What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Electoral College Needs to Go

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,519
Reaction score
22,602
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

Well, I know that's what you hope for...

It's what I interpret as constitutional, and what I expect from a Dem State if they are forced to give their EV's to a Republican.

That's no different from what already happens now, when voters who make up "50% minus one" --- or even more than 50%, see my last post --- see all their votes immediately tossed into the shredder by the corrupt WTA system. Trust me, voters are already used to that.

It would be VERY different from what happens now, because it would be a reaction after say a State like NY after signing the compact overwhelmingly votes for a Dem, but the Republican wins the popular vote. You really think the Dem politicians in the State won't immediately revoke the law in question?

Of course. That's part of the consideration before the Compact is entered into, isn't it. You seriously think states that sign on don't know that's a possibility??

Again -- in the present severely broken system each state is ALREADY disenfranchising up to half, or even more than half, of its own voters by casting their entire EVs for somebody those voters didn't want. 55% of Utahans had to watch ALL their state's EVs go to Rump, a candidate they rejected. So let's not act like tossing votes into the crapper is a new thing.

Having pointed out all that, on the more basic level your scenario just underscores my first criticism in post 156, that the EC artificially divides us into so-called "red states" and "blue states", a division which is not only destructive but ENTIRELY unnecessary. James Madison, himself one of the architects of the EC, could see it coming when WTA started snowballing in his own time, and wanted a Constitutional Amendment BANNING the practice. But we never did that.
 
Last edited:

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
58,566
Reaction score
14,689
Points
2,190
The Electoral College ain't going anywhere. A unanimous vote of the states to eliminate it ain't gonna happen.

You don't need a unanimous vote... You need 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

Or just getting enough states to sign on to the Interstate Compact.

The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

States ALREADY give all their EVs to a candidate its voters didn't vote for. As I just noted above.

For example in 2016 exactly that happened in:

  • Arizona
  • Colorado
  • Florida
  • Maine*
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Nebraska*
  • New Mexico
  • North Carolina
  • Pennsylvania
  • Utah
  • Virginia
  • Wisconsin
*Maine and Nebraska partially split EVs by district; neither Maine district elected a non-majority candidate but the state as a whole, did, while NE-2 awarded its EV to a candidate the voters did not select​
That's the second point addressed upstairs in post 156. This is also what's behind the OP's call for runoffs and/or ranked choice voting.

As far as the Compact being "unConstitutional" we all know by now that the COTUS Article 2 declares that states shall choose their electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" --- the Compact would simply be the Manner they direct. That Article was strongly used as basis last year when SCOTUS (unanimously) upheld state so-called "faithless elector" laws, despite such laws running contrary to the original spirit of the EC (again see post 156).

So you are saying Trump lost all those States?

The Constitution also guarantees a "Republican Form of Government" and allowing someone outside your State determine how your State votes despite what the voters in your State wants is not "Republican"

It would be the same as giving the vote to a flip of the coin.

Rump failed to catch 50% of the state vote in AridZona, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska 2, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah (UTAH!), and Wisconsin. Clinton failed to hit 50% in Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico and Virginia. NONE of those states' voters gave the majority of their vote to the candy who got ALL of their EVs.

As for the whole "republican form of govermnent/allowing outside states to determine" song and dance, show us in the Constitution where that's codified and we'll break down the language. If such language exists.

They gave the plurality, and that's what wins the State votes. it's also what would win the popular vote.

Please show me where else voters outside a State are allowed to determine the outcome of an in State election.

It may also fall victim to the "one person one vote" mandate applied to the States via equal protection under the law.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
58,566
Reaction score
14,689
Points
2,190
The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

Well, I know that's what you hope for...

It's what I interpret as constitutional, and what I expect from a Dem State if they are forced to give their EV's to a Republican.

That's no different from what already happens now, when voters who make up "50% minus one" --- or even more than 50%, see my last post --- see all their votes immediately tossed into the shredder by the corrupt WTA system. Trust me, voters are already used to that.

It would be VERY different from what happens now, because it would be a reaction after say a State like NY after signing the compact overwhelmingly votes for a Dem, but the Republican wins the popular vote. You really think the Dem politicians in the State won't immediately revoke the law in question?

Of course. That's part of the consideration before the Compact is entered into, isn't it. You seriously think states that sign on don't know that's a possibility??

Again -- in the present severely broken system each state is ALREADY disenfranchising up to half, or even more than half, of its own voters by casting their entire EVs for somebody those voters didn't want. 55% of Utahans had to watch ALL their state's EVs go to Rump, a candidate they rejected. So let's not act like tossing votes into the crapper is a new thing.

Then the solution is to give 2 EV's to the overall State winner and then break down the rest by Congressional district.
 

Bob Blaylock

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
17,389
Reaction score
9,230
Points
1,265
Location
38°29′ North 121°26′ West
Then the solution is to give 2 EV's to the overall State winner and then break down the rest by Congressional district.

