Raz'r

Or a skateboard

5o's are definitely sweet sailing machines.

These days I14s weigh a whole lot less than then, and with the foils, give the 5o a run uphill and smash downhill. Paul was talking more about handling characteristics IIRC.

It would be a miracle if Trump gets as many raw votes as last time. Not gonna happen. Biden will out-poll Hillary by substantial numbers.

Looks like the Russians are busy.

And if LenP is to be believed, add Penn to Biden's total.

Well, this sucks, man.

Oh, I think the NPV would start a shit storm of epic proportions that would lead to a constitutional change. It's overdue.

So sad, math challenged burning dog. All that needs to happen is that states with at least 270 electors sign up. That's it. Now, will the other states go freaking nutz? Oh yeah!

We were thinking get the youngest through HS before the move, but even she is saying "those houses look really great!" and might be willing to move during HS. Not sure I would do that to her however, as HS is such a trying time as it is. Things will stabilize in the next 3 years anyway.

Failure to launch, kinda like BB

Don't be such a cunt, you really don't understand the EC. The STATES have the sole power to decide how they CHUSE EC electors see the extract from your little article/section, below. Today, that's usually Winner-take-all in that STATES popular vote, with some proportional.So we good? States choose electors, right? Ahhh, but the Supremes have also just said that States can require their electors to vote a certain way. So - any STATE could CHUSE to allocate their EC votes based on how the national popular vote goes. Or they could CHUSE Roshambo. Both are equally constitutional. The NPV is specifically set up so that if enough states to tip over 270 pass it as a law, then those states will all together start to allocate their EC votes based on the national popular vote totals. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. And the Supremes in Chiafalo v Washington: When Americans cast ballots for presidential candidates, their votes actually go toward selecting members of the Electoral College, whom each State appoints based on the popular returns. The States have devised mechanisms to ensure that the electors they appoint vote for the presidential candidate their citizens have preferred. With two partial exceptions, every State appoints a slate of electors selected by the political party whose candidate has won the State’s popular vote. Most States also compel electors to pledge to support the nominee of that party. Relevant here, 15 States back up their pledge laws with some kind of sanction. Almost all of these States immediately remove a socalled “faithless elector” from his position, substituting an alternate whose vote the State reports instead. A few States impose a monetary fine on any elector who flouts his pledge. Three Washington electors, Peter Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther John (the Electors), violated their pledges to support Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. In response, the State fined the Electors $1,000 apiece for breaking their pledges to support the same candidate its voters had. The Electors challenged their fines in state court, arguing that the Constitution gives members of the Electoral College the right to vote however they please. The Washington Superior Court rejected that claim, and the State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Ray v. Blair, 343 U. S. 214. In Ray, this Court upheld a pledge requirement—though one without a penalty to back it up. Ray held that pledges were consistent with the Constitution’s text and our Nation’s history, id., at 225–230; but it reserved the question whether a State can enforce that requirement through legal sanctions. Held: A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for President. Pp. 8–18. (a) Article II, §1 gives the States the authority to appoint electors “in 2 CHIAFALO v. WASHINGTON Syllabus such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” This Court has described that clause as “conveying the broadest power of determination” over who becomes an elector.

NPV doesn't require an amendment.

I've been watching real estate in Puget Sound. The nice places are going up fast.

He is, my expectation. A lot of former secretaries a couple Republicans maybe 3 new faces