Jump to content

Constitutional right to vote ? 12th amendment ?


Recommended Posts

according to the constitution... the states can choose how to select their electors.

 

in other words, the state legislature can choose to flip a coin to decide who to vote for pres and for VP

 

"Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

 

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

 

 

Amendment XII

 

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--

 

the president doesnt choose the VP...

 

this also proves the states "electors" are not supposed to all go for the winner, electoral votes are to be split by party...

 

in other words oblamer should not have got all 55 votes from calif electors,

only from the ones who voted for the libloon...

 

the way we elect prez and VP is unconstitutional...

 

this is how the "state of jefferson" is not represented...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny thing, is the government was set up with so many checks and balances that it would be in its own way in most things and on most issues. there was a REASON for that. thus obama skirting congress AND the constitution id a deep, wounding, and egregious offense against america

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is something ultimately decided by state law.

yes it is..

 

all voting law is state law, except the const/12th...

 

voting is a states rights issue,

 

my point was it is unconstitutional as proven in the 12th...

 

to wit: "they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President,"

 

each elector has a separate vote, it should be counted, was my point

 

shall << this is not up to the state, it is enumerated in the constitution...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes it is..

 

all voting law is state law, except the const/12th...

 

voting is a states rights issue,

 

my point was it is unconstitutional as described in the 12th...

 

 

I think the way it is set up helps the GOP rather than the DNC.

 

For example in Texas, all of the major cities are deep blue, it's southern and western end is also blue, the fact the majority of the state lives in non-urban areas helps the GOP considerably in elections. If it were split just under half of the electoral votes in Texas would have gone to Obama. In CA and NY, the population of it's major cities are a different landscape, Obama would still have gotten--far and away I might add--the majority of the split vote in both States.

 

-NW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the way it is set up helps the GOP rather than the DNC.

 

For example in Texas, all of the major cities are deep blue, it's southern and western end is also blue, the fact the majority of the state lives in non-urban areas helps the GOP considerably in elections. If it were split just under half of the electoral votes in Texas would have gone to Obama. In CA and NY, the population of it's major cities are a different landscape, Obama would still have gotten--far and away I might add--the majority of the split vote in both States.

 

-NW

none of which was my point or the OP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the way it works in calif... now... with the libloons supermajority its "winner takes all"

 

when the right was running calif, it was split, obviously it is the way the libloons want it, because they are in charge and would change it if they didnt like it...

 

like they did redrawing districts, they took tom mc clintock from us.

 

He said it was our county that got him elected...

 

this is how the state of jefferson is taxed without representation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the difference between the winner-takes-all rule and proportional voting, and which states follow which rule?

The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state’s Electoral votes.

Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state’s system for proportional allocation of votes. For example, Maine has four Electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one Electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, “at-large” vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one Electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one Electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large Electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually happened.


How many times has the Vice President been chosen by the U.S. Senate?

Once. In the Presidential election of 1836, the election for Vice President was decided in the Senate. Martin Van Buren’s running mate, Richard M. Johnson, fell one vote short of a majority in the Electoral College. Vice Presidential candidates Francis Granger and Johnson had a “run-off” in the Senate under the 12th Amendment, where Johnson was elected 33 votes to 17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bachmann wants her followers armed and dangerous,.

palin wants her followers to take second amendment remedies

and target Democratic politicians.

 

So, shoot repukes. You will be absolved of your sins because

I am starting a new religion.

 

And you will get out of jail free if you have a lot of money to

bribe judges if you have "affluenza.".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we have the Electoral College?

The founding fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.”

Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.

Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the States as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process.

Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States.

What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College system?

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous” and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. Candidates with regional appeal such as Governor Thurmond in 1948 and Governor Wallace in 1968, won blocs of electoral votes in the South. Neither come close to seriously challenging the major party winner, but they may have affected the overall outcome of the election.

The last third party, or splinter party, candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (Progressive, also known as the Bull Moose Party). He finished a distant second in Electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win at the time). Although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any Electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any one state. Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote nationwide has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees (see the results of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 elections).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

according to the constitution... the states can choose how to select their electors.

 

 

.

 

all voting law is state law, except the const/12th...

 

voting is a states rights issue,

 

 

 

 

So according to your own logic, if a person qualifies for residency in a State .... the State can allow that person to vote regardless of Federal immigration status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So according to your own logic, if a person qualifies for residency in a State .... the State can allow that person to vote regardless of Federal immigration status.

you are too retarded to respond to, just look at the pretty pictures... and stfu

 

law school flunk out...

 

career student...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are too retarded to respond to, just look at the pretty pictures... and stfu

 

law school flunk out...

 

career student...

 

Oh! You just cut me to the core with your facts, logic, rationality, analysis, and philosophical insight. :rolleyes:

 

(Sticks & stones, Mister Gallows. Sticks & stones.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or just read the title "Constitutional right to vote ? 12th amendment ?"

 

or the first post...

 

or my point

 

my point was it is unconstitutional as proven in the 12th...

 

to wit: "they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President,"

 

each elector has a separate vote, it should be counted, was my point

 

shall << this is not up to the state, it is enumerated in the constitution...

the president doesnt pick the VP, the electors do

 

there is no constitutional right to vote, only the electoral college votes for pres and VP with separate votes, no mention of anyone running for pres or VP

 

it could have been biden prez, palin VP, manchelle prez, oblamer assistant community organdoner

 

whoever gets the most electoral votes wins, doesnt matter what the make believe popular vote decides.

 

 

what is really strange is we have no control over who the electors are, yet they decide which way our country goes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh! You just cut me to the core with your facts, logic, rationality, analysis, and philosophical insight. :rolleyes:

 

(Sticks & stones, Mister Gallows. Sticks & stones.)

I already told you to stick your strawman diversions up your azz, read the title, if its too far over your head and you want to divert to "illegal invader voting rights"

 

start a thread...

 

this thread is about "there is no such thing as a constitutional right to vote"

 

go ahead and debunk my claims... no one else can...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

typical conbaggers don't want anyone the right to vote unless its another conbagger .

why dont you go ax willfranklin why reid refused to put the background checks up to vote

 

will; "because he didnt have the votes to win"

 

like thats ok...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...