Advertisement

Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community around the world.

  • Faithless Electors and the Electoral College

    Posted by btomba_77 on August 21, 2019 at 3:29 pm

    [link=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/faithless-elector-court-ruling-just-changed-how-we-pick-our-n1044961?fbclid=IwAR2FrQjMb3C9M8Pzlgf-Yqja8WcR5HQN9FV0FNyDQs2K1GId3a5Y93jzYfc]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/faithless-elector-court-ruling-just-changed-how-we-pick-our-n1044961?fbclid=IwAR2FrQjMb3C9M8Pzlgf-Yqja8WcR5HQN9FV0FNyDQs2K1GId3a5Y93jzYfc[/link]
     
    Faithless elector: A court ruling just changed how we pick our president[/h1]  
     
    “A federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday that presidential electors who cast the actual ballots for president and vice president are free to vote as they wish and cannot be required to follow the results of the popular vote in their states.
     
     

     
     
    The decision, from a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, is a victory for Micheal Baca, a Colorado Democratic elector in 2016. Under state law, he was required to cast his ballot for Hillary Clinton, who won the state’s popular vote. Instead, he crossed out her name and wrote in John Kasich, a Republican and then the governor of Ohio.
    The secretary of state removed Baca as an elector, discarded his vote and brought in another elector who voted for Clinton. In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court said the nullification of Baca’s vote was unconstitutional.
     
    When voters go to the polls in presidential races, they actually cast their votes for a slate of electors chosen by the political parties of the nominees. States are free to choose their electors however they want, Tuesday’s ruling said, and can even require electors to pledge their loyalty to their political parties.
     
    But once the electors are chosen and report in December to cast their votes as members of the Electoral College, they are fulfilling a federal function, and a state’s authority has ended. “The states’ power to appoint electors does not include the power to remove them or nullify their votes,” the court said.
     
    Because the Constitution contains no requirement for electors to follow the wishes of a political party, “the electors, once appointed, are free to vote as they choose,” assuming that they cast their vote for a legally qualified candidate.
     
     

    kayla.meyer_144 replied 1 year, 11 months ago 9 Members · 44 Replies
  • 44 Replies
  • katiemckee84_223

    Member
    August 21, 2019 at 7:02 pm

    So, appointed electors (not elected by the people) can say, forget the vote of the people.
     
    Kasich wasn’t even a candidate, weird.
     
    Yay “democracy”
     
    Interesting history, though.

    • btomba_77

      Member
      August 21, 2019 at 7:35 pm

      Thats the way the constitution is written

      The Founding Fathers has a deep distrust of the will of the people

      • kayla.meyer_144

        Member
        August 21, 2019 at 8:06 pm

        A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

        • kaldridgewv2211

          Member
          August 22, 2019 at 7:21 am

          Wonder how often this happens.  Also if you have the name of the elector this person should be tarred, feathered, and shunned.

          • kayla.meyer_144

            Member
            August 22, 2019 at 7:38 am

            Disagree. The Founders viewed the electors as independent, free to vote as they saw best. Parties did not exist at the time the Constitution was written and the Court rightly voted that the Federal concern of Federal elections overruled state limits and rules requiring electors to vote a single way. If that was true there is no need for electors, just assign points.
             
            The problem was writing in someone who was not running. That is the problem. 
             

             
             

          • btomba_77

            Member
            August 22, 2019 at 8:08 am

            Quote from DICOM_Dan

            Wonder how often this happens.  Also if you have the name of the elector this person should be tarred, feathered, and shunned.

            The whole point of the suit was that the constitution is written the way the Founding fathers wanted… they wanted the electors making the decision, not the populace.
             
            We can go and change the constitution if we want … but for now it is totally legal.
             
             
            (a friend of my happens to be the lawyer working pro-bono for the faithless elector … he did great work to get to this ruling)

            • kayla.meyer_144

              Member
              August 22, 2019 at 10:36 am

              Interesting history for faithless electors.
               
              [link=https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electors]https://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electors[/link]
               

              “Faithless Electors” are members of the Electoral College who, for whatever reason, do not vote for their party’s designated candidate.