That's how Nebraska and Maine do it. the other 48 states are “winner take all”.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,519
Reaction score
22,602
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
The Electoral College ain't going anywhere. A unanimous vote of the states to eliminate it ain't gonna happen.

You don't need a unanimous vote... You need 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

Or just getting enough states to sign on to the Interstate Compact.

The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

States ALREADY give all their EVs to a candidate its voters didn't vote for. As I just noted above.

For example in 2016 exactly that happened in:

  • Arizona
  • Colorado
  • Florida
  • Maine*
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Nebraska*
  • New Mexico
  • North Carolina
  • Pennsylvania
  • Utah
  • Virginia
  • Wisconsin
*Maine and Nebraska partially split EVs by district; neither Maine district elected a non-majority candidate but the state as a whole, did, while NE-2 awarded its EV to a candidate the voters did not select​
That's the second point addressed upstairs in post 156. This is also what's behind the OP's call for runoffs and/or ranked choice voting.

As far as the Compact being "unConstitutional" we all know by now that the COTUS Article 2 declares that states shall choose their electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" --- the Compact would simply be the Manner they direct. That Article was strongly used as basis last year when SCOTUS (unanimously) upheld state so-called "faithless elector" laws, despite such laws running contrary to the original spirit of the EC (again see post 156).

So you are saying Trump lost all those States?

The Constitution also guarantees a "Republican Form of Government" and allowing someone outside your State determine how your State votes despite what the voters in your State wants is not "Republican"

It would be the same as giving the vote to a flip of the coin.

Rump failed to catch 50% of the state vote in AridZona, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska 2, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah (UTAH!), and Wisconsin. Clinton failed to hit 50% in Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico and Virginia. NONE of those states' voters gave the majority of their vote to the candy who got ALL of their EVs.

As for the whole "republican form of govermnent/allowing outside states to determine" song and dance, show us in the Constitution where that's codified and we'll break down the language. If such language exists.

They gave the plurality, and that's what wins the State votes. it's also what would win the popular vote.

Please show me where else voters outside a State are allowed to determine the outcome of an in State election.

It may also fall victim to the "one person one vote" mandate applied to the States via equal protection under the law.

Again, in the easy example of Utah 2016, 45% of voters INSIDE the state were allowed to determine the EVs for the 55% who opposed them, so what you're warning of is already happening. That's PART of the reason reform is clearly needed.

Your third sentence doesn't make sense as written, if you can rework it.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
58,566
Reaction score
14,689
Points
2,190
Then the solution is to give 2 EV's to the overall State winner and then break down the rest by Congressional district.

That's how Nebraska and Maine do it. the other 48 states are “winner take all”.

So either the States have to do it themselves, or we need an amendment to make the States do it that way.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,519
Reaction score
22,602
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

Well, I know that's what you hope for...

It's what I interpret as constitutional, and what I expect from a Dem State if they are forced to give their EV's to a Republican.

That's no different from what already happens now, when voters who make up "50% minus one" --- or even more than 50%, see my last post --- see all their votes immediately tossed into the shredder by the corrupt WTA system. Trust me, voters are already used to that.

It would be VERY different from what happens now, because it would be a reaction after say a State like NY after signing the compact overwhelmingly votes for a Dem, but the Republican wins the popular vote. You really think the Dem politicians in the State won't immediately revoke the law in question?

Of course. That's part of the consideration before the Compact is entered into, isn't it. You seriously think states that sign on don't know that's a possibility??

Again -- in the present severely broken system each state is ALREADY disenfranchising up to half, or even more than half, of its own voters by casting their entire EVs for somebody those voters didn't want. 55% of Utahans had to watch ALL their state's EVs go to Rump, a candidate they rejected. So let's not act like tossing votes into the crapper is a new thing.

Then the solution is to give 2 EV's to the overall State winner and then break down the rest by Congressional district.

Congressional Districts are, and have been since the beginning, notoriously gerrymandered. They're not a realistic representation of anything except who holds the consolidated power in that state and how they manipulate their state into getting entrenched.

More representative, if the antiquated EV "must" be used, would be allocation proportional to the vote. For instance in my state while nobody won the popular vote Rump won a plurality with Clinton a couple of points behind, so out of 15 state EVs either 8 could go to Rump and 7 to Clinton, or if the showing was over a certain threshold, 7 to Rump, 6 to Clinton, one each to Johnson and Stein. Then you'd at least be closer to how the state ACTUALLY voted.

Awarding votes to Congressional Districts doesn't reflect the Constitution at all. COTUS says states send electors, not districts. State lines cannot change themselves, while district lines are constantly redrawn, and that means somebody outside the electorate is going to have a way to manipulate the election. So what Maine and Nebraska do is an attempt to even-out the WTA effect but it falls far short of that goal, especially in more populated states.

