Subversion of the US Constitution and its defined means of electing our president is an act of treason against the United States. The compac will be held unconstitutional as it subverts the intent of each area having an equal vote. This keeps population centers from becoming dictatorial to the rest of the US. We have never been a popular vote democracy. We are a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.
If they do this each states governor needs to be removed from power and kept from ever holding office again..
It would appear you need to actually read the Constitution before putting your foot in your mouth about what "su
We don't live in a pure democracy, and for direct representation you have that at the State level.
The rules of our Republic were specifically designed to retard the power of the majority. It's a feature of our system, not a bug.
If that's a virtue, why don't states elect governors that way? Why doesn't each of its counties (parishes, boroughs) have its own electors to pick the governor?
Or Senator? Or Representative? Or Mayor? Or sheriff?
Prior to the 14th amendment and subsequent rulings, they could have, but most didn't.
You deflected the question instead of confronting it. Don't think you're gonna get away with it.
The question was on the MERITS of that indirect process, not what "could have" happened. Once again the question is, if it's a virtue, why don't we use it electing a governor as we do electing a president? Same process either way, yet somehow you'd have us believe it's worthwhile on one level yet not on another. And that's a Double Standard.
Again --- *IS* it a legitimate system, or IS IT NOT? If said system is ideal to pick a leader of a diverse nation, why isn't the same system ideal to pick the leader of a diverse state? Having it both ways is not a choice here.
Pick one.
They did it at the federal level because they were afraid of an overbearing federal government controlled by 2-3 large States.
Well we now have the overbearing federal government, and people like you want it controlled by 2-3 large States, so it appears they were correct in their worries.
I already did that math above and disproved the canard, put it in the oven, roasted it and had it for lunch, so this fantasy point was already shot down before it took off.
1st:
Please respond to my posts individually. I take the time to respond to each person in kind, and expect the same consideration.
That was a site glitch, carrying some previous residual content over, which, when I saw it, I deleted as irrelevant to this post. Did that a while ago and in fact it's gone, yet here you are bitching about something that already got fixed.
2nd:
The merits of the indirect process is that a person who wants to be president just can't run to the biggest population centers to win the job, he or she has to have broader appeal to win differing sections of the country.
Ah. Like this?
See below for an interesting related found object found while retrieving this map
The concept is not done at the State level because States are in theory small enough to not need the levelling of the field one wants at the federal level.
Uh huh.
California? "Small enough"?
Texas isn't diverse?
How 'bout New York?
One could argue that counties in States could benefit from a similar system, but remember a person's other citizenship besides US citizenship is to a State itself, not a county.
Irrelevant. The question was whether it's a legitimate system or not. If it is, then it should be legitimate for a President or for a Governor. If it isn't, then cancel both. Again --- pick one. Legitimate system or not? The whole world's waiting.
Besides which, I am simultaneously a citizen of my country, my state, my county, my town, and my Congressional District. You are too.
Local control of counties flows DOWN from the State Legislatures, not UP from the people. A person's sovereignty transfers to the State via the State's legislature, not through their local sub-division.
Already addressed. You're looking for exceptions to have your double standard.
Off the topic: found object food for thought related to above: This map dismisses the infamous "Three Fifths Compromise" and imagines enfranchised slaves having their votes count:
Note that Lincoln still wins. Also notice South Carolina being the only Breckinridge state --- that's because SC chose its electors via its state legislature and did not have a popular vote at all, so the model assumes that EV does not change. Note also that the level of Southern support for Bell, the Constitutional Unionist who favored keeping the Union intact as did every candidate except Breckinridge, implies the affected states would have voted similarly in their referenda about secession, if they were held at all, would have turned down the idea, and the Civil War doesn't happen.
Further interesting side note to this side note -- in that same election of 1860 (the real one, not a hypothetical), one of the states held a referendum on whether black people should be given the right to vote. The results came back a resounding "No". The state was --- New York.
