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 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.

Outside AND inside. See previous post.

AGAIN, the Constitution doesn't require that states hold a vote AT ALL. They can assign Electors however they want. If Pennsylconsin decides it will throw darts at board and then consult a numerologist, then that's their system.
 

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.

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.

Their votes could be nullified by voters outside their State. For small States that reduces the influence of their votes even further, and this is in direct opposition to the idea behind the EC in the first place.
 

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.

Outside AND inside. See previous post.

AGAIN, the Constitution doesn't require that states hold a vote AT ALL. They can assign Electors however they want. If Pennsylconsin decides it will throw darts at board and then consult a numerologist, then that's their system.

They are also guaranteed a republican form of government, and darts on a board wouldn't fit that.

Just like allowing people outside your State to decide a vote inside your State.
 

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.

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.

Its face, number one, not "it is face".

I have yet to see these reasons. Your protest that a state's EV would be determined "outside the state" doesn't hold up as a reason. Nowhere does the COTUS prohibit that.
 

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 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.

Outside AND inside. See previous post.

AGAIN, the Constitution doesn't require that states hold a vote AT ALL. They can assign Electors however they want. If Pennsylconsin decides it will throw darts at board and then consult a numerologist, then that's their system.

They are also guaranteed a republican form of government, and darts on a board wouldn't fit that.

Just like allowing people outside your State to decide a vote inside your State.

Again, I invited anyone to show us where the Constitution specifically codifies that.

I'm not aware of such a clause, if there is we have yet to see it.
 

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.

Its face, number one, not "it is face".

I have yet to see these reasons. Your protest that a state's EV would be determined "outside the state" doesn't hold up as a reason. Nowhere does the COTUS prohibit that.

Nowhere has it ever been considered before. You don't allow outsiders to vote in any other election, why would it be allowed in this case?

I am voting for NY electors to vote for President. Why should 49 other States get to decide who NY selects?
 

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.

Their votes could be nullified by voters outside their State. For small States that reduces the influence of their votes even further, and this is in direct opposition to the idea behind the EC in the first place.

"Direct opposition to the idea behind the EC" is already confirmed by the Supreme Court as well as that idea being rendered superfluous by the Thirteenth Amendment. 155 years ago.
 
Last edited:

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.

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.

Its face, number one, not "it is face".

I have yet to see these reasons. Your protest that a state's EV would be determined "outside the state" doesn't hold up as a reason. Nowhere does the COTUS prohibit that.

Nowhere has it ever been considered before. You don't allow outsiders to vote in any other election, why would it be allowed in this case?

I am voting for NY electors to vote for President. Why should 49 other States get to decide who NY selects?

Simple. Because how NY selects its Electors is up to NY. That's all there is to it. Has nothing to do with "allowing outsiders to vote". They can't.

In the same vein, why should a non-plurality of your, or any, state's votes be completely disregarded if it's going to hold an election for the purpose of determining Electors? That's the same thing so you're holding a double standard.
 

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.

Outside AND inside. See previous post.

AGAIN, the Constitution doesn't require that states hold a vote AT ALL. They can assign Electors however they want. If Pennsylconsin decides it will throw darts at board and then consult a numerologist, then that's their system.

They are also guaranteed a republican form of government, and darts on a board wouldn't fit that.

Just like allowing people outside your State to decide a vote inside your State.

Again, I invited anyone to show us where the Constitution specifically codifies that.

I'm not aware of such a clause, if there is we have yet to see it.

I stated the two reasons, republican form of government, and equal protection. you can accept or reject those, but you can't say I haven't shown you.

How about you show me where abortion is mentioned in the constitution?

We all know where arms are mentioned, but progs like you seem to love to ignore that.
 

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.

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.

Their votes could be nullified by voters outside their State. For small States that reduces the influence of their votes even further, and this is in direct opposition to the idea behind the EC in the first place.

"Direct opposition to the idea behind the EC" is already confirmed by the Supreme Court as well as rendered superfluous by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Not via the compact yet. You think these legal challenges are bad? wait until that thing is challenged.
 

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 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.

Outside AND inside. See previous post.

AGAIN, the Constitution doesn't require that states hold a vote AT ALL. They can assign Electors however they want. If Pennsylconsin decides it will throw darts at board and then consult a numerologist, then that's their system.

They are also guaranteed a republican form of government, and darts on a board wouldn't fit that.

Just like allowing people outside your State to decide a vote inside your State.

Again, I invited anyone to show us where the Constitution specifically codifies that.

I'm not aware of such a clause, if there is we have yet to see it.

I stated the two reasons, republican form of government, and equal protection. you can accept or reject those, but you can't say I haven't shown you.

How about you show me where abortion is mentioned in the constitution?

We all know where arms are mentioned, but progs like you seem to love to ignore that.

I haven't brought up "abortion", not here or anywhere else. I'm not female. This is a flailing red herring attempt.