              Since the founding of the Electoral College, there have been 167 faithless electors. 71 of these votes were changed because the original candidate died before the day on which the Electoral College cast its votes. 29 electors chose to abstain or cast an abnormal vote (for example, switch the president and vice presidential candidates) rather than vote for their party’s nominee. The other 67 electoral votes represent electors casting their votes for a different candidate on their own initiative.

              Sometimes electors change their votes in large groups, such as when 23 Virginia electors acted together in 1836. Many times, however, these electors stood alone in their decisions. As of the 2016 election, no elector has changed the outcome of an election by voting against his or her partys designated candidate.

              Despite these 167 faithless votes, and a Supreme Court ruling allowing states to empower political parties to require formal pledges from presidential electors (Ray v. Blair, 343 US 214), as well as state-level precedent upholding [link=https://excessofdemocracy.com/blog/2019/5/washington-state-supreme-court-upholds-fines-for-2016-faithless-electors]fines for deviant votes[/link], 20 states still do not require their members of the Electoral College to vote for their party’s designated candidate.

              [link=http://www.fairvote.org/faithless_elector_state_laws]The 30 states (plus the District of Columbia)[/link] that require faithfulness issue a small variety of rarely enforced punishments for faithless electors, including fines and misdemeanors, and in some cases cancel the deviant votes and replace the electors.
               
              2016 – Eight Democratic Electors and Two Republican Electors Although it did not impact the outcome, the 2016 election between Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton included an [link=http://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electors_fizzle]abnormally high number of electors breaking with their political party[/link] and casting a deviant vote for President. The Democratic electors were David Bright (ME – Bernie Sanders), Muhammad Abdurrahman (MN – Bernie Sanders), Michael Baca (CO – John Kasich), Esther John (WA – Colin Powell), Levi Guerra (WA – Colin Powell), Bret Chiafalo (WA – Colin Powell), Robert Satiacum (WA – Faith Spotted Eagle), and David Mulinix (HI – Bernie Sanders). The two Republican electors were Chris Suprun (TX – John Kasich) and Bill Greene (TX – Ron Paul).

              Additionally, one Texas Republican elector, Art Sisneros, withdrew after Election Day but prior to the vote of the electors and was replaced. The three electors from Maine, Minnesota, and Colorado were replaced following their deviant votes, so their votes were not reported in the final count. A total of 7 votes were counted for candidates other than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, so rather than the expected outcome of Trump 306 to Clinton 232, the final tally was Trump 304, Clinton 227, Others 7.
               
              1836 – Twenty-three Democratic Electors The Democratic Party nominated Richard M. Johnson of Kentucky as their vice presidential candidate. The 23 electors from Virginia refused to support Johnson with their votes upon learning of the allegation that he had lived with an African American woman.
               
              1796 – Samuel Miles (Federalist, Pennsylvania) Samuel Miles, of Pennsylvania, was the first elector to break a pledge to vote for a specific candidate. Miles had promised to vote for Federalist candidate John Adams, but instead cast a ballot for Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson.

              While Miles did not affect the outcome of the electionJefferson still lost by three electoral voteshis decision still earns him a dubious spot in the history votes, and the ire of many Pennsylvanians as the following letter, published in the Gazette of the United States, attests: “What, do I choose Samuel Miles to determine for me whether John Adams or Thomas Jefferson shall be president? No! I choose him to act, not to think.”

               
               
               
               
               

      • katiemckee84_223

        Member
        August 22, 2019 at 6:20 pm

        Quote from dergon

        Thats the way the constitution is written

        The Founding Fathers has a deep distrust of the will of the people

         
        Yes, which is why the electoral college exists. Also the Senate.

        • btomba_77

          Member
          March 9, 2020 at 3:37 pm

          Oral argument is set at the Supreme Court for Tuesday, April 28 at 10 am.
           
