The NPV may be closer than you think

[WorldWatcher]

Nope if they allow a vote for President, they have to honor that vote there is no way to write a law so that if the majority votes for something then the loser wins.

You b keep talking after the fact. That is not what NPV does.

All votes are still “honored” under NPV, just like all votes are “honored” in winner take all states.

WW

 

[martybegan]

And in winner take all states, it basically removes the vote of a majority of citizens and replaces it with people from a different district.

I agree. If the results are not what the want then state legislatures will abandon it.

Which is why I don’t support the NPV. But the legality and my desires are two different things.

WW

Inside the State. Not voters outside the State.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Inside the State. Not voters outside the State.

So you are fine with removing voters inside the State.

Got it.

WW

 

[martybegan]

So you are fine with removing voters inside the State.

Got it.

WW

There is a difference between 50+1 sending all EV's for a State when a State's voters decide it than an outside vote deciding it even if the State went 90% to the other candidate.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And in winner take all states, it basically removes the vote of a majority of citizens and replaces it with people from a different district.

I agree. If the results are not what the want then state legislatures will abandon it.

Which is why I don’t support the NPV. But the legality and my desires are two different things.

WW

no it does not the majority in the state determine the winner retard, your claim is false and easily proven so by the fact that the MAJORITY decides who wins.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I am aware of how the EC works. I was responding to your post--

Nope if they allow a vote for President, they have to honor that vote there is no way to write a law so that if the majority votes for something then the loser wins.

If you were not saying that the EC does not overrule the popular vote, then I apologize.

the popular vote only applies to the individual states and in 2 states to the individuals in those districts.

 

[Oddball]

No winner take all in New York means a 59%+1 vote election means all NY EC votes go to the one candidate.

Kansas has nothing to do with BY current winner take all allocation.

WW

Wrong.

Kansas could vote (R) at a 3:1 ratio, but the nation goes (D) by 50% +1, primarily from votes from NY, CA, etcetera, then Kansas' votes are thrown out, and the state is awarded to the (D).

It's a national popular vote with an extra step.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Who cares, it's unconstitutional.

You are going to break down when it is found to be good.

 

[jacksonlamb]

From AI:


Cons

• Constitutional Concerns: Critics argue that the NPVIC may violate the U.S. Constitution's Compact Clause, which requires congressional approval for certain interstate agreements.
• Potential for Disenfranchisement: Some fear that the compact could lead to the disenfranchisement of voters in smaller states, as their electoral votes maybe overshadowed by larger states.
• Complex Implementation: The NPVIC requires a minimum of 270 electoral votes from participating states to take effect, which complicates its implementation and could lead to legal challenges.

1. Now all of a sudden you are for passing something without Congressional approval? I thought you were against that.

2. Now you want to disenfranchise voters? I thought you were against that too. This is just plain voter suppression, which you claim you are against.

3. Do you think this would get past the 6-3 Supreme Court? That's where this would wind up.

This is in addition to the argument I already made in that only blue states are a member of the pact and if the pact is only full of blue states, then the democrat would have already won anyway, without the pact.

Yes, I do think the Court would up hold it.