We're all sitting on a fence here. EITHER we want a separate body called the Electoral College to elect the President, OR we want the popular vote to do it. Since we've held national popular elections for the office (post-Civil War), we've been in a hybrid system where voters try to persuade their STATE to vote this way or that. Having "states" cast votes rather than voters, is as arbitrary a designation as declaring that the calendar year shall start 11 days after the beginning of winter.
 
Last edited:

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
58,566
Reaction score
14,689
Points
2,190
The Electoral College ain't going anywhere. A unanimous vote of the states to eliminate it ain't gonna happen.

You don't need a unanimous vote... You need 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

Or just getting enough states to sign on to the Interstate Compact.

The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

States ALREADY give all their EVs to a candidate its voters didn't vote for. As I just noted above.

For example in 2016 exactly that happened in:

  • Arizona
  • Colorado
  • Florida
  • Maine*
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Nebraska*
  • New Mexico
  • North Carolina
  • Pennsylvania
  • Utah
  • Virginia
  • Wisconsin
*Maine and Nebraska partially split EVs by district; neither Maine district elected a non-majority candidate but the state as a whole, did, while NE-2 awarded its EV to a candidate the voters did not select​
That's the second point addressed upstairs in post 156. This is also what's behind the OP's call for runoffs and/or ranked choice voting.

As far as the Compact being "unConstitutional" we all know by now that the COTUS Article 2 declares that states shall choose their electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" --- the Compact would simply be the Manner they direct. That Article was strongly used as basis last year when SCOTUS (unanimously) upheld state so-called "faithless elector" laws, despite such laws running contrary to the original spirit of the EC (again see post 156).

So you are saying Trump lost all those States?

The Constitution also guarantees a "Republican Form of Government" and allowing someone outside your State determine how your State votes despite what the voters in your State wants is not "Republican"

It would be the same as giving the vote to a flip of the coin.

Rump failed to catch 50% of the state vote in AridZona, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska 2, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah (UTAH!), and Wisconsin. Clinton failed to hit 50% in Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico and Virginia. NONE of those states' voters gave the majority of their vote to the candy who got ALL of their EVs.

As for the whole "republican form of govermnent/allowing outside states to determine" song and dance, show us in the Constitution where that's codified and we'll break down the language. If such language exists.

They gave the plurality, and that's what wins the State votes. it's also what would win the popular vote.

Please show me where else voters outside a State are allowed to determine the outcome of an in State election.

It may also fall victim to the "one person one vote" mandate applied to the States via equal protection under the law.

Again, in the easy example of Utah 2016, 45% of voters INSIDE the state were allowed to determine the EVs for the 55% who opposed them, so what you're warning of is already happening. That's PART of the reason reform is clearly needed.

Your third sentence doesn't make sense as written, if you can rework it.

The opposition was divided between multiple candidates, so who would you have assigned the the EV's to?

The winner of the State would lose. That isn't what is happening now. That's what WOULD happen if the compact went into play.

Reynolds v. Sims - Wikipedia

In the case of the compact, a person's in State vote would be rendered meaningless because out of State votes would override anything the voters in said state could do. As an example a smaller State like North Dakota could vote 100% for Candidate X, but Candidate Y would win if they won the "popular" vote.

The last and really final nail in the coffin of the compact is there is no Federal level mechanism to declare a national vote winner, because a national vote isn't counted by anyone officially.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
58,566
Reaction score
14,689
Points
2,190
The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

Well, I know that's what you hope for...

It's what I interpret as constitutional, and what I expect from a Dem State if they are forced to give their EV's to a Republican.

That's no different from what already happens now, when voters who make up "50% minus one" --- or even more than 50%, see my last post --- see all their votes immediately tossed into the shredder by the corrupt WTA system. Trust me, voters are already used to that.

It would be VERY different from what happens now, because it would be a reaction after say a State like NY after signing the compact overwhelmingly votes for a Dem, but the Republican wins the popular vote. You really think the Dem politicians in the State won't immediately revoke the law in question?

Of course. That's part of the consideration before the Compact is entered into, isn't it. You seriously think states that sign on don't know that's a possibility??

Again -- in the present severely broken system each state is ALREADY disenfranchising up to half, or even more than half, of its own voters by casting their entire EVs for somebody those voters didn't want. 55% of Utahans had to watch ALL their state's EVs go to Rump, a candidate they rejected. So let's not act like tossing votes into the crapper is a new thing.

Then the solution is to give 2 EV's to the overall State winner and then break down the rest by Congressional district.

Congressional Districts are, and have been since the beginning, notoriously gerrymandered. They're not a realistic representation of anything except who holds the consolidated power in that state and how they manipulate their state into getting entrenched.

More representative, if the antiquated EV "must" be used, would be allocation proportional to the vote. For instance in my state while nobody won the popular vote Rump won a plurality with Clinton a couple of points behind, so out of 15 state EVs either 8 could go to Rump and 7 to Clinton, or if the showing was over a certain threshold, 7 to Rump, 6 to Clinton, one each to Johnson and Stein. Then you'd at least be closer to how the state ACTUALLY voted.

