I agree, I was just giving a quick description that I thought was damning enough by itself.Originally Posted by Jamesiv1
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
That's how it always starts, not so much neutrality as neutered reality.
California Democratic votes in 2016 were 6.4% of the total national popular vote.
The vote difference in California wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.5 million votes she received in other states.
California cast 10.3% of the total national popular vote.
31.9% Trump, 62.3% Clinton
In 2012, California cast 10.2% of the national popular vote.
About 62% Democratic
California has 10.2% of Electoral College votes.
8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, Republican votes for candidates in California will matter. Now they are useless.
Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes.
2 award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activist supporters of the winning party’s candidate who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 24,067 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 31 have been cast in a deviant way, for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party (one clear faithless elector, 29 grand-standing votes, and one accidental vote). 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
States have enacted and can enact laws that guarantee the votes of their presidential electors
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
If any candidate wins the popular vote in states with 270 electoral votes, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent that candidate from being elected President of the United States
Alexander Hamilton, the other Founding Fathers, and the rest of the Founding Generation were dead for decades before state-by-state winner-take-all laws become the predominant method for awarding electoral votes.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.
The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.
As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. Maine and Nebraska do not use winner-take-all laws
Massachusetts History:
● In 1789, Massachusetts had a two-step system in which the voters cast ballots indicating their preference for presidential elector by district, and the legislature chose from the top two vote-getters in each district (with the legislature choosing the state’s remaining two electors).
● In 1792, the voters were allowed to choose presidential electors in four multi-member regional districts (with the legislature choosing the state’s remaining two electors).
● In 1796, the voters elected presidential electors by congressional districts (with the legislature choosing only the state’s remaining two electors).
● In 1800, the legislature took back the power to pick all of the state’s presidential electors (entirely excluding the voters).
● In 1804, the voters were allowed to elect 17 presidential electors by district and two on a statewide basis.
● In 1808, the legislature decided to pick the electors itself.
● In 1812, the voters elected six presidential electors from one district, five electors from another district, four electors from another, three electors from each of two districts, and one elector from a sixth district.
● In 1816, Massachusetts again returned to state legislative choice.
● In 1820, the voters were allowed to elect 13 presidential electors by district and two on a statewide basis.
● Then, in 1824, Massachusetts adopted its 10th method of awarding electoral votes, namely the statewide winner-take-all rule that is in effect today.
● In 2010, Massachusetts enacted the National Popular Vote interstate compact. This change will go into effect when states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 out of 538) enact the same compact.
In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).You have not cited one single item in your post. Support for your national popular vote has fallen.
No, it is not strong among Republicans:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/198917/am...s-sharply.aspx
Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed.
The National Popular Vote bill would not amend the Constitution.
Of COURSE states would not be abolished.
The bill is being enacted by state legislatures. It retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes
When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes among all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.
States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now 38 states and their voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
In most states, electors could not be accurately apportioned to represent their actual voters.
Electors are whole people.
There are good reasons why no state awards their electors proportionally.
Although the whole-number proportional approach might initially seem to offer the possibility of making every voter in every state relevant in presidential elections, it would not do this in practice.
The whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.
It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;
It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.
It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),
It would not make every vote equal.
It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.
The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC becomes President.
Being a constitutional republic does not mean we should not and cannot guarantee the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes. The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country.
Guaranteeing the election of the presidential candidate with the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes (as the National Popular Vote bill would) would not make us a pure democracy.
Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
Popular election of the chief executive does not determine whether a government is a republic or democracy.
The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes used by 2 states, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by states of winner-take-all or district winner laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution
The Constitution does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for how to award a state's electoral votes
Most Americans, Bob Barr, Bob Dole, Richard Nixon, Donald Trump, Gerald Ford, New Gingrich, Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson all hate(d) America?
That's a lie and you know it. -rep
You might want to look into updating that talking point.
This effectively eliminates any influence non-NPV states have on the electoral process.
The EC and the Senate are disproportionate on purpose, they are meant to keep one or two regions from dominating the nation, without them the constitution would never have been ratified, if you get rid of them you will have a massive secession movement and possibly civil war, low population states will not put up with being bullied by mobs who live thousands of miles distant from them.
If you don't like the EC secede or shut up.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
I like how the video appears as broken to discourage people from clicking on it.
Actually, it means exactly that.
Last edited by angelatc; 08-12-2017 at 02:44 PM.
NPV aside, why would the founders require federal approval for agreements among states?
"An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.
"To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."
Hamilton designed the Electoral College.
I am not a fan of winner take all. Proportionally by state would more fairly distribute the representation. So if 25% of the California voters voted Republican, their voice would matter on a national level. With the NPV, it doesn't.
With the NPV in place, if Michigan had approved it, our electors would have all gone to Her, even though she lost the popular vote here.
I really wish you would go away. I hate progs.
Personally I don't know, I'm not real informed on the Constitution nor on the characters who are regarded as the founders. I saw angelact's post mention the interstate compact stuff so I googled it along with NPV and this was one of the first articles I saw. I'm more interested in knowing if the NPV could pass constitutional muster, because if it can't then giving it any thought or energies to opposing it is just a game of mental gymnastics. I'd also be interested to hear from any of the heavy-weight anti-democracy proponents if they believe there can be any 'better' form of voting over another, or if different forms of voting are more literally just a rearranging of the deck chairs.
Question. Why did Hillary not support a national popular vote for the democratic primary? Instead she counted on superdelegates. And on top of that, the Wikileaks emails proves that she cheated Bernie Sanders big time. I'm no fan of Bernie either mind you. But if democrats really cared about "one man one vote" then why don't they abolish their own "archaic" primary and caucus system and just have everybody in the country vote on one day for who the democratic nominee should be? I mean seriously, there is no constitutional requirement that parties pick their candidates the way they do. So should the democratic party lead by example?
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
The states are allowed to select delegates any way they so choose. But Article I, Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State."
To protect the power of the federal government.
Showing videos online is not a value proposition most companies would be interested in. It simply costs too much. Google is making tons of money from ads so they can afford to lose some of it on video streaming esp. if it creates a favorable agenda for the company and helps with its lobbying efforts.
I'm not talking about the companies. I'm talking about the vloggers who are complaining about lost ad revenue. Dailymotion also pays ad revenue and I haven't heard about them censoring conservatives. So people shouldn't put all of there video ads in the YouTube basket.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Have you tried putting a Dailymotion video on this site?
I never have. Here is my experimental post; a Ron Paul interview with 0 views.
ETA - Yay! It worked. I honestly did not expect it to.
If that is all there is to it then NPV could submit for consent to congress to allow the compact. The 'write-up' I posted made it sound like the SC considers the consenting of congress to put it into the sphere of the federal government instead of an agreement between the states, and because the federal government is not allowed to dictate state election laws the feds would not be allowed to consent to this