WELCOME TO RIVER DAVES PLACE

Oregon governor signs bill granting state's electoral votes to national popular vote winner

USMC2010

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
2,877
Reaction score
3,471
ttps://www.cnn.com/2019/06/12/politics/oregon-joins-national-popular-vote-compact/index.html

Oregon Democratic Gov. Kate Brown signed a bill Wednesday that would grant the state's electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote, her office confirmed.

Oregon is the 15th state to join the National Popular State compact, an agreement established by each participating states' laws to put its electoral votes toward the winner of the national popular vote, instead of the state's own popular vote. The compact will only go into effect if the cumulative total of the states' electoral votes surpasses the 270 necessary for a majority, which would require states that voted for President Donald Trump in 2016 to sign on.

Still, Brown thanked the bill's grassroots supporters for helping bring the "critical and necessary reform to Oregon," citing "how important it is about increasing voter turnout" and helping "every single voter to realize that their vote really made a difference."


Brown argued that the measure would help shift the 2020 presidential election conversation to Oregon, which is not one of the early battleground states attracting Democratic hopefuls eager to pin down crucial primary votes.

"I think it will encourage candidates to spend more time in states like ours, candidates who are running for president speaking directly to our voters," she added. "I think it will help encourage them to talk about issues that. ...Orgeonians care more about. And I think it's really important for Oregon to be part of the national conversation regarding the presidential election"


There's one thing Democrats need if they want to break the Electoral College
Oregon's seven electoral votes push the running total to 196. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia have all joined the pact.

The state House passed the measure last week, after the state Senate passed it in April. Brown has consistently backed the bill, with her support of a national popular vote dating back to her time as secretary of state.

John Koza, chairman of National Popular Vote, Inc. -- the group that is backing the effort -- maintained that the measure would benefit Oregon voters.

"National Popular Vote significantly amplifies and empowers Oregon, and the voice of every Oregon voter in electing a president," Koza said in a statement. "Everyone's vote will count directly towards their choice for president. This is the constitutionally conservative answer to the question of how we make every voter politically relevant in every presidential election while preserving the Electoral College."

The proposal has experienced varying results in different states. After a similar bill was passed in the Maine Senate in May, the state's House voted against it -- and then passed an amended version Wednesdaythat would have to be reconsidered by the Senate in order to advance. Nevada Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak opted last month to veto his state's bill granting electoral votes to the national popular vote winner that had passed both the state Senate and Assembly.

The Electoral College effectively results in voters casting ballots not for their desired presidential candidates, but for 538 electors who in turn select candidates. The mechanism clinched Trump the 2016 presidential victory despite Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.

And the issue has already reached the 2020 race. Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warrensaid during a CNN town hall in March that she supported doing away with the electoral college.

"My view is that every vote matters, and the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting and that means get rid of the Electoral College -- and every vote counts," the Massachusetts senator said. Other candidates have since taken up the same position
 

spectras only

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
11,096
Reaction score
7,807
I think the only way to save the US from these democrat's undoing the electoral vote system would be to form a third party system.There are a large part of the demographic who gave up and not voting for the right cause, tired of choosing between democrats and republicans only.
 

USMC2010

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
2,877
Reaction score
3,471
If this is what they want then it should be voted by the people, not enacted by the legislature. It frightens me how many people are so willing to absolve states rights and accept nationalism.
 

squeezer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
5,616
Reaction score
2,531
I thought you all were staunch "States Rights" advocates...???
 

RCDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
8,832
Reaction score
13,400
The Republic is dying. Democracy has never worked well anywhere in history. Sad the greatest nation ever on this plant will be going down mob rule government
 

RodnJen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
9,830
Reaction score
5,316
I think the only way to save the US from these democrat's undoing the electoral vote system would be to form a third party system.There are a large part of the demographic who gave up and not voting for the right cause, tired of choosing between democrats and republicans only.
You first. :D
 

USMC2010

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
2,877
Reaction score
3,471
Let's say candidate A. wins the state by 90% but candidate B. wins the popular vote in a nation wide count. How is it serving the people of your state by giving the votes to B? It's really that simple.
 