Awarding votes to Congressional Districts doesn't reflect the Constitution at all. COTUS says states send electors, not districts. It's an attempt to even-out the effect but it falls far short of that goal, especially in more populated states.

That's the way politics work. Gerrymandering is one of those things only bad when the other side does it.
 

two_iron

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2019
Messages
15,260
Reaction score
12,164
Points
2,290
Location
Republic of Texas
By JoeB131
The 2020 Election has proven one thing, that it is past time for America go get rid of the 18th century anachronism of the Electoral College.

Wow. I never thought I'd agree with a simple fuck like you, but here we are.

I agree. It's time to get rid of an 18th century anachronism like a "union" of states that don't want to be in a "union" anymore.

It was probably necessary back then to fight the Indians and conquer the land or whatever, but the concept is just as outdated as the electoral college now. We don't want to coexist with you marxist filthy animals anymore.

Let's move into the 21st century.... fully divorced. I'm glad you pointed that out.
 

Death Angel

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
39,691
Reaction score
23,396
Points
1,915
By JoeB131

The 2020 Election has proven one thing, that it is past time for America go get rid of the 18th century anachronism of the Electoral College.

The reasons that the electoral college is detrimental can be identified pretty easily.

  • The presidents it chooses over the will of the people always turn out to be bad for the country. Not only the modern examples of George W. Bush (crashing the economy, getting us into a war based on lies), and Trump (the list is too long of his failings) but the earlier ones like Rutherford B. Hayes, whose administration reversed victory in the Civil War, or John Q. Adams, who corrupted congress to win. They are almost always a mistake the voters needed to correct the next election.
  • It creates a false sense of mandate. Even when the people are clear in their choice, a 60/40 win like Reagan in 1984 or Nixon in 1972 appear to have a mandate with a mostly single color map when in fact there were plenty who didn’t support them.
  • It makes it impossible for third parties to gain any traction. Every year, we hear about how we are “Stuck with the lesser of two evils”. American history is full of third parties that challenged the duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans, but none of them really last beyond an election cycle or two. Why? Because at the end of the day, the best they could hope for is to throw the election into Congress. Case in point, the Reform Party. Ross Perot was a bit eccentric, but he brought issues to the fore that other parties didn’t. Yet by 2000, the Reform party was done.
  • At some point, it will make it impossible for the GOP to win. This is something that the GOP should consider. Texas came closer to turning blue this time than it ever has, and demographic changes will make that inevitable. Once that happens, it will be nearly impossible for the GOP to get an electoral majority, even if they win the popular vote.
  • It depresses voter participation. If you didn’t live in one of the ten “Swing states”, there was really not much reason for you to come out and vote, was there? Even though 2020 was a record turnout, 80 million Americans, or about 34% of the eligible electorate, did not vote. Why should they, when they were already painting their state red or blue before a single vote was counted.
  • It causes candidates to pander to the interests of small groups over the good of the country. The Cuban American community in Florida is still bitter about a revolution that happened 60 years ago, but it still factors into our politics, keeping us from normalizing relations with Cuba. Meanwhile, in Iowa, we are still spending money to subsidize ethanol nobody really wants to put in their cars. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
  • It’s kind of racist. The fact that small homogenous rural states have outsized influence over diverse urban states in this system is a real problem in a country that has historically oppressed minorities. The fact is that it has contributed to the racial divide in this country, where one party has effectively become a white identity party, while the other had tied its fortunes to minority turnout.
  • It is subject to a lot of potential mischief after the votes are tallied. The 2020 election itself was not in doubt. Biden won by 7 million votes. Yet we have had endless arguments about some 45,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin. State Legislatures, federal and state courts, faithless electors and congress have all been called upon to change the results, calling the whole system into question.
There is a very simple solution to the problems above. Adopt a system like the French have. You have a presidential election, where if the winner gets 50%+1, he wins, but if no one clears 50%, there would be a runoff. This will allow fuller participation, allow third parties greater exposure, and at the end, we will have a president with a clear mandate for change.
Commies in Anmerica need to go. We are a REPUBLIC where EVERYONE has rights, not just the big city ghettos
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,519
Reaction score
22,602
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

Well, I know that's what you hope for...

It's what I interpret as constitutional, and what I expect from a Dem State if they are forced to give their EV's to a Republican.

That's no different from what already happens now, when voters who make up "50% minus one" --- or even more than 50%, see my last post --- see all their votes immediately tossed into the shredder by the corrupt WTA system. Trust me, voters are already used to that.

It would be VERY different from what happens now, because it would be a reaction after say a State like NY after signing the compact overwhelmingly votes for a Dem, but the Republican wins the popular vote. You really think the Dem politicians in the State won't immediately revoke the law in question?

Of course. That's part of the consideration before the Compact is entered into, isn't it. You seriously think states that sign on don't know that's a possibility??