           
          Larry Lessig will argue for the faithless electors. (My friend who works on the case says he is the *best* possible choice… Apparently Scalia would take 1 liberal clerk every year.  Larry Lessig was one…. the SCOTUS arguments are said to be targeted in originalism in order to win over the conservative majority)

          • katiemckee84_223

            Member
            March 9, 2020 at 7:32 pm

            So let’s get this straight, you are for more bureaucrats deciding what they want to do, expressly against the will of the people. Like the unelected guys in the deep state
             
            It’s interesting how you jump back and forth on these issues. You can’t claim “democracy” over and over again, then do your best to disregard whatever that term means when you happen to lose. It’s actually quite funny it’s so blatant.

            • btomba_77

              Member
              July 6, 2020 at 7:27 am

              Unanimous ruling … SCOTUS wants no part in being blamed for electoral college chaos –
               
               
               
              [link=https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-faithless-electors-ruling-66baa307-8a6b-41ea-a087-c8ddb747a435.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100]https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-…m_content=1100[/link]
              [h1]Supreme Court rules states can penalize faithless electors[/h1] The Supreme Court unanimously [link=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf]ruled[/link] Monday that states can penalize faithless electors, the members of the Electoral College who do not support the winner of their state’s popular vote in a presidential election.

              Why it matters: The 2016 presidential election saw 10 electors vote for someone other than their state’s chosen candidate highlighting how faithless electors could have the potential to swing an election.
              [ul][*]32 states and Washington, D.C. [link=https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-electoral-college-popular-vote-f23ea122-b2c8-4bfb-ba41-c2cf9a503f88.html]require their electors[/link] to cast their Electoral College votes for the winner of their respective statewide popular vote.[*]Before 2016, a modern presidential election had never seen more than one faithless elector prompting states to move ahead with their legal challenge. [/ul] What they’re saying: “A State follows in the same tradition if, like Washington, it chooses to sanction an elector for breaching his promise. Then too, the State instructs its electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote on the court’s ruling.

              The big picture: During oral arguments before the court last month, Colorado’s attorney general argued that a loss by the states could “occasion a constitutional crisis,” [link=https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/politics/electoral-college-faithless-electors-supreme-court/index.html]per CNN[/link].
              [ul][*]The justices also expressed worries that ruling against the states could lead to wide-scale bribing of members of the Electoral College with little to no recourse.[*]Representatives for the electors had argued that the Constitution “requires that presidential electors be free to cast votes without interference or sanction.” [/ul] The bottom line: With the Electoral College already taking heat from both parties, the ruling doesn’t upend the status quo, granting voters’ peace of mind to know that electors will follow through with their wishes.

              [link=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6981489-19-465-i425.html]Read the ruling[/link].
               

              • clickpenguin_460

                Member
                July 6, 2020 at 8:28 am

                Seems like an easy ruling there.

              • kayla.meyer_144

                Member
                July 6, 2020 at 10:36 am

                More and more reasons why we do NOT require an Electoral College to elect a president.

                • clickpenguin_460

                  Member
                  July 6, 2020 at 12:44 pm

                  It’s required by the Constitution.  It’s not required by other governments/government systems.  
                   
                  It’s not a good way to do it, but it’s better than all of the other ways people have come up with so far.  What’s your idea?

                  • kayla.meyer_144

                    Member
                    July 6, 2020 at 1:49 pm

                    Election. Just an election. Popular vote.

                    • clickpenguin_460

                      Member
                      July 6, 2020 at 2:10 pm

                      Would you say the same if the most populous states were Republican ones?  Kerry would have won with the EC and without the popular vote had it not been for Ohio.
                       
                      The issue is that we are a Republic of 50 states formed by a union of the original 13 colonies.  As I’ve mentioned before, those states made deals to ensure rough equality in representation, the EC and the split between the way the houses of Congress are represented are the main deals.
                       
                      Do you really want to live in a country where only ~ 5 states and ~20 metro areas matter and dictate the election(s) of the whole country?  If we dropped the EC, there would also be 10+ new political parties overnight and we would see a President win with ~ 20% of the vote similar to the elections in France.  Is that better?
                       
                      Again, I’m not defending the system we have as being the best but it’s certainly better than a strict popular vote.  Our country wasn’t designed as a straight democracy anyway.  If you want that you’ll have to move elsewhere or change the Constitution.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      July 6, 2020 at 2:21 pm

                      The short answer is YES! 
                       
