On Tuesday, July 10, attorney David Boies argued in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles in a case charging that the winner-take-all system for choosing presidential electors violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Ridriguez v Brown, c.d., 2:18cv-1422. Boies is famous for having represented Al Gore in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 in Bush v Gore.
Here is a four-minute you tube by a witness to the recent oral argument in Los Angeles. The judge is Consuelo Marshall, a Carter appointee. She was hearing the California government motion to dismiss the case. Apparently, during the argument, she said very little to indicate what her attitude is toward the case.
There are similar cases pending in Texas, Massachusetts, and South Carolina, but none of them have had oral arguments yet.
The United Coalition USA will be announcing a campaign for President of the United States by Mark Herd [Libertarian] and James Ogle [One] in a team effort to get behind our opposite gender for US President (POTUS).
Watch the All Party System for Day to Day updates on the Libertarian One for President, two candidates to be picked by the voters under the unbiased system of pure proportional representation (PPR).
http://allpartysystem.com/day-to-day.php
How about winner-take-all in other elections ??? —
each legislative office – in gerrymander areas (USA Senators, USA Reps, State legislatures, many larger local regimes)
each legislative office – at large (many smaller local regimes)
each executive office
each judicial office
VERY GOOD LUCK in finding ONE word about election systems in the debates about 14 Amdt, Sec. 1 in 1865-1866 in the 39th Congress.
The ongoing LEGAL PERVERSION attempts by the usual suspects about 14-1 match those about the 1st Amdt.
—
PR and AppV
Is the goal in the case to gain an opinion that favors establishing the popular vote to elect Presidents or to establish the need to apportion the Electoral Votes in each state to reflect the popular vote in each state? Either of those goals would be a positive change it seems to me. The current system does violate equal protection under the law for all citizens. I hope this case is favored by the court. This would help the 99.999% occupy the Presidential Election and lead to encouraging a much greater voter turnout to win other Federal, state and local elections by Populist 99.999% candidates. Occupy elections. Occupy Congress. This a very important case to decide law in favor of a more democratic republic. rls
My web site in the comment above was incorrect. Re-posting to correct my web site link. The correct link is: http://cs2pr.us/Populist_Pledge.html#Cover . Thanks. rls
The Prez/VP EC scheme is 1 of the 3 USA ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymander election systems —
1/2 or less popular votes x about 30 States+DC having 270 (bare majority) of 538 EV
= about 28-30 percent REAL minority rule — since 1832.
The talking head math MORONS on TV are too STUPID to do the math
— esp with the super-moron academic *experts* on election days/nights
— polisci, history, etc.
ABOLISH THE super-timebomb EC — went off esp. in 1860, 1876 and 2016.
—–
Const Amdt –
Uniform definition of Elector-Voter in ALL of the USA – including occupied colonies.
PR and AppV
TOTAL Separation of Powers
Richard’s comments are encouraging and so we hope that the One Party can help facilitate the Populist pledge, their names and decision items, to the All Party team in 2018.
We too are working, on a geographical area covering about a third of USA through August 5th 2018, Northern California in 2019 and all of USA 2020.
When I read the word Gore, that confirms my doubts about this attorney, because as pluralist he appears to bring conflict with other pluralists and I don’t hear anything about unity without hearing pure proportional representation.
It’s not like I want to buy in to a legal fight among pluralists, and to do what? More pluralism? Approval Voting?
Sorry, only pure proportional representation will bring mathematical unity, no lawyer in a court fight is bringing us pure proportional representation so we aren’t very interested in business as usual court fights.
Yeah, yeah, yeah… the Constitution really sucks!
https://equalcitizens.us/equal-votes/
THE 4 EC CASES BY THE ULTRA LEFT USUAL SUSPECTS
SF is using the one party system, and the United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation for twenty-years, and the party bosses supporting the one party system have fought viciously against the United Coalition because they can only bring conflict, unfair treatment and biased reporting.
The Fourteenth Amendment was never legally ratified.
DemoRep @2:
Maybe the argument is based on 14-2, not 14-1, coupled with the Constitutional precedent saying diluting voting power is a way to deny equal voting rights.
JALP-
see the 4 Complaints – 4 postings up.
The hacks are also using a perversion of the 15th Amdt —
concentrated black Donkeys in a State have some sort of right to elect a local Donkey EC Elector.
National communist Donkeys are NOT happy that Trump got de facto elected in 2016 as follows —
———-
Table C. USA PRESIDENT-2016 ELECTION — TRUMP
53 GERRYMANDER AREAS – 50 STATES + DC + ME CD 1+2 — 53 CONCENTRATION CAMPS
538 TOTAL ECV, MAJORITY 270 ECV
ECV = ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES – 12TH AMDT
VOTES PCT ECV
40,992,329 *30.0 306 TOTAL 30 STATES + ME CD2
— — —
29,395,478 21.5 233 AK TO KY 26 ST
6,798,147 5 ‘+ 43 NC+OH+MO 3 ST
36,193,625 *26.5 = 276 ECV 29 ST
— — —
29,395,478 21.5 233 AK TO KY 26 ST
6,212,397 4.5 ‘+ 39 FL+MO 2 ST
35,607,875 *26.1 = 272 ECV 28 ST
— — —
136,669,235 100.0 538 ECV TOTAL PREZ VOTES (50 ST+DC)
* ANTI-DEMOCRACY MINORITY RULE PERCENTAGES
AREA RANKINGS BY TRUMP VOTES / AREA ECV, LOW TO HIGH
——
Such communist Donkeys, of course, loved the minority rule election of every Donkey HACK Prez since 1832 — the 26-30 percent math.
—
PR and AppV
Any hoards of voters demanding a Const Amdt for RECALLS of the Congress, Prez/VP and SCOTUS members ??? —
esp after the Trump-Putin puppet MORON show today.
Thank you for pointing out the link to the complaints. Unfortunately, the link to the Texas complaint seems to be broken, but the other three work — and they do show that plaintiffs are at least saying they rely only on the general equal-protection language of 14-1, without even mentioning the electorally specific 14-2.
I don’t understand why they refuse to use 14-2 . . . unless they’re too afraid of even the possibility that it would be applied in all states, and give alternative parties a chance of representation and legitimation.
Again – 14-2 = Universal adult male citizen right to vote 1866-1868
— too many SUPER-MORON so-called lawyers and judges to count.
However – 14-2 does NOT apply —
if ALL voters in State get right to vote for a group/slate of EC Prez Electors.
How can a part of the Constitution be “unconstitutional”?