Again -- in the present severely broken system each state is ALREADY disenfranchising up to half, or even more than half, of its own voters by casting their entire EVs for somebody those voters didn't want. 55% of Utahans had to watch ALL their state's EVs go to Rump, a candidate they rejected. So let's not act like tossing votes into the crapper is a new thing.

Then the solution is to give 2 EV's to the overall State winner and then break down the rest by Congressional district.

Congressional Districts are, and have been since the beginning, notoriously gerrymandered. They're not a realistic representation of anything except who holds the consolidated power in that state and how they manipulate their state into getting entrenched.

More representative, if the antiquated EV "must" be used, would be allocation proportional to the vote. For instance in my state while nobody won the popular vote Rump won a plurality with Clinton a couple of points behind, so out of 15 state EVs either 8 could go to Rump and 7 to Clinton, or if the showing was over a certain threshold, 7 to Rump, 6 to Clinton, one each to Johnson and Stein. Then you'd at least be closer to how the state ACTUALLY voted.

Awarding votes to Congressional Districts doesn't reflect the Constitution at all. COTUS says states send electors, not districts. It's an attempt to even-out the effect but it falls far short of that goal, especially in more populated states.

That's the way politics work. Gerrymandering is one of those things only bad when the other side does it.

Uh nnnnnnno. It's the equivalent of --- I think you're a baseball guy --- being the owner of an MLB team while simultaneously being the Commissioner of Baseball. While your office can't declare "my team wins all its games", you can determine what teams get to draft who in which order, what the season schedule is, what the new rules are, any disputes that come up etc, so you're stacking the deck to use a mixed metaphor.

The fact remains the COTUS says nothing about districts determining who the state's electors are. While that doesn't mean they can't do it, it does mean it's off the point of how Electors are chosen and for the corruptive reasons I just laid out it's not at all reflective of how the STATE voted. Especially in more densely-populated states with more districts and more manipulation thereof than exists in Maine and Nebraska.

And just to develop that last, "how the state voted" is also not prescribed by the COTUS as "the" method for choosing Electors either but it's how the several states have legislated that they will choose them, per Article 2, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". And entering the Compact would, again, also be a "Manner the Legislature thereof may direct". It would simply shift from "how our state voted" to "how our country voted". Does that circumvent the intention of the Electoral College? Sure. The EC hasn't had a "legitimate" function since 1860, so circumvent we should. Besides which, as stated in 156, "faithless elector" laws are already on the books and they circumvent it too.

Indeed that may end up tossing the votes of much or even most of the state. But that's already happening now. Neither is a positive thing but let's not pretend it's something new. What we've done here is just made the argument for national popular vote.

--- or to look at it another way ... if a state in the NPV Compact sends its EVs in a way that negates massive numbers of votes within itself and that's a bad thing, then why isn't it an equally bad thing when the WTA does exactly the same thing?

Whelp --- that's why the OP proposes runoffs and/or ranked-choice voting, isn't it.
 
Last edited:

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
58,566
Reaction score
14,689
Points
2,190
The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

Well, I know that's what you hope for...

It's what I interpret as constitutional, and what I expect from a Dem State if they are forced to give their EV's to a Republican.

That's no different from what already happens now, when voters who make up "50% minus one" --- or even more than 50%, see my last post --- see all their votes immediately tossed into the shredder by the corrupt WTA system. Trust me, voters are already used to that.

It would be VERY different from what happens now, because it would be a reaction after say a State like NY after signing the compact overwhelmingly votes for a Dem, but the Republican wins the popular vote. You really think the Dem politicians in the State won't immediately revoke the law in question?

Of course. That's part of the consideration before the Compact is entered into, isn't it. You seriously think states that sign on don't know that's a possibility??

Again -- in the present severely broken system each state is ALREADY disenfranchising up to half, or even more than half, of its own voters by casting their entire EVs for somebody those voters didn't want. 55% of Utahans had to watch ALL their state's EVs go to Rump, a candidate they rejected. So let's not act like tossing votes into the crapper is a new thing.

Then the solution is to give 2 EV's to the overall State winner and then break down the rest by Congressional district.

Congressional Districts are, and have been since the beginning, notoriously gerrymandered. They're not a realistic representation of anything except who holds the consolidated power in that state and how they manipulate their state into getting entrenched.

More representative, if the antiquated EV "must" be used, would be allocation proportional to the vote. For instance in my state while nobody won the popular vote Rump won a plurality with Clinton a couple of points behind, so out of 15 state EVs either 8 could go to Rump and 7 to Clinton, or if the showing was over a certain threshold, 7 to Rump, 6 to Clinton, one each to Johnson and Stein. Then you'd at least be closer to how the state ACTUALLY voted.

Awarding votes to Congressional Districts doesn't reflect the Constitution at all. COTUS says states send electors, not districts. It's an attempt to even-out the effect but it falls far short of that goal, especially in more populated states.

That's the way politics work. Gerrymandering is one of those things only bad when the other side does it.