I have however brought up arms, many times, in fact it was the impetus for my joining this site in 2012, so that red herring gets tossed back into the sea.

NEITHER is the topic here.

You stated "republican form of government" several times and you've been asked to quote where the COTUS codifies that. We have yet to see it. You mentioned "equal protection" once and never explained what you meant or how it's supposed to apply.
 
Last edited:

Bob Blaylock

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2015
Messages
17,387
Reaction score
9,228
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”.

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

I'm inclined to leave that up to the states. I think the way that Maine and Nebraska is doing it is preferable, but I would never support forcing that from the federal level on all states. It was truly the intent of the great men who wrote the Constitution to leave it up to each state how to select its Electors.

The Interstate Compact does, however, cross a line that I think should not be allowed, by allowing/compelling signatory states to allow other states to influence their selection. I guess it'll be up to the courts to sort it out, if it come s to that, but I think this goes very much against the intent of the Constitution, and denies the residents of affected states their rightful franchise.
 

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.

Outside AND inside. See previous post.

AGAIN, the Constitution doesn't require that states hold a vote AT ALL. They can assign Electors however they want. If Pennsylconsin decides it will throw darts at board and then consult a numerologist, then that's their system.

They are also guaranteed a republican form of government, and darts on a board wouldn't fit that.

Just like allowing people outside your State to decide a vote inside your State.

Again, I invited anyone to show us where the Constitution specifically codifies that.

I'm not aware of such a clause, if there is we have yet to see it.

I stated the two reasons, republican form of government, and equal protection. you can accept or reject those, but you can't say I haven't shown you.

How about you show me where abortion is mentioned in the constitution?

We all know where arms are mentioned, but progs like you seem to love to ignore that.

I haven't brought up "abortion", not here or anywhere else. I'm not female. This is a flailing red herring attempt.

I have however brought up arms, many times, in fact it was the impetus for my joining this site in 2012, so that red herring gets tossed back into the sea.

NEITHER is the topic here.

You stated "republican form of government" several times and you've been asked to quote where the COTUS codifies that. We have yet to see it. You mentioned "equal protection" once and never explained what you meant or how it's supposed to apply.

You went on about "where in the constitution is it", that was my response.

The issue will be decided in the courts, because no one has tried to nullify the vote of a person in a State for a State election by allowing outside voters to decide the outcome of said election.
 

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.

I'm inclined to leave that up to the states. I think the way that Maine and Nebraska is doing it is preferable, but I would never support forcing that from the federal level on all states. It was truly the intent of the great men who wrote the Constitution to leave it up to each state how to select its Electors.

The Interstate Compact does, however, cross a line that I think should not be allowed, by allowing/compelling signatory states to allow other states to influence their selection. I guess it'll be up to the courts to sort it out, if it come s to that, but I think this goes very much against the intent of the Constitution, and denies the residents of affected states their rightful franchise.

That's another thing that is an issue, thanks for reminding me. The Compact clause. Congress would have to agree to this.
 

g5000

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
97,146
Reaction score
17,929
Points
2,180
trump-tweet-electoral-college-disaster.jpg
 

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 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.

Outside AND inside. See previous post.

AGAIN, the Constitution doesn't require that states hold a vote AT ALL. They can assign Electors however they want. If Pennsylconsin decides it will throw darts at board and then consult a numerologist, then that's their system.

They are also guaranteed a republican form of government, and darts on a board wouldn't fit that.

Just like allowing people outside your State to decide a vote inside your State.

Again, I invited anyone to show us where the Constitution specifically codifies that.

I'm not aware of such a clause, if there is we have yet to see it.

I stated the two reasons, republican form of government, and equal protection. you can accept or reject those, but you can't say I haven't shown you.

How about you show me where abortion is mentioned in the constitution?

We all know where arms are mentioned, but progs like you seem to love to ignore that.

I haven't brought up "abortion", not here or anywhere else. I'm not female. This is a flailing red herring attempt.

I have however brought up arms, many times, in fact it was the impetus for my joining this site in 2012, so that red herring gets tossed back into the sea.

NEITHER is the topic here.

You stated "republican form of government" several times and you've been asked to quote where the COTUS codifies that. We have yet to see it. You mentioned "equal protection" once and never explained what you meant or how it's supposed to apply.

You went on about "where in the constitution is it", that was my response.

The issue will be decided in the courts, because no one has tried to nullify the vote of a person in a State for a State election by allowing outside voters to decide the outcome of said election.

Sooooooooo you're saying what you called "unconstitutional" cannot be shown to be so, within the Constitution. And yet you can;'t concede.

And in part two ---and we already did this several times --- persons in EVERY state have had their votes nullified for centuries, and it's entirely Constitutional --- which again, and we did this several times too --- does not require any kind of popular vote for President.
 

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.

Outside AND inside. See previous post.

AGAIN, the Constitution doesn't require that states hold a vote AT ALL. They can assign Electors however they want. If Pennsylconsin decides it will throw darts at board and then consult a numerologist, then that's their system.