                      We have enough gamesmanship in elections like Gerrymandering and voter suppression.
                       
                      Do I support gerrymandering in Democratic states?
                       
                      NO! 
                       
                      Do I support voter suppression against Republican voters?
                       
                      NO!
                       
                      The elections should be as neutral as possible without interference and putting the finger on the scales by either party. I really do not support artificial handicapping especially by unethical means. & I do consider gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts as unethical.
                       
                      That’s called rigging elections. They do things like that in dictatorships and 3rd world countries. And yes, we have that tradition too but it’s about time that election rigging gets a well deserved firing squad.
                       
                      Too many games with these questions. You are arguing that you would place your finger on the scale if it helped your candidates.

                    • btomba_77

                      Member
                      November 1, 2020 at 1:14 pm

                      [link=http://utecs.org/wp-content/uploads/DisputedElectionRisk.pdf]http://utecs.org/wp-content/uploads/DisputedElectionRisk.pdf[/link]

                      Another reason to consider abolishing the Electoral College —

                      [b]The Probability of Narrow, Reversible Election Results in the Electoral College versus a National Popular Vote[/b]

                      {T}he Electoral College today is about 40 times as likely as a National Popular Vote to generate scenarios in which a small number of ballots in a pivotal voting unit determines the presidency. This disputed-election risk is asymmetric across political parties. It is about twice as likely that a Democratic (rather than Republican) Electoral College victory in a close election could be overturned by a judicial decision affecting fewer than 1,000, 5,000, or 10,000 ballots in a single, pivotal state.[/QUOTE]

                    • jennycullmann

                      Member
                      November 2, 2020 at 6:31 am

                      dergon:
                       
                      Another reason to show you why we are losers and just complain about losing.
                       
                      When you can’t win, abolish the system! LOL

                    • btomba_77

                      Member
                      November 5, 2020 at 3:39 pm

                      [link=https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status/1324406883600506880]https://twitter.com/markl…us/1324406883600506880[/link]
                       
                       
                       
                      Mark Levin:  REMINDER TO THE REPUBLICAN STATE LEGISLATURES, YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY OVER THE CHOOSING OF ELECTORS, NOT ANY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, SECRETARY OF STATE, GOVERNOR, OR EVEN COURT. YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY — ARTICLE II OF THE FED CONSTITUTION. SO, GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY
                       
                       
                      nice to see how quickly we got to the “ALL CAPS overturn the will of the people” phase of this election.

                    • kathleen.hibler

                      Member
                      November 6, 2020 at 5:28 am

                      Nevada and Arizona have faithless elector laws, so its kind of a moot point if he holds there.

  • btomba_77

    Member
    November 8, 2020 at 1:06 pm

    [h2][link=https://politicalwire.com/2020/11/08/the-country-got-less-democratic-in-this-election/]The Republican Advantage in the Electoral College Grew In This Election[/link][/h2]  
     
    One way to understand the implications is to identify the [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping-point_state]tipping point state[/link] of the 2020 election. The tipping point state is the first state, when all states are arranged in decreasing order of their vote margins for the ultimate winner, that gives the winning candidate a majority of electoral votes.
     
    Although the final numbers may fluctuate in the coming days, that state right now is Wisconsin, which Joe Biden won by a 0.6 percentage point margin.
     
    When you compare Bidens margin in Wisconsin to Bidens national victory margin of roughly 4 to 5 percentage points, that means the pro-Republican bias in the Electoral College has grown since 2016. In other words, the Democratic presidential candidate now must win the popular vote by 4 to 5 percentage points to have a chance at winning the election. Thats up from about 3 percentage points four years ago.
     

    • kayla.meyer_144

      Member
      November 9, 2020 at 8:19 am

      Discussions by Republicans to use faithless electors to reverse the votes in their states in order to re-elect TRump.
       
      [link=https://nypost.com/2020/11/05/faithless-electors-could-keep-trump-in-the-white-house/]https://nypost.com/2020/1…mp-in-the-white-house/[/link]

      • clickpenguin_460

        Member
        November 9, 2020 at 10:18 am

        I really hope they don’t even try that.
         