Old Texan

Honorary Warden #377 Emeritus - R.I.P.
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
24,479
Reaction score
25,949
When O won office, all we heard was how the R's would never win again. Big Don showed that to be bullshit. Now the losing whiners/haters want to change the rules to favor their attempts to gather votes from the dead, illegals, incarcerated criminals, 12 year olds, and any other group they feel they can sway to vote "stupid":rolleyes:
 

Old Texan

Honorary Warden #377 Emeritus - R.I.P.
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
24,479
Reaction score
25,949
Let's say candidate A. wins the state by 90% but candidate B. wins the popular vote in a nation wide count. How is it serving the people of your state by giving the votes to B? It's really that simple.
Pretty much exactly how it'll work. The liberal urban shitholes will control the end result.....:(:mad:
 

RVR SWPR

Almost Off the Grid
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
7,649
Reaction score
9,316
LoL,another Perceived Victory.MT as usual.Right up there with Hope Hicks talking to investigators will bring down President Trump. :)
 

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
15,370
Reaction score
12,576
If this is what they want then it should be voted by the people, not enacted by the legislature. It frightens me how many people are so willing to absolve states rights and accept nationalism.
I am and you are missing the point. The people didn't vote for this and the legislature is leading them down a path of giving up their rights. The fact you can't see this is troubling.
The original intent of the founding fathers and the electoral college was gutted by the 12th amendment.

But let's stick with your valid concern of letting elected representatives make choices for people.

Following this concern, should abortion laws be put to a vote of the people as opposed to being allowed to be passed by legislators? Should the right for someone to enjoy the financial benefits of marriage to whomever they choose be put to a vote by the people in each state as opposed to being made by elected legislators? And the list can go on and on.

Where does an elected legislature and governor rights start and stop? Who draws that line?
 

USMC2010

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
2,877
Reaction score
3,471
The original intent of the founding fathers and the electoral college was gutted by the 12th amendment.

But let's stick with your valid concern of letting elected representatives make choices for people.

Following this concern, should abortion laws be put to a vote of the people as opposed to being allowed to be passed by legislators? Should the right for someone to enjoy the financial benefits of marriage to whomever they choose be put to a vote by the people in each state as opposed to being made by elected legislators? And the list can go on and on.

Where does an elected legislature and governor rights start and stop? Who draws that line?
This is not an abortion conversation, carry on.
 

spectras only

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2007
Messages
11,096
Reaction score
7,807
You first. :D
I'll do my best to get rid of Trudeau's liberals:p:) We have an even bigger problem in my province with the NDP/Green party annihilating businesses in British Columbia. Bloody imbeciles:mad:
 

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
15,370
Reaction score
12,576
This is not an abortion conversation, carry on.

Fine, pick the topic that legislatures have domain over.

Although I disagree with the 15 states undertaking this agenda, it seems consistent with how both parties use their majorities in elected legislatures to get their way.

I'm just trying to understand why this is any different than when legislatures all over the country use their majorities to jam down the throats of ciitzens their particular social or religious beliefs.

Why is this any more concerning than the myriad of other issues of abuse by the slimmest of majorities over the rest of a population.

I get this is bullshit, what I don't get is why people are fine with such bullshit when it gets them their way?
 

USMC2010

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2014
Messages
2,877
Reaction score
3,471
The 12th amendment did not gut the electoral college, it created a solution to a problem that happened once 175 years ago.
My list of issues related is long and all related to government overreach and every one deserving it's own conversations. I know you have trouble staying in topic so try harder. How is this a good thing and at what point of the federalism of this nation ignoring individual states is enough?
 

530RL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
15,370
Reaction score
12,576
The 12th amendment did not gut the electoral college, it created a solution to a problem that happened once 175 years ago.
My list of issues related is long and all related to government overreach and every one deserving it's own conversations. I know you have trouble staying in topic so try harder. How is this a good thing and at what point of the federalism of this nation ignoring individual states is enough?

The 12th amendment changed the way electoral votes were cast and let electoral voters split their president and vice president votes and bring parties into power, something the founding fathers wanted to minimize. Had the 12th not happened, each electoral voter would get two votes, and the president and vice president would be the 1st and 2nd vote recipients creating an executive branch more consistent with the will of the voters as opposed to a single party executive branch.