Uh nnnnnnno. It's the equivalent of --- I think you're a baseball guy --- being the owner of an MLB team while simultaneously being the Commissioner of Baseball. While your office can't declare "my team wins all its games", you can determine what teams get to draft who in which order, what the season schedule is, what the new rules are, any disputes that come up etc, so you're stacking the deck to use a mixed metaphor.

The fact remains the COTUS says nothing about districts determining who the state's electors are. While that doesn't mean they can't do it, it does mean it's off the point of how Electors are chosen and for the corruptive reasons I just laid out, not at all reflective of how the STATE voted.

And just to develop that last, "how the state voted" is also not prescribed by the COTUS as "the" method for choosing Electors either but it's how the several states have legislated that they will choose them, per Article 2, "in such Manner as the Legislature therof may direct". And entering the Compact would, again, also be a "Manner the Legislature thereof may direct".

That may end up tossing the votes of much or even most of the state. But that's already happening now. Neither is a positive thing but let's not pretend it's something new. What we've done here is just made the argument for national popular vote.

If you want an National Popular vote, amend the constitution. The Compact is nothing more than an unconstitutional end run.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,519
Reaction score
22,602
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

Well, I know that's what you hope for...

It's what I interpret as constitutional, and what I expect from a Dem State if they are forced to give their EV's to a Republican.

That's no different from what already happens now, when voters who make up "50% minus one" --- or even more than 50%, see my last post --- see all their votes immediately tossed into the shredder by the corrupt WTA system. Trust me, voters are already used to that.

It would be VERY different from what happens now, because it would be a reaction after say a State like NY after signing the compact overwhelmingly votes for a Dem, but the Republican wins the popular vote. You really think the Dem politicians in the State won't immediately revoke the law in question?

Of course. That's part of the consideration before the Compact is entered into, isn't it. You seriously think states that sign on don't know that's a possibility??

Again -- in the present severely broken system each state is ALREADY disenfranchising up to half, or even more than half, of its own voters by casting their entire EVs for somebody those voters didn't want. 55% of Utahans had to watch ALL their state's EVs go to Rump, a candidate they rejected. So let's not act like tossing votes into the crapper is a new thing.

Then the solution is to give 2 EV's to the overall State winner and then break down the rest by Congressional district.

Congressional Districts are, and have been since the beginning, notoriously gerrymandered. They're not a realistic representation of anything except who holds the consolidated power in that state and how they manipulate their state into getting entrenched.

More representative, if the antiquated EV "must" be used, would be allocation proportional to the vote. For instance in my state while nobody won the popular vote Rump won a plurality with Clinton a couple of points behind, so out of 15 state EVs either 8 could go to Rump and 7 to Clinton, or if the showing was over a certain threshold, 7 to Rump, 6 to Clinton, one each to Johnson and Stein. Then you'd at least be closer to how the state ACTUALLY voted.

Awarding votes to Congressional Districts doesn't reflect the Constitution at all. COTUS says states send electors, not districts. It's an attempt to even-out the effect but it falls far short of that goal, especially in more populated states.

That's the way politics work. Gerrymandering is one of those things only bad when the other side does it.

Uh nnnnnnno. It's the equivalent of --- I think you're a baseball guy --- being the owner of an MLB team while simultaneously being the Commissioner of Baseball. While your office can't declare "my team wins all its games", you can determine what teams get to draft who in which order, what the season schedule is, what the new rules are, any disputes that come up etc, so you're stacking the deck to use a mixed metaphor.

The fact remains the COTUS says nothing about districts determining who the state's electors are. While that doesn't mean they can't do it, it does mean it's off the point of how Electors are chosen and for the corruptive reasons I just laid out, not at all reflective of how the STATE voted.

And just to develop that last, "how the state voted" is also not prescribed by the COTUS as "the" method for choosing Electors either but it's how the several states have legislated that they will choose them, per Article 2, "in such Manner as the Legislature therof may direct". And entering the Compact would, again, also be a "Manner the Legislature thereof may direct".

That may end up tossing the votes of much or even most of the state. But that's already happening now. Neither is a positive thing but let's not pretend it's something new. What we've done here is just made the argument for national popular vote.

If you want an National Popular vote, amend the constitution. The Compact is nothing more than an unconstitutional end run.

You have failed to demonstrate how it's unConstitutional. With the assertion comes the burden of proof or at least basis for opinion.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
58,566
Reaction score
14,689
Points
2,190
The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

Well, I know that's what you hope for...

It's what I interpret as constitutional, and what I expect from a Dem State if they are forced to give their EV's to a Republican.

That's no different from what already happens now, when voters who make up "50% minus one" --- or even more than 50%, see my last post --- see all their votes immediately tossed into the shredder by the corrupt WTA system. Trust me, voters are already used to that.

It would be VERY different from what happens now, because it would be a reaction after say a State like NY after signing the compact overwhelmingly votes for a Dem, but the Republican wins the popular vote. You really think the Dem politicians in the State won't immediately revoke the law in question?