        I stand firm on no norm and rule changing no matter which party it is.

        • kayla.meyer_144

          Member
          November 9, 2020 at 10:22 am

          I don’t think so but the fact that it is being discussed as a remedy is very worrying about no rules existing. It would be legal after all, the low bar for all sorts of abuse.

          • clickpenguin_460

            Member
            November 9, 2020 at 10:24 am

            Yeah I’m going to put it in the same bag as court-packing and that other stuff and hope it’s just partisan rhetoric.
             
             

            • kayla.meyer_144

              Member
              November 9, 2020 at 10:35 am

              Court packing was 99-44/100% never going to happen. Only unless the Court kept striking down moderate attempts to legislate by Democrats in numerous examples over a couple of years.
               
              And without the Senate this is a dead letter regardless.

              • clickpenguin_460

                Member
                November 9, 2020 at 10:48 am

                I would say the same about the faithless electors.

                • kayla.meyer_144

                  Member
                  November 9, 2020 at 10:57 am

                  Likely yes. But it is now on the table too when it never was before. Before it was dismissed as faithlessness in democracy, now it can be a strategy to be examined. The justification being the Founders saw it as a means to prevent a bad president elected by an ignorant majority from taking office. The Federalist #68 makes a case for “faithless electors” as being good for the republic. Unfortunately the Founders were näive in their outlook to the future, being opposed to & not seeing the formation of parties, for example.

                  • clickpenguin_460

                    Member
                    November 9, 2020 at 12:19 pm

                    Yes, I think we both agree that route would be bad for the country as it is currently constructed.

                  • jennycullmann

                    Member
                    November 9, 2020 at 4:33 pm

                    Quote from Frumious

                    Likely yes. But it is now on the table too when it never was before. Before it was dismissed as faithlessness in democracy, now it can be a strategy to be examined. The justification being the Founders saw it as a means to prevent a bad president elected by an ignorant majority from taking office. The Federalist #68 makes a case for “faithless electors” as being good for the republic. Unfortunately the Founders were näive in their outlook to the future, being opposed to & not seeing the formation of parties, for example.

                     
                    They didn’t have women voting to start, one of the differences in your point.

                    • btomba_77

                      Member
                      November 14, 2020 at 7:11 am

                       
                       
                      [link=https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-legislature-pennsylvania-b199b2debc87fbb20612a48835bc0dba]https://apnews.com/articl…87fbb20612a48835bc0dba[/link]
                      GOP leaders in 4 states quash dubious Trump bid on electors[/h1]

                      Republican leaders in four critical states won by President-elect Joe Biden say they wont participate in a legally dubious scheme to flip their states electors to vote for President Donald Trump. Their comments effectively shut down a half-baked plot some Republicans floated as a last chance to keep Trump in the White House.
                       
                      State GOP lawmakers in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have all said they would not intervene in the selection of electors, who ultimately cast the votes that secure a candidates victory. Such a move would violate state law and a vote of the people, several noted.
                      I do not see, short of finding some type of fraud which I havent heard of anything I dont see us in any serious way addressing a change in electors, said Rusty Bowers, Arizonas Republican House speaker, who says hes been inundated with emails pleading for the legislature to intervene. They are mandated by statute to choose according to the vote of the people.
                       
                      The idea loosely involves GOP-controlled legislatures dismissing Bidens popular vote wins in their states and opting to select Trump electors. While the endgame was unclear, it appeared to hinge on the expectation that a conservative-leaning Supreme Court would settle any dispute over the move.

                    • jennycullmann

                      Member
                      November 14, 2020 at 6:46 pm

                      How long before Kamala is inserted, given your belief that Trump won’t be president after all this? LOL
                       
                      quid pro Joe

                    • btomba_77

                      Member
                      January 6, 2021 at 11:27 am

                      [b]Electoral College Challenge May Backfire on Republicans[/b][/h1]  
                       
                      [link=https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/06/gop-electoral-college-challenge-backfire-455204]Politico[/link]: The entire episode may make a powerful argument for abandoning the institution that makes Republicans competitive in presidential elections in the first place the Electoral College.
                       