They are also guaranteed a republican form of government, and darts on a board wouldn't fit that.

Just like allowing people outside your State to decide a vote inside your State.

Again, I invited anyone to show us where the Constitution specifically codifies that.

I'm not aware of such a clause, if there is we have yet to see it.

I stated the two reasons, republican form of government, and equal protection. you can accept or reject those, but you can't say I haven't shown you.

How about you show me where abortion is mentioned in the constitution?

We all know where arms are mentioned, but progs like you seem to love to ignore that.

I haven't brought up "abortion", not here or anywhere else. I'm not female. This is a flailing red herring attempt.

I have however brought up arms, many times, in fact it was the impetus for my joining this site in 2012, so that red herring gets tossed back into the sea.

NEITHER is the topic here.

You stated "republican form of government" several times and you've been asked to quote where the COTUS codifies that. We have yet to see it. You mentioned "equal protection" once and never explained what you meant or how it's supposed to apply.

You went on about "where in the constitution is it", that was my response.

The issue will be decided in the courts, because no one has tried to nullify the vote of a person in a State for a State election by allowing outside voters to decide the outcome of said election.

Sooooooooo you're saying what you called "unconstitutional" cannot be shown to be so, within the Constitution. And yet you can;'t concede.

And in part two ---and we already did this several times --- persons in EVERY state have had their votes nullified for centuries, and it's entirely Constitutional --- which again, and we did this several times too --- does not require any kind of popular vote for President.

I believe it to be unconstitutional, just like I believe Roe V Wade to be, and just like I believe the Dred Scott and Plessey decisions were.

Just like I think gun laws in NYC are unconstitutional.

Not being part of the plurality is not having your vote nullified, the person with the most votes in the jurisdiction of the election won. Nullifying would be saying "X and Y" got more votes total, but Z got the most votes out of the three, so lets decide between X and Y.
 

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 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.

Outside AND inside. See previous post.

AGAIN, the Constitution doesn't require that states hold a vote AT ALL. They can assign Electors however they want. If Pennsylconsin decides it will throw darts at board and then consult a numerologist, then that's their system.

They are also guaranteed a republican form of government, and darts on a board wouldn't fit that.

Just like allowing people outside your State to decide a vote inside your State.

Again, I invited anyone to show us where the Constitution specifically codifies that.

I'm not aware of such a clause, if there is we have yet to see it.

I stated the two reasons, republican form of government, and equal protection. you can accept or reject those, but you can't say I haven't shown you.

How about you show me where abortion is mentioned in the constitution?

We all know where arms are mentioned, but progs like you seem to love to ignore that.

I haven't brought up "abortion", not here or anywhere else. I'm not female. This is a flailing red herring attempt.

I have however brought up arms, many times, in fact it was the impetus for my joining this site in 2012, so that red herring gets tossed back into the sea.

NEITHER is the topic here.

You stated "republican form of government" several times and you've been asked to quote where the COTUS codifies that. We have yet to see it. You mentioned "equal protection" once and never explained what you meant or how it's supposed to apply.

You went on about "where in the constitution is it", that was my response.

The issue will be decided in the courts, because no one has tried to nullify the vote of a person in a State for a State election by allowing outside voters to decide the outcome of said election.

Sooooooooo you're saying what you called "unconstitutional" cannot be shown to be so, within the Constitution. And yet you can;'t concede.

And in part two ---and we already did this several times --- persons in EVERY state have had their votes nullified for centuries, and it's entirely Constitutional --- which again, and we did this several times too --- does not require any kind of popular vote for President.

I believe it to be unconstitutional, just like I believe Roe V Wade to be, and just like I believe the Dred Scott and Plessey decisions were.

Just like I think gun laws in NYC are unconstitutional.

Not being part of the plurality is not having your vote nullified, the person with the most votes in the jurisdiction of the election won. Nullifying would be saying "X and Y" got more votes total, but Z got the most votes out of the three, so lets decide between X and Y.

Nope. Not working. Again, the Utah example: 55% of the state's vote was dumped. We're back to your double standard.

Will have to leave this here as there are appointments to be kept but basically your position is that COTUS requires certain criteria for state legislatures to select Electors (to wit: "allowing other states to determine"). But in fact COTUS contains no such criteria.
 
Last edited:

Muhammed

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
24,597
Reaction score
10,799
Points
950
Location
North Coast, USA
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.
Nixon's mandate was to get us out of the Vietnam war. And he did that. And ended forced conscription into the armed services, which was arguably the most abhorrent form of slavery ever inflicted by a civil government upon the governed in the history of mankind.

Peace+emancipating the slaves = good policy. IMO.
180918-roger-stone-and-his-richard-nixon-tattoo-ew-134p_54bd747c800750ea79e957ea1f76065a.nbcnews-fp-1200-630.jpg
 
Last edited:

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$132.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top