TexasCHLforum.com

puma guy wrote:Carpetbaggers were a completely different ilk than the freedom loving patriots that arrived in Texas before and during it's fight for independence. No comparison whatsoever.

Exactly.

Many of us modern day patriots came here to seek freedom, not to take over and create a leftist state. Some of us know what living under an oppressive leftist state and are more ardent and appreciative than those who know no other place.

bblhd672 wrote:Apparently this is not just one or two malcontents, but an organized effort to throw the country into a constitutional crisis:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/ ... p-n2255693

I'm not sure I would call it a constitutional crisis. Complete dismantling of our system of government, anarchy, and civil war all seem to be more accurate terms.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:Apparently this is not just one or two malcontents, but an organized effort to throw the country into a constitutional crisis:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/ ... p-n2255693

I'm not sure I would call it a constitutional crisis. Complete dismantling of our system of government, anarchy, and civil war all seem to be more accurate terms.

this article is saying that there is a push for them to vote for Kasich. Kasich needs to come out and tell the voters to vote faithfully, that this movement isn't right.

Signed. Just the thought of him doing this feels like a donkey kick to the gut. I like the idea of emailing Mann. I will do the same.

Vol Texan wrote:TAM,

I could be wrong here, but I don't think he was suggesting to get rid of the Electoral College (from a distribution of votes per state perspective). I THINK (and I could be wrong) that he was suggesting that the distribution of votes to the states should be the same, but the assignment of those votes by the states should be an automatic thing, rather than relying on the manual practice of sending people to actually cast votes.

I don't necessarily agree with the idea, but if I'm reading it right, it was not the same as what you responded to.

VT

It could be that I completely misunderstood his post. I might have over reacted because I have seen so many posts from people all over the web calling for abolishment of the electoral college.

Anyone else disappointed that Change.org is now basically telling you that unless you make a donation, your vote will be relegated to obscurity and that only paid submissions will make a difference?

Mine didn't do that Skiprr, over the iPhone.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:TAM,

I could be wrong here, but I don't think he was suggesting to get rid of the Electoral College (from a distribution of votes per state perspective). I THINK (and I could be wrong) that he was suggesting that the distribution of votes to the states should be the same, but the assignment of those votes by the states should be an automatic thing, rather than relying on the manual practice of sending people to actually cast votes.

I don't necessarily agree with the idea, but if I'm reading it right, it was not the same as what you responded to.

VT

It could be that I completely misunderstood his post. I might have over reacted because I have seen so many posts from people all over the web calling for abolishment of the electoral college.

Yeah, I probably could have made things more clear. Indeed, I was not suggesting the presidential election go strictly according to the national popular vote, but rather keep the same electoral vote system we have, but skip the electors and simply assign each states electoral votes according to how the population in each state voted. In other words, keep the electoral votes, but skip the electors and the electoral college stuff.

Trump wins Texas? Trump gets all of the electoral votes from Texas. Done!

der Teufel wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:TAM,

I could be wrong here, but I don't think he was suggesting to get rid of the Electoral College (from a distribution of votes per state perspective). I THINK (and I could be wrong) that he was suggesting that the distribution of votes to the states should be the same, but the assignment of those votes by the states should be an automatic thing, rather than relying on the manual practice of sending people to actually cast votes.

I don't necessarily agree with the idea, but if I'm reading it right, it was not the same as what you responded to.

VT

It could be that I completely misunderstood his post. I might have over reacted because I have seen so many posts from people all over the web calling for abolishment of the electoral college.

Yeah, I probably could have made things more clear. Indeed, I was not suggesting the presidential election go strictly according to the national popular vote, but rather keep the same electoral vote system we have, but skip the electors and simply assign each states electoral votes according to how the population in each state voted. In other words, keep the electoral votes, but skip the electors and the electoral college stuff.

Trump wins Texas? Trump gets all of the electoral votes from Texas. Done!

A number of states have "Faithless Elector" laws. I don't see why Texas couldn't join them, although I'm not convinced it would be wise, and it's too late for this election anyway. I note that another Texas elector resigned rather than vote for Trump, and I'm sure he'll be replaced in time to cast a vote. I'd have to think on it a bit. How are Texas's electors chosen in the first place? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector. The states in red in the image below all have such a law:

Skiprr wrote:Anyone else disappointed that Change.org is now basically telling you that unless you make a donation, your vote will be relegated to obscurity and that only paid submissions will make a difference?

I don't read it that way. I think its simply suggesting that if you feel strongly enough about the issue that after signing you may wish to donate and that donation will be used to spread the word and increase awareness & participation.

There is actually a much greater threat to Trumps victory than people realize, he could still become VP while not winning the presidency.

Each elector gets to cast two votes, but they can not cast two identical votes. One elector for each party will traditionally withhold one vote for the VP candidate so that the vice presidential candidate gets 1 less vote than the presidential candidate. With the actions of the this elector we could see President Elect trump actually become Vice-President Elect Trump if the withholding candidate actually casts their ballot for the VP or if another Never Trumper withholds his vote for Trump but while neither fails to withhold their votes for Pence.

Signed.

Perhaps it's also time to increase the minimum number of US representives per state to 2. This would take away the large amount of representives that California has and give the smaller states just a little more of a voice in all matters.