With respect to this issue, although I disagree with both the 12th amendment and the move to tie electoral votes to the national popular vote, there is nothing in this venture that is inconsistent with the constitution as currently written as states have the right to freely choose, and in Oregon's case, the elected legislature and elected governor did so just as elected legislatures and governors do all over the country every day on a myriad of topics.

My point remains consistent. All of this is government over-reach, and this is just another example. It's just some people think over-reach is cool when they are getting their way.
 

regor

Political Whack Job
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
26,679
Reaction score
62,050
Fine, pick the topic that legislatures have domain over.

Although I disagree with the 15 states undertaking this agenda, it seems consistent with how both parties use their majorities in elected legislatures to get their way.

I'm just trying to understand why this is any different than when legislatures all over the country use their majorities to jam down the throats of ciitzens their particular social or religious beliefs.

Why is this any more concerning than the myriad of other issues of abuse by the slimmest of majorities over the rest of a population.

I get this is bullshit, what I don't get is why people are fine with such bullshit when it gets them their way?
Valid point.

The R's should learn to fight fire with fire because nice guys finish last. The D's are ruthless and R's should be also.



Sincerely,

President Trump
aka Winner :)
 

t&y

t&y
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
12,650
Reaction score
17,572
Let's say candidate A. wins the state by 90% but candidate B. wins the popular vote in a nation wide count. How is it serving the people of your state by giving the votes to B? It's really that simple.
Wow... wow... wow..... That makes too much sense. Apologize to the Libtards right now!
 

squeezer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
5,616
Reaction score
2,531
Let's say candidate H. wins the vote 65,845,63 to candidate D's 62,980,160. How is it serving the people by giving the presidency to D? It's really that simple.

It really IS that simple...
 

regor

Political Whack Job
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
26,679
Reaction score
62,050
It really IS that simple...
Not when Candidate H's states allow illegal aliens to acquire driver licenses and turn a blind eye to rampant voter fraud.

It really IS that simple



Trump may win every state the way you morons are playing this. :)
 

RCDave

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
8,832
Reaction score
13,400
Not when Candidate H's states allow illegal aliens to acquire driver licenses and turn a blind eye to rampant voter fraud.

It really IS that simple



Trump may win every state the way you morons are playing this. :)
Unrealistic Reg.....There are just too many dumb voters that can be herded like brainless sheep....
 

t&y

t&y
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
12,650
Reaction score
17,572
Unrealistic Reg.....There are just too many dumb voters that can be herded like brainless sheep....
He might actually be on to something. Think of how may Californians simply don't vote because they figure it's already established. I'd wager there are far more Republicans that don't bother than the Libturds.
 

squeezer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
5,616
Reaction score
2,531
One person one vote... pretty simple.

Mandatory voter registration, Election Day is a national holiday... Let’s shoot for 100% voter participation.

Along with this let’s make sure voter fraud both direct and otherwise is a priority.

I am 100% OK with accepting the results of a functioning Democracy.
 

Old Texan

Honorary Warden #377 Emeritus - R.I.P.
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
24,479
Reaction score
25,949
He might actually be on to something. Think of how may Californians simply don't vote because they figure it's already established. I'd wager there are far more Republicans that don't bother than the Libturds.
Problem is, D/Liberals replace their absent voters with dead and illegal/ineligible, plus those finding a way to vote in multiple precincts:(
 

regor

Political Whack Job
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
26,679
Reaction score
62,050
ttps://www.cnn.com/2019/06/12/politics/oregon-joins-national-popular-vote-compact/index.html

Oregon Democratic Gov. Kate Brown signed a bill Wednesday that would grant the state's electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote, her office confirmed.

Oregon is the 15th state to join the National Popular State compact, an agreement established by each participating states' laws to put its electoral votes toward the winner of the national popular vote, instead of the state's own popular vote. The compact will only go into effect if the cumulative total of the states' electoral votes surpasses the 270 necessary for a majority, which would require states that voted for President Donald Trump in 2016 to sign on.

