Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Not at all. I'm questioning the, largely unquestioned, premise that the will of the majority is an inherently good thing; that accurately reflecting the will of the majority at any given time should be the goal. I don't think it should be. The goal should be good government.Why is the popular vote the whole point?The point being, it would mean that whoever did win the pop vote would also win the election. As is the case right now in every country except the United States and Pakistan. And that's the whole point here.
Why?
"Why" what?
Because it is. What is this, some kinda trick question?
Not at all. I'm questioning the, largely unquestioned, premise that the will of the majority is an inherently good thing; that accurately reflecting the will of the majority at any given time should be the goal. I don't think it should be. The goal should be good government.Why is the popular vote the whole point?The point being, it would mean that whoever did win the pop vote would also win the election. As is the case right now in every country except the United States and Pakistan. And that's the whole point here.
Why?
"Why" what?
Because it is. What is this, some kinda trick question?
Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor
Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.
This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?
Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor
Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.
This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?
This will be hilarious if Trump wins the popular vote in 2020.
Yeah...like California won't welch on their promise....too funny....
Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor
Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.
This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?
This will be hilarious if Trump wins the popular vote in 2020.
Yeah...like California won't welch on their promise....too funny....
If Rump ever could win a PV, then he'd deserve to win the office. And the states involved would reflect that. Ain't rocket surgery.
But with the lowest approval ratings in history I wouldn't hold my breath on that.
Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor
Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.
This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?
This will be hilarious if Trump wins the popular vote in 2020.
Yeah...like California won't welch on their promise....too funny....
If Rump ever could win a PV, then he'd deserve to win the office. And the states involved would reflect that. Ain't rocket surgery.
But with the lowest approval ratings in history I wouldn't hold my breath on that.
Come on....you think California would actually instruct all their electors to pledge to Trump? They would commit suicide first. Heh
It depends on how the system is designed. Ultimately, the point ought to be, in my view, good government - government that balances individual liberty with the will of the majority.Not at all. I'm questioning the, largely unquestioned, premise that the will of the majority is an inherently good thing; that accurately reflecting the will of the majority at any given time should be the goal. I don't think it should be. The goal should be good government.Why is the popular vote the whole point?Why?
"Why" what?
Because it is. What is this, some kinda trick question?
If you purport to hold a "vote" --- on a candidate for office, a proposition, where to go to eat, anything at all ---- then by definition you're following the will of the majority. If you're not, what's the point of a "vote"?
That makes no sense ---"where do we want to eat, and if the majority don't agree with my choice we're going there anyway"?
Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor
Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.
This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?
This will be hilarious if Trump wins the popular vote in 2020.
Yeah...like California won't welch on their promise....too funny....
If Rump ever could win a PV, then he'd deserve to win the office. And the states involved would reflect that. Ain't rocket surgery.
But with the lowest approval ratings in history I wouldn't hold my breath on that.
Come on....you think California would actually instruct all their electors to pledge to Trump? They would commit suicide first. Heh
If this pact were in operation, of course they would. That's how it works.
It depends on how the system is designed. Ultimately, the point ought to be, in my view, good government - government that balances individual liberty with the will of the majority.Not at all. I'm questioning the, largely unquestioned, premise that the will of the majority is an inherently good thing; that accurately reflecting the will of the majority at any given time should be the goal. I don't think it should be. The goal should be good government.Why is the popular vote the whole point?"Why" what?
Because it is. What is this, some kinda trick question?
If you purport to hold a "vote" --- on a candidate for office, a proposition, where to go to eat, anything at all ---- then by definition you're following the will of the majority. If you're not, what's the point of a "vote"?
Also, fwiw, the will of the people isn't as simple as majority rule. It's a broader concept that instructs government to protect the will of ALL the people, not just the majority.
That makes no sense ---"where do we want to eat, and if the majority don't agree with my choice we're going there anyway"?
This highlights one of the biggest problems we have: we're trying to do way too much with government. Government only makes when conformity is truly necessary. If it isn't really necessary for everyone to agree to the same course of action (like in your eating out example), we shouldn't be trying to mandate behavior with laws.
It depends on how the system is designed. Ultimately, the point ought to be, in my view, good government - government that balances individual liberty with the will of the majority.Not at all. I'm questioning the, largely unquestioned, premise that the will of the majority is an inherently good thing; that accurately reflecting the will of the majority at any given time should be the goal. I don't think it should be. The goal should be good government.Why is the popular vote the whole point?
Because it is. What is this, some kinda trick question?
If you purport to hold a "vote" --- on a candidate for office, a proposition, where to go to eat, anything at all ---- then by definition you're following the will of the majority. If you're not, what's the point of a "vote"?