Of course. That's part of the consideration before the Compact is entered into, isn't it. You seriously think states that sign on don't know that's a possibility??

Again -- in the present severely broken system each state is ALREADY disenfranchising up to half, or even more than half, of its own voters by casting their entire EVs for somebody those voters didn't want. 55% of Utahans had to watch ALL their state's EVs go to Rump, a candidate they rejected. So let's not act like tossing votes into the crapper is a new thing.

Then the solution is to give 2 EV's to the overall State winner and then break down the rest by Congressional district.

Congressional Districts are, and have been since the beginning, notoriously gerrymandered. They're not a realistic representation of anything except who holds the consolidated power in that state and how they manipulate their state into getting entrenched.

More representative, if the antiquated EV "must" be used, would be allocation proportional to the vote. For instance in my state while nobody won the popular vote Rump won a plurality with Clinton a couple of points behind, so out of 15 state EVs either 8 could go to Rump and 7 to Clinton, or if the showing was over a certain threshold, 7 to Rump, 6 to Clinton, one each to Johnson and Stein. Then you'd at least be closer to how the state ACTUALLY voted.

Awarding votes to Congressional Districts doesn't reflect the Constitution at all. COTUS says states send electors, not districts. It's an attempt to even-out the effect but it falls far short of that goal, especially in more populated states.

That's the way politics work. Gerrymandering is one of those things only bad when the other side does it.

Uh nnnnnnno. It's the equivalent of --- I think you're a baseball guy --- being the owner of an MLB team while simultaneously being the Commissioner of Baseball. While your office can't declare "my team wins all its games", you can determine what teams get to draft who in which order, what the season schedule is, what the new rules are, any disputes that come up etc, so you're stacking the deck to use a mixed metaphor.

The fact remains the COTUS says nothing about districts determining who the state's electors are. While that doesn't mean they can't do it, it does mean it's off the point of how Electors are chosen and for the corruptive reasons I just laid out, not at all reflective of how the STATE voted.

And just to develop that last, "how the state voted" is also not prescribed by the COTUS as "the" method for choosing Electors either but it's how the several states have legislated that they will choose them, per Article 2, "in such Manner as the Legislature therof may direct". And entering the Compact would, again, also be a "Manner the Legislature thereof may direct".

That may end up tossing the votes of much or even most of the state. But that's already happening now. Neither is a positive thing but let's not pretend it's something new. What we've done here is just made the argument for national popular vote.

If you want an National Popular vote, amend the constitution. The Compact is nothing more than an unconstitutional end run.

You have failed to demonstrate how it's unConstitutional. With the assertion comes the burden of proof or at least basis for opinion.

I have listed 2 reasons for unconstitutionality, and 1 reason why it would fail on it's face.

That you don't agree isn't a failure to demonstrate on my part.
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
55,952
Reaction score
21,363
Points
2,290
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
If you want an National Popular vote, amend the constitution. The Compact is nothing more than an unconstitutional end run.

I don't know why you fools keep arguing this point. It's very clear that the states may choose their electors however they want. They don't even have to allow the people to vote in the presidential race. The state legislatures could choose their electors if they wanted to. In fact, the first few presidential elections in this country were decided by the House of Representatives, not the people. Not even two weeks ago some of your fellow Trump Tards were demanding Republican legislatures in PA, WI, MI, GA, and AZ send in their own Republican electors instead of Biden's (which they legally could have done) and you're going to sit there and claim that the compact is what's unconstitutional?
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
58,566
Reaction score
14,689
Points
2,190
If you want an National Popular vote, amend the constitution. The Compact is nothing more than an unconstitutional end run.

I don't know why you fools keep arguing this point. It's very clear that the states may choose their electors however they want. They don't even have to allow the people to vote in the presidential race. The state legislatures could choose their electors if they wanted to. In fact, the first few presidential elections in this country were decided by the House of Representatives, not the people. Not even two weeks ago some of your fellow Trump Tards were demanding Republican legislatures in PA, WI, MI, GA, and AZ send in their own Republican electors instead of Biden's (which they legally could have done) and you're going to sit there and claim that the compact is what's unconstitutional?

If the State legislatures approve the electors, the people in the State still voted for said legislators. There is NO precedent for votes OUTSIDE a given State or anything OUTSIDE a given State deciding an election, or more specifically, how EV's are appointed.

The Texas lawsuit was based on the the legislatures not being the ones making changes to election law, in direct conflict with the Constitution saying the legislatures must be the ones to set the EV vote requirements.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,519
Reaction score
22,602
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
The Electoral College ain't going anywhere. A unanimous vote of the states to eliminate it ain't gonna happen.

You don't need a unanimous vote... You need 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

Or just getting enough states to sign on to the Interstate Compact.

The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

States ALREADY give all their EVs to a candidate its voters didn't vote for. As I just noted above.