Still, Brown thanked the bill's grassroots supporters for helping bring the "critical and necessary reform to Oregon," citing "how important it is about increasing voter turnout" and helping "every single voter to realize that their vote really made a difference."


Brown argued that the measure would help shift the 2020 presidential election conversation to Oregon, which is not one of the early battleground states attracting Democratic hopefuls eager to pin down crucial primary votes.

"I think it will encourage candidates to spend more time in states like ours, candidates who are running for president speaking directly to our voters," she added. "I think it will help encourage them to talk about issues that. ...Orgeonians care more about. And I think it's really important for Oregon to be part of the national conversation regarding the presidential election"


There's one thing Democrats need if they want to break the Electoral College
Oregon's seven electoral votes push the running total to 196. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia have all joined the pact.

The state House passed the measure last week, after the state Senate passed it in April. Brown has consistently backed the bill, with her support of a national popular vote dating back to her time as secretary of state.

John Koza, chairman of National Popular Vote, Inc. -- the group that is backing the effort -- maintained that the measure would benefit Oregon voters.

"National Popular Vote significantly amplifies and empowers Oregon, and the voice of every Oregon voter in electing a president," Koza said in a statement. "Everyone's vote will count directly towards their choice for president. This is the constitutionally conservative answer to the question of how we make every voter politically relevant in every presidential election while preserving the Electoral College."

The proposal has experienced varying results in different states. After a similar bill was passed in the Maine Senate in May, the state's House voted against it -- and then passed an amended version Wednesdaythat would have to be reconsidered by the Senate in order to advance. Nevada Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak opted last month to veto his state's bill granting electoral votes to the national popular vote winner that had passed both the state Senate and Assembly.

The Electoral College effectively results in voters casting ballots not for their desired presidential candidates, but for 538 electors who in turn select candidates. The mechanism clinched Trump the 2016 presidential victory despite Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.

And the issue has already reached the 2020 race. Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warrensaid during a CNN town hall in March that she supported doing away with the electoral college.

"My view is that every vote matters, and the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting and that means get rid of the Electoral College -- and every vote counts," the Massachusetts senator said. Other candidates have since taken up the same position
That map is fake news.

The Nevada libturd Governor vetoed the bill.

Maine also hasn't passed a bill yet.
 

regor

Political Whack Job
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
26,679
Reaction score
62,050
One person one vote... pretty simple.

Mandatory voter registration, Election Day is a national holiday... Let’s shoot for 100% voter participation.

Along with this let’s make sure voter fraud both direct and otherwise is a priority.

I am 100% OK with accepting the results of a functioning Democracy.
There you go again, pandering to rampant voter fraud in Blue states influencing national elections.

Again..................it really IS that simple!


 

squeezer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
5,616
Reaction score
2,531
There you go again pandering to rampant voter fraud in Blue states influencing national elections.

Again..................it really IS that simple!
Read the next line there sparky...

If we believe fraud is a problem let’s solve that problem. I believe an uneducated, uninterested, disfranchised electorate is the problem...

100% of legal voters is the goal...

I will live with those results, will you?
 

94Nautique

Once Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
7,985
Reaction score
13,301
They keep doing shit like this, and average conservatives who see no point in general elections (full democrat state owned by the public employee unions) will change their mind and possibly take their states back.

Unless, the left keeps backing unfettered illegal immigration, no ID check for voting, mail in voting, and dead people voting...ooops, they already do.

Hoping folks wake up, its a fucking coup.
 

regor

Political Whack Job
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
26,679
Reaction score
62,050
Read the next line there sparky...

If we believe fraud is a problem let’s solve that problem. I believe an uneducated, uninterested, disfranchised electorate is the problem...

100% of legal voters is the goal...

I will live with those results, will you?
Yea I read it. So we're to believe the guberment will be honest when ensuring only legal citizens will make up that 100%?

Hell, half of them can't let go of a Russian collusion lie, yet we're suppose to believe you and your party?

LMAO hand over mouth .gif
 

94Nautique

Once Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
7,985
Reaction score
13,301
Read the next line there sparky...

