In Plain sight...

[DMC]

When was the last time faithless electors swung an election? Aren't most -- indeed, almost all -- of them bound by statute to follow the electoral vote?

Not in Texas.

[spurraider21]

"granted" is a privilege, not a right. All of these things address exclusive discrimination, not overall right to vote.


“The individual citizen has no federal cons utional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States” (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 [2000]).

If the state can pull it back, it's not a right.

the california state cons ution does give a right to vote, though. its not just some statute that they can pull back. any amendment to the state cons ution requires a popular vote. dont know about the other 49 states specifically

so if ur in california, you have a right to vote, and based on the US cons ution, the state has no ability to discriminate that right among its populace. just because it's a state granted right and not a federally granted right doesn't make it less of a right

[DMC]

Can you cite the part of the Calfornia cons ution that gives the right to vote, not just the class protection from discriminatory voting practices?

[spurraider21]

Can you cite the part of the Calfornia cons ution that gives the right to vote, not just the class protection from discriminatory voting practices?

article 2 of the CA cons ution is called "voting, initiative, referendum, and recall"

article 2 section 1:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is ins uted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

article 2 section 2:

A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote

through amendment, they now have section 2.5 which also reads that

A voter who casts a vote in an election in accord with the laws of this state shall have that vote counted

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The right to vote is stated explicitly half a dozen times. The 'negative' has to do with how the right can be abridged and not to do with the right itself. The right is declared specifically.

DMC's take is ignorant as usual. You can abridge rights under specific cir stances for example when rights are applied in conflict with one another like screaming fire in a theatre. The cons utional amendments only serve to further define in what instances it is allowed to be abridged.

[spurraider21]

The right to vote is stated explicitly half a dozen times. The 'negative' has to do with how the right can be abridged and not to do with the right itself. The right is declared specifically.

DMC's take is ignorant as usual. You can abridge rights under specific cir stances for example when rights are applied in conflict with one another like screaming fire in a theatre. The cons utional amendments only serve to further define in what instances it is allowed to be abridged.

SCOTUS has said otherwise going back to at least the 1800's and most recently in Bush v Gore. Relevant portion...

The individual citizen has no federal cons utional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Cons ution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.). The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another

[FuzzyLumpkins]

SCOTUS has said otherwise going back to at least the 1800's and most recently in Bush v Gore. Relevant portion...

That is specific to electors. That is a question as to what can be voted on not whether or not a citizen has a right to vote when there is an election.

If there is an election then citizens have the right to vote.

[spurraider21]

That is specific to electors. That is a question as to what can be voted on not whether or not a citizen has a right to vote when there is an election.

If there is an election then citizens have the right to vote.

Lets do some basic deduction. Electors choose the President. If the citizens don't have a right to vote for electors, then... ?

Also in quote I posted, SCOTUS referred to a state VOTING for president. It was clearly about a vote/election.

[boutons_deux]

Electors can vote for anybody.

Even if they take a "state vow" to vote for their state's popular vote winner, Cons utional law (electors are NOT bound) trumps (trashes?) state law.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lets do some basic deduction. Electors choose the President. If the citizens don't have a right to vote for electors, then... ?

Also in quote I posted, SCOTUS referred to a state VOTING for president. It was clearly about a vote/election.

Is the vote for electors the only election? How about you try reading my post again?

[Thread]

Americans need not bother, because their bother won't make any difference.

You pounded that message, that directive as soon as Trump came into view. The same exact ploy, same they tried & succeeded with to deter the Lakers Vs. the Celtics for decades. "You stand no chance, just give up, lay down, try again next time,,,now, go away so we can have the dais and the light. Scat!!!"

Those junkyard dogs that Trump has on choker chains were set free early upon the countryside. They ate you alive.

[spurraider21]

Is the vote for electors the only election? How about you try reading my post again?

i assumed we were talking about the presidential election

[FuzzyLumpkins]

i assumed we were talking about the presidential election

I assumed we were talking about the right to vote. It still stands once the states determine an election system to vote for electors, citizens have the right to vote in it. It's in the part that started 'unless' that you failed to bold from your SCOTUS case.

It's also why I distinguished between the right to vote and what we have the right to vote on. That was the distinction the court was making in your boutox style hack job of bolding.

[spurraider21]

I assumed we were talking about the right to vote. It still stands once the states determine an election system to vote for electors, citizens have the right to vote in it. It's in the part that started 'unless' that you failed to bold from your SCOTUS case.

It's also why I distinguished between the right to vote and what we have the right to vote on. That was the distinction the court was making in your boutox style hack job of bolding.

so once states determine a system to vote, citizens have the right to vote? no . thats circular.

but yeah i'll agree with the contention that people have the right to vote when a state decides to hold a vote. didnt think that needed clarification

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so once states determine a system to vote, citizens have the right to vote? no . thats circular.

but yeah i'll agree with the contention that people have the right to vote when a state decides to hold a vote. didnt think that needed clarification

Again you miss the distinction between what is to be voted on and the individual's right to vote.

It's not circular; there is no assumption that if there is an election that automatically means all citizens have a right to vote in it. You need the citizen's right to vote for that to be assumed.

What you thought is beside the point. The point is what Bush v Gore was talking about in that case you were claiming refuted the assertion of a right to vote. That reality is independant of you; thus me stating you miss the distinction.

[spurraider21]

Again you miss the distinction between what is to be voted on and the individual's right to vote.

It's not circular; there is no assumption that if there is an election that automatically means all citizens have a right to vote in it. You need the citizen's right to vote for that to be assumed.

What you thought is beside the point. The point is what Bush v Gore was talking about in that case you were claiming refuted the assertion of a right to vote. That reality is independant of you; thus me stating you miss the distinction.

there is no effective right to vote if a vote is never held.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

there is no effective right to vote if a vote is never held.

So what? That doesn't make it circular. It just makes it possible.

Can you have an election where there is no right to vote for all citizens? If you think not then look into Roman history.

[DMC]

Fuzzy got destroyed ITT



Citizens have a right to vote for prom queen!