Also, fwiw, the will of the people isn't as simple as majority rule. It's a broader concept that instructs government to protect the will of ALL the people, not just the majority.
That makes no sense ---"where do we want to eat, and if the majority don't agree with my choice we're going there anyway"?
This highlights one of the biggest problems we have: we're trying to do way too much with government. Government only makes when conformity is truly necessary. If it isn't really necessary for everyone to agree to the same course of action (like in your eating out example), we shouldn't be trying to mandate behavior with laws.
You didn't touch the refutation at all.
Again --- if you're 'voting' on something...anything.... then how would you not be going with the will of the majority? That's the whole POINT of taking a vote.
If we're taking a vote with the understanding that the minority will carry, then I'm lobbying to eat at Bubba's Grease Pit, because that guarantees we won't go there.
That is opinion. The wishes of the voters are reflected in every election… I mean, you do vote for someone. If you don’t like the candidates…well….I would imagine that in 1808, 1908, and 2008, there were people who voted for the nominees who would rather have voted for someone else.Its a monumentally dumb decision if a state agrees to do such a thing. I thought Obamacare was unconstitutional so I’m not the person to ask about what is and isn’t kosher but I cannot believe this would be constitutional.
Of course it's Constitutional. Entirely.
We've noted this dozens of times already but the Constitution leaves the method used by the several states entirely up to each state. Nobody is required to even hold an election. They could use a Ouija board if they wanted to.
I’m not the guy to ask about the constitutionality of the topic as I mentioned. Seems to me that if DC, for example, goes 90+% for the Democrat and it’s 3 electors vote for the Republican who gets the most votes nationwide, the wishes of the voters is not being represented by the laws DC passed.
Correct, and we've done this point over and over too, but since it's a rainy day let's do it yet again.
The “wishes of the voters" are ALREADY not being represented, and it's been going on for two centuries.
No, it's not "opinion" --- it's the way the system works ("works" in the sense of "operates").
Of the 51 states (DC counting as one for this purpose), no fewer than 49 of them use the "winner take all" (WTA) model exactly as I just described. And that means in a so-called "battleground" state like mine --- a bullshit term which would not even exist without this bullshit system --- every vote that did not align with plurality in that state, is dropped into the shredder and utterly ignored. And in every so-called "red" or "blue" state --- two more bullshit terms which would not exist without the same bullshit system --- NOBODY has any reason to go vote at all, since that state's ENTIRE Electoral Vote is predetermined. A given voter in Massachusetts or in Idaho can vote with their state, vote against their state, or stay home and watch reruns of "F Troop" and all three produce exactly the same result. There's no point in them going to vote at all--- which is a major reason our turnout rate is the embarrassment it is. Because what's the point?
That is opinion. The wishes of the voters are reflected in every election… I mean, you do vote for someone. If you don’t like the candidates…well….I would imagine that in 1808, 1908, and 2008, there were people who voted for the nominees who would rather have voted for someone else.Of course it's Constitutional. Entirely.
We've noted this dozens of times already but the Constitution leaves the method used by the several states entirely up to each state. Nobody is required to even hold an election. They could use a Ouija board if they wanted to.
I’m not the guy to ask about the constitutionality of the topic as I mentioned. Seems to me that if DC, for example, goes 90+% for the Democrat and it’s 3 electors vote for the Republican who gets the most votes nationwide, the wishes of the voters is not being represented by the laws DC passed.
Correct, and we've done this point over and over too, but since it's a rainy day let's do it yet again.
The “wishes of the voters" are ALREADY not being represented, and it's been going on for two centuries.
No, it's not "opinion" --- it's the way the system works ("works" in the sense of "operates").
Of the 51 states (DC counting as one for this purpose), no fewer than 49 of them use the "winner take all" (WTA) model exactly as I just described. And that means in a so-called "battleground" state like mine --- a bullshit term which would not even exist without this bullshit system --- every vote that did not align with plurality in that state, is dropped into the shredder and utterly ignored. And in every so-called "red" or "blue" state --- two more bullshit terms which would not exist without the same bullshit system --- NOBODY has any reason to go vote at all, since that state's ENTIRE Electoral Vote is predetermined. A given voter in Massachusetts or in Idaho can vote with their state, vote against their state, or stay home and watch reruns of "F Troop" and all three produce exactly the same result. There's no point in them going to vote at all--- which is a major reason our turnout rate is the embarrassment it is. Because what's the point?
**** Decoupling the discussion.
Well, yes it is an opinion. The WTA is the system the state has decided and the voters of that State have every right to change it to proportional if they wish.