                      Given the stakes, inadvertently delegitimizing the Electoral College would seem counterintuitive. To some Republicans, its nuts.

                       

                    • jennycullmann

                      Member
                      January 6, 2021 at 6:21 pm

                      Haha, then secession will definitely occur.
                       
                      There’s no way out now, the establishment is getting a dose of their own medicine. Be very careful, since you are scared now. As you should be.

                    • cpmolnar

                      Member
                      January 6, 2021 at 6:51 pm

                      Quote from Casino Royale

                      Haha, then secession will definitely occur.

                      There’s no way out now, the establishment is getting a dose of their own medicine. Be very careful, since you are scared now. As you should be.

                       
                      Fùck off back to 8kun cigar

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      January 6, 2021 at 6:57 pm

                      Cabinet talking about 25th Amendment

                    • Unknown Member

                      Deleted User
                      January 6, 2021 at 7:00 pm

                      And by the way

                      Someone owes me 1500$

  • btomba_77

    Member
    January 8, 2021 at 4:02 pm

    [h1][b]Wisconsin GOP Seeks  Electoral Vote Allocation by Congressional District[/b][/h1]  
    Wisconsin Republicans have a bill to reallocate the states electoral votes by congressional district, the [link=https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2021/01/08/gop-eyes-bill-to-reallocate-wisconsins-electoral-votes-by-congressional-district/]Wisconsin Examiner[/link] reports.
     
    If this method had been used in the 2020 election instead of winner-take-all, Donald Trump would have receive 6 of the states 10 electoral votes.
     

    • kayla.meyer_144

      Member
      January 8, 2021 at 4:25 pm

      Gerrymandering under a different scenario.
       
      Let’s just dump the College someday soon.
       
       

      • btomba_77

        Member
        February 28, 2021 at 1:39 pm

        [link=https://lawandcrime.com/politics/north-dakota-senate-passes-bill-to-hide-future-presidential-vote-counts-from-public-view-until-after-electoral-college-meets/amp/?__twitter_impression=true]Law & Crime[/link] 
         
        [h1]North Dakota Senate Passes Bill to Hide Future Presidential Vote Counts From Public View Until After Electoral College Meets[/h1]

        [A] public officer, employee, or contractor of this state or of a political subdivision of this state may not release to the public the number of votes cast in the general election for the office of the president of the United States until after the times set by law for the meetings and votes of the presidential electors in all states, the [link=https://www.legis.nd.gov/lcn/council/billtracking/viewbill/enhancedBillView.htm?enhlcNumber=620893d35e625d17c54371507484047f&view=P]bill states[/link]. After the votes for presidential electors are canvassed, the secretary of state may release the percentage of statewide votes cast for each set of presidential electors to the nearest hundredth of a percentage point, a list of presidential candidates in order of increasing or decreasing percentage of the vote received by presidential electors selected by the candidates, and the presidential candidate whose electors received the highest percentage of votes.
         
        The bill is designed to prevent implementation of the national [link=https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/colorado-likely-to-enact-law-giving-electoral-college-votes-to-popular-vote-winner/]popular vote compact[/link]  a multi-state agreement aimed at circumventing the Electoral College.
         
        This Act becomes effective upon certification by the secretary of state to the legislative council of the adoption and enactment of substantially the same form of the national popular vote interstate compact has been adopted and enacted by a number of states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral college votes, the bill states.

        [/QUOTE]
         

  • btomba_77

    Member
    July 30, 2022 at 11:23 am

    Don’t I wish …

    [b]Democrats Are Dangerously Close To Changing Laws So Our President Is Elected By Popular Vote[/b]
    From the conservative website, [link=https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/28/democrats-are-dangerously-close-to-changing-laws-so-our-president-is-elected-by-popular-vote/]The Federalist[/link].
     

    • kayla.meyer_144

      Member
      July 30, 2022 at 4:54 pm

      But precisely what Conservatives/Repulicans are worried scared sick about.