If we believe fraud is a problem let’s solve that problem. I believe an uneducated, uninterested, disfranchised electorate is the problem...

100% of legal voters is the goal...

I will live with those results, will you?
LOL, the dead vote is still at 98% democrat, they alone will outvote anyone to fix this problem. Illegal aliens, the answer to all that ails democrats. Namely, that they have no ideas, especially any that work, and they love to have power over folks to keep them as victims.

Do it for the daughters (see, that's victim-hood and you cant even fucking see it.)
 

pronstar

President, Dallas Chapter
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
Messages
29,654
Reaction score
27,000
I can’t wait for this to completely backfire in their faces if/when it tilts EC votes in favor of a conservative candidate.

Why on earth a state would potentially relinquish the will of their own voters is beyond comprehension.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

squeezer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
5,616
Reaction score
2,531
Yea I read it. So we're to believe the guberment will be honest when ensuring only legal citizens will make up that 100%?

Hell, half of them can't let go of a Russian collusion lie, yet we're suppose to believe you and your party?
What does believing one party or another have to do with increasing voter turnout and minimizing fraud?

The actual process of voting is controlled by the states. In the last election cycle the R’s controlled 30 state governments to the D’s 18... Are you saying they are blatant cheaters?
 

regor

Political Whack Job
Joined
May 28, 2010
Messages
26,679
Reaction score
62,050
What does believing one party or another have to do with increasing voter turnout and minimizing fraud?

The actual process of voting is controlled by the states. In the last election cycle the R’s controlled 30 state governments to the D’s 18... Are you saying they are blatant cheaters?
The word guberment includes state guberment, but it was a nice try. They are included in the Russia collusion delusion I speak of. ;)

Keep begging loser, it's very enjoyable! :)
 

500bbc

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
21,759
Reaction score
27,448
I think the only way to save the US from these democrat's undoing the electoral vote system would be to form a third party system.There are a large part of the demographic who gave up and not voting for the right cause, tired of choosing between democrats and republicans only.
Current President is neither...
 

Hullbilly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
7,719
Reaction score
12,649
The original intent of the founding fathers and the electoral college was gutted by the 12th amendment.

But let's stick with your valid concern of letting elected representatives make choices for people.

Following this concern, should abortion laws be put to a vote of the people as opposed to being allowed to be passed by legislators? Should the right for someone to enjoy the financial benefits of marriage to whomever they choose be put to a vote by the people in each state as opposed to being made by elected legislators? And the list can go on and on.

Where does an elected legislature and governor rights start and stop? Who draws that line?
Moron
 

boatdoc55

Retired Boat Mechanic
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
6,347
Reaction score
8,167
How about we get rid of every fricken Democrap!! That should solve most all problems the Country has now.
 

Hullbilly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
7,719
Reaction score
12,649
One person one vote... pretty simple.

Mandatory voter registration, Election Day is a national holiday... Let’s shoot for 100% voter participation.

Along with this let’s make sure voter fraud both direct and otherwise is a priority.

I am 100% OK with accepting the results of a functioning Democracy.

Again voter fraud, I’ll play one voter one vote with 100% voter id mandatory and any voter fraud gets the noose
 

Sandlord

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
6,975
Reaction score
13,586
Sounds good to them at first
but over time, many people from those states will just stop voting.
You'll hear things like, "Why bother?, I'll just go along with whatever the majority wants, and I won't have to do jury duty"
 

was thatguy

living in a cage of fear
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
40,203
Reaction score
57,696
I thought you all were staunch "States Rights" advocates...???
How the fuck are they representing their own state when they cast their electoral votes based on a national total?
Kind of ass fucking the State voters if they aren’t in the national majority...don’t ya think?
Basically shitting right on the Constitution. Oh wait...never mind. It makes sense now.
 

rrrr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
10,178
Reaction score
17,178
One person one vote... pretty simple.

Mandatory voter registration, Election Day is a national holiday... Let’s shoot for 100% voter participation.

Along with this let’s make sure voter fraud both direct and otherwise is a priority.

I am 100% OK with accepting the results of a functioning Democracy.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

F'ing moron.
 
Top