE VIDEOS TOV TODA

[strawbary]

meaning shitcorn will be in charge

[ckairnes68]

This is exactly why we can not afford to have a constitutional convention with these people in office. They would pick all their cronies to go as delegates and we would end up with no more 1st or 2nd amendment or worse B.O. as President for life.

[tsiya2]

There is a very good reason for the electoral college system. Without it the nation will be controlled primarily by the large urban areas.

This decision will end up at the supreme court, it is not constitutional

[Bigone5555J]

@tsiya2, Let's hope that happens before the election, and before Obama stacks the Court with liberals. 5 states have already passed this and 5 more are just waiting for the governor's signature.

[TexasRevolution2010]

@Bigone5555J I live in Texas, did it get passed there to?

[Bigone5555J]

@TexasRevolution2010, It has not yet been passed in Texas, but, a bill has been introduced in your state legislature. See the link under the video for

" nationalpopularvote ".

[LWCProducts]

I think you need a Constitutional amendment to do this.

Does this law say "The candidate carrying the majority" or "The PERCEIVED winner of the election"?

[Bigone5555J]

@LWCProducts, Yes, one would think an amendment would be the correct way to do this. How 48 states were able to pass the "winner-take-all" rules in the first place is beyond me. The new plan is to wait until the popular votes are tallied nation wide, and then award the electoral votes, based on the nation wide popular vote. As I stated in the video, a candidate could get all of your state's electoral votes, without even receiving one vote in that state. This is madness.

[TexasRevolution2010]

@Bigone5555J Get rid of the Electoral Colleges all together and just go back to regular voting