Yet Another Assault on 'Mocracy

[WuWei]

@biggestal99

@WuWei

Fees?

Back in the day before poll taxes were declared unconstitutional by the 24th amendment there were fees placed on voting.

Now voting should be free of charge.

Allan

Why?..

[WuWei]

@tnt

@WuWei

Why is that important?

The more people that vote, the closer the government will reflect the will of the people.

Hardly. You been listening to the government again?

[DougBH]

@tnt

@WuWei

Why is that important?

The more people that vote, the closer the government will reflect the will of the people.

The will of the people who don’t care enough to get up and vote within the two weeks they have available already?

[peek-a-boo]

@tnt

The more people that vote, the closer the government will reflect the will of the people.

In this particular case DEM handlers will have more time to round up those with little to no interest in voting, while coercing them to vote DEM. So what we are really talking about is the will of the DEMs, not the will of the people that matter (as in those who are informed enough to go to the polls and vote on their own).

[gooddad409]

@peek-a-boo

@tnt

The more people that vote, the closer the government will reflect the will of the people.

In this particular case DEM handlers will have more time to round up those with little to no interest in voting, while coercing them to vote DEM. So what we are really talking about is the will of the DEMs, not the will of the people that matter (as in those who are informed enough to go to the polls and vote on their own).

Excellent point!

[Ben_Natuf]

and you’re still wrong. they have always had the ability to choose the time and manner for choosing senators, just not the place, they still can’t choose the place, the 17th did not change that. I slipped nothing in, my very first post was clear that they had no such ability on presidential elections.

@Ben_Natuf

except that the congress power to act their tyranny over the legislatures is limited to the congress. they have no power aside from setting election day and the day electors report in presidential elections.

to which you replied

@WorldWatcher

False…
They have power over the times (not the use of the plural there), places, and manner. That would include minimum early voting widows (times), use of secure drop boxes (places), gerrymandering (manner), mail-in voting (manner), etc. pertaining to federal elections.

which is of course wrong.

[WorldWatcher]

@Ben_Natuf

which is of course wrong.

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.

Except I’m in agreement with the text of the Constitution. If I’m wrong then the Constitution is wrong.

#1 The Constitution clearly spells out that Congress is empowered to make laws regarding the time, places and manner of holding elections for federal Representatives and Senators.

#2 Prior to the 17th Amendment state legislatures appointed Senators, however with it’s passage that aspect changed and therefore the “except as to the Place of Chusing Senators” became inactive.

#3 States are empowered to determine the manner in which electors are selected for the Presidential Electoral College. However the time of choosing must still comply with federal law. Therefore if a State chooses to have the legislature appoint electors to the EC, they are free to do so. However they must do so prior to the General Election date prescribed in federal law. They cannot prescribe a general election and then after the fact change the rules simply because “their guy lost”.

You of course are free to have an opinion different then mine. However mine is supported by the United States Constitution and you simply claiming “you are wrong” doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

WW

[Ben_Natuf]

the constitution does not support the congress being empowered to regulate the place of election for senators. not in its original form, and not in the 17th. that is something you’ve simply assumed. the constitution specifically prohibits the congress from this, and nowhere in the 17th is that prohibition addressed.

nobody has said anything about changing anything after any fact. i have no idea why you would even construct this strawman,

[WorldWatcher]

@Ben_Natuf

the constitution does not support the congress being empowered to regulate the place of election for senators. not in its original form, and not in the 17th. that is something you’ve simply assumed. the constitution specifically prohibits the congress from this, and nowhere in the 17th is that prohibition addressed.

Prior to the 17th Senators were appointed by State Legislatures, after the 17th they became elected positions with the population of the State getting a vote. The “place of chusing” Senators no longer applies as the Senators are now chosen in each polling station with each vote cast.

@Ben_Natuf

nobody has said anything about changing anything after any fact. i have no idea why you would even construct this strawman,

You may have missed it, Trump** tried to get State legislatures and Secretary of States to invalidate the voting results and appoint EC electors.

WW

[Ben_Natuf]

i missed nothing, it was not part of this conversation.

as the the place of choosing, the places are the polling stations, and it is the state thats empowered to set them foe senatorial elections just as they do for the house. the congress can dictate the places for the house, not the senate, the prohibition against them doing so is not addressed in the 17th. your assumption, is just that.