For example in 2016 exactly that happened in:

  • Arizona
  • Colorado
  • Florida
  • Maine*
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Nebraska*
  • New Mexico
  • North Carolina
  • Pennsylvania
  • Utah
  • Virginia
  • Wisconsin
*Maine and Nebraska partially split EVs by district; neither Maine district elected a non-majority candidate but the state as a whole, did, while NE-2 awarded its EV to a candidate the voters did not select​
That's the second point addressed upstairs in post 156. This is also what's behind the OP's call for runoffs and/or ranked choice voting.

As far as the Compact being "unConstitutional" we all know by now that the COTUS Article 2 declares that states shall choose their electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" --- the Compact would simply be the Manner they direct. That Article was strongly used as basis last year when SCOTUS (unanimously) upheld state so-called "faithless elector" laws, despite such laws running contrary to the original spirit of the EC (again see post 156).

CORRECTION: I forgot another state here -- Nevada.

So the more complete list of states where the 2016 EV winner could not win 50% of the state they won, would look like:

  • Arizona
  • Colorado
  • Florida
  • Maine*
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Nebraska 2nd district
  • New Mexico
  • Nevada
  • North Carolina
  • Pennsylvania
  • Utah
  • Virginia
  • Wisconsin
--- which means the majority of voters in those states (and NE-2) had their votes tossed in the crapper. And again, whether your vote was tossed into the crapper by other voters in your own state or other voters in the country, either way it's still in the crapper.
 
Last edited:

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
58,566
Reaction score
14,689
Points
2,190
The Electoral College ain't going anywhere. A unanimous vote of the states to eliminate it ain't gonna happen.

You don't need a unanimous vote... You need 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4 of the states.

Or just getting enough states to sign on to the Interstate Compact.

The interstate compact is probably unconstitutional and will fall apart anyway the second a State is forced to give all their EV's to a candidate the people in it didn't vote for.

States ALREADY give all their EVs to a candidate its voters didn't vote for. As I just noted above.

For example in 2016 exactly that happened in:

  • Arizona
  • Colorado
  • Florida
  • Maine*
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Nebraska*
  • New Mexico
  • North Carolina
  • Pennsylvania
  • Utah
  • Virginia
  • Wisconsin
*Maine and Nebraska partially split EVs by district; neither Maine district elected a non-majority candidate but the state as a whole, did, while NE-2 awarded its EV to a candidate the voters did not select​
That's the second point addressed upstairs in post 156. This is also what's behind the OP's call for runoffs and/or ranked choice voting.

As far as the Compact being "unConstitutional" we all know by now that the COTUS Article 2 declares that states shall choose their electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" --- the Compact would simply be the Manner they direct. That Article was strongly used as basis last year when SCOTUS (unanimously) upheld state so-called "faithless elector" laws, despite such laws running contrary to the original spirit of the EC (again see post 156).

CORRECTION: I forgot another state here -- Nevada.

So the more complete list of states where the EV winner could not win 50% of the state would look like:

  • Arizona
  • Colorado
  • Florida
  • Maine*
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Nebraska 2nd district
  • New Mexico
  • Nevada
  • North Carolina
  • Pennsylvania
  • Utah
  • Virginia
  • Wisconsin

They don't need 50% to win, they need a plurality.

Under the Compact even States where the Majority voted for Candidate X, Candidate Y would "win" based on votes OUTSIDE the State.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,519
Reaction score
22,602
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
If you want an National Popular vote, amend the constitution. The Compact is nothing more than an unconstitutional end run.

I don't know why you fools keep arguing this point. It's very clear that the states may choose their electors however they want. They don't even have to allow the people to vote in the presidential race. The state legislatures could choose their electors if they wanted to. In fact, the first few presidential elections in this country were decided by the House of Representatives, not the people. Not even two weeks ago some of your fellow Trump Tards were demanding Republican legislatures in PA, WI, MI, GA, and AZ send in their own Republican electors instead of Biden's (which they legally could have done) and you're going to sit there and claim that the compact is what's unconstitutional?

If the State legislatures approve the electors, the people in the State still voted for said legislators. There is NO precedent for votes OUTSIDE a given State or anything OUTSIDE a given State deciding an election, or more specifically, how EV's are appointed.

Actually the voters WITHIN that state also decide it, in that they can vote for (or against) whoever the national vote winner is expected to be, and thereby swing that expectation. In other words in your example of North Dakota, let's say it's a year where the Democrat is expected to win, ND voters can counteract that by turning out to vote for the Republican. If enough of them do so they can threaten that expectation by swinging the national vote in the other direction.

So here's where the NPV Compact actually alleviates another of the WTA/EC flaws, that of suppressing voter turnout (the OP's point four, my post 156 point two). Suddenly the "locked" "red" and "blue" states, the North Dakotas, the Wyomings, the Californias, the Rhode Islandses --- have an incentive to turn out that they don't have when the WTA/EC makes their state a foregone conclusion.

It addresses one of the EC flaws, certainly not all of them.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$132.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top