As for the "no reason to go to the polls", total canard. There are House races, Senate races 2 out of every 3 years, usually a slate of local initiatives, statewide offices, etc.... But yeah, I know what you meant. Again, the proportional system is available and has stood constitutional muster.
I think the winning position is to make it to where the President-elect must win both the EC as well as the POV.
I think your opinion is valid somewhat so I think we need to improve the system.
My state for an example is allotted fifteeen EVs. In 2016 the results were razor-thin where the Republican outpolled the Democrat. In 2008 it did the opposite, the D outpolled the R. In both cases our electors went to Congress and lied through their teeth, declaring "wow, it's incredible, literally everybody in our state voted for Rump/O'bama". Which has literally never happened anywhere in any election ever. Neither this state nor any other alloted 8 votes to the winner of 51 percent and seven votes to the winner of 49 --- they just dumped them all into one corner, despite the vote count.
That means everybody up to 49.999 percent of the votes in our state got flushed down the toilet and ignored. And the same thing went on in 48 other states, and it's been going on since James Madison was still around calling for that practice to be banned by Constitutional Amendment. He said it would lead to factionalism and division --- et voilà, here we sit with so-called "red" and "blue" states so he was spot-on correct about that.
This multistate pact is a plan to counter the effects of that system. Simple as that.
Okay, maybe I’m not understanding it then.
As I understand it, if the voters of CT vote for John Doe who is a D and then the national popular vote is won by Jane Doe who is an R, the electors of CT would vote for Jane Doe. Please enlighten me if that is not the case.
Correct, that's what they would do. Looked at from the state's perspective only, that state's electoral vote would not in this case represent how the people of Connecticut voted. On the other hand if the majority in Connecticut voted the other way -- for the same candy who won nationally, it STILL would not represent how the state's voters voted, since there is always a significant portion who want the other candy. So either way people are getting cut out. No difference.
That's not the fault of this pact --- it's the fault of WTA. Every time a state goes to Congress and lies that their state vote was unanimous --- that's what happens. And unless some state's electorate some day actually votes unanimously, it will always happen.
So this pact would not change that --- in fact it depends on keeping the WTA system to work. It simply means that those blue voters in Idaho and those red voters in Massachusetts would finally have a reason to go vote, since their vote WOULD be counted in the national PV count that would determine how the states in this pact cast their electoral votes.
In the current scheme, once your vote is shit-canned within the state because not enough voters in your state voted the same way -- you're done, you lost and you have no voice. In the proposed plan you still have a chance for your vote to count since it would affect the overall national vote, even if it was a minority in your state.
That alone could and should improve turnout above the pathetic 55%. It would also creak the door open just a bit for third party candies, since as it is now the EC-WTA system shuts them out.
It's clearly not the best fix but it's seems to be the most practical band-aid that can be easily applied without amending the Constitution.
My state for an example is allotted fifteeen EVs. In 2016 the results were razor-thin where the Republican outpolled the Democrat. In 2008 it did the opposite, the D outpolled the R. In both cases our electors went to Congress and lied through their teeth, declaring "wow, it's incredible, literally everybody in our state voted for Rump/O'bama". Which has literally never happened anywhere in any election ever. Neither this state nor any other alloted 8 votes to the winner of 51 percent and seven votes to the winner of 49 --- they just dumped them all into one corner, despite the vote count.
That means everybody up to 49.999 percent of the votes in our state got flushed down the toilet and ignored. And the same thing went on in 48 other states, and it's been going on since James Madison was still around calling for that practice to be banned by Constitutional Amendment. He said it would lead to factionalism and division --- et voilà, here we sit with so-called "red" and "blue" states so he was spot-on correct about that.
This multistate pact is a plan to counter the effects of that system. Simple as that.
Okay, maybe I’m not understanding it then.
As I understand it, if the voters of CT vote for John Doe who is a D and then the national popular vote is won by Jane Doe who is an R, the electors of CT would vote for Jane Doe. Please enlighten me if that is not the case.
Correct, that's what they would do. Looked at from the state's perspective only, that state's electoral vote would not in this case represent how the people of Connecticut voted. On the other hand if the majority in Connecticut voted the other way -- for the same candy who won nationally, it STILL would not represent how the state's voters voted, since there is always a significant portion who want the other candy. So either way people are getting cut out. No difference.
That's not the fault of this pact --- it's the fault of WTA. Every time a state goes to Congress and lies that their state vote was unanimous --- that's what happens. And unless some state's electorate some day actually votes unanimously, it will always happen.
So this pact would not change that --- in fact it depends on keeping the WTA system to work. It simply means that those blue voters in Idaho and those red voters in Massachusetts would finally have a reason to go vote, since their vote WOULD be counted in the national PV count that would determine how the states in this pact cast their electoral votes.
In the current scheme, once your vote is shit-canned within the state because not enough voters in your state voted the same way -- you're done, you lost and you have no voice. In the proposed plan you still have a chance for your vote to count since it would affect the overall national vote, even if it was a minority in your state.
That alone could and should improve turnout above the pathetic 55%. It would also creak the door open just a bit for third party candies, since as it is now the EC-WTA system shuts them out.
It's clearly not the best fix but it's seems to be the most practical band-aid that can be easily applied without amending the Constitution.
No.
It is not.
Here is why.
The electors would not represent the will of the plurality of the voters. Plain and simple.
A candidate could run a pretty easy big-state strategy and never visit CT but still get their electoral votes. How is that representing the voters of CT?
How it would address faithless electors is unclear.
A better, more practical band-aid would be to insist that the President-elect win both the EC and the PV. That gives every voter a reason to go. Candidates could not do the thing where they get every vote in California and NY and get EC Votes in states they never visited handed to them.. They have to get into the mud in Wisconsin as well, you see, and fight for every vote there. Something Hillary wasn't able or willing to do so she lost...as she should have.
True. I've noted that too. Personally I believe state elector laws against so-called "faithless" electors are unConstitutional.
True. I've noted that too. Personally I believe state elector laws against so-called "faithless" electors are unConstitutional.
It's my understanding that states can require pledges from electors, but there has never been a case of a faithless elector being punished under such a law, so it's still very up in the air whether the USSC would allow it to stand. There seems to be a good amount of opinion that states cannot actually punish faithless electors; that the pledge requirement is limited to primaries and does not extend to the actual votes of electors.
True. I've noted that too. Personally I believe state elector laws against so-called "faithless" electors are unConstitutional.
It's my understanding that states can require pledges from electors, but there has never been a case of a faithless elector being punished under such a law, so it's still very up in the air whether the USSC would allow it to stand. There seems to be a good amount of opinion that states cannot actually punish faithless electors; that the pledge requirement is limited to primaries and does not extend to the actual votes of electors.
I'm pretty sure electors can be replaced by the state if they don't toe the line. If I recall correctly Minnesota did that last time, for one.
That's why I think it's unConstitutional. If the state is going to dictate how the Elector "must" vote, it takes all discretion out of the Elector and makes the entire EC process pointless. They could literally phone it in.
True. I've noted that too. Personally I believe state elector laws against so-called "faithless" electors are unConstitutional.
It's my understanding that states can require pledges from electors, but there has never been a case of a faithless elector being punished under such a law, so it's still very up in the air whether the USSC would allow it to stand. There seems to be a good amount of opinion that states cannot actually punish faithless electors; that the pledge requirement is limited to primaries and does not extend to the actual votes of electors.
I'm pretty sure electors can be replaced by the state if they don't toe the line. If I recall correctly Minnesota did that last time, for one.
That's why I think it's unConstitutional. If the state is going to dictate how the Elector "must" vote, it takes all discretion out of the Elector and makes the entire EC process pointless. They could literally phone it in.
Again though, I think they can be made to "toe the line" up to the voting, but it's very possible that they cannot be compelled to vote any particular way. They may have to pledge themselves to a Dem or Repub candidate, but violating that pledge may not be allowed to have any sort of legal consequences.
True. I've noted that too. Personally I believe state elector laws against so-called "faithless" electors are unConstitutional.
It's my understanding that states can require pledges from electors, but there has never been a case of a faithless elector being punished under such a law, so it's still very up in the air whether the USSC would allow it to stand. There seems to be a good amount of opinion that states cannot actually punish faithless electors; that the pledge requirement is limited to primaries and does not extend to the actual votes of electors.
I'm pretty sure electors can be replaced by the state if they don't toe the line. If I recall correctly Minnesota did that last time, for one.
That's why I think it's unConstitutional. If the state is going to dictate how the Elector "must" vote, it takes all discretion out of the Elector and makes the entire EC process pointless. They could literally phone it in.
Again though, I think they can be made to "toe the line" up to the voting, but it's very possible that they cannot be compelled to vote any particular way. They may have to pledge themselves to a Dem or Repub candidate, but violating that pledge may not be allowed to have any sort of legal consequences.
Legal consequences isn't the point. If the state ass-umes the power to dictate how its Elector will vote, and will actually replace that Elector if it doesn't with another who will, then the state is short-circuiting the Constitutional function of that Elector, who's supposed to be a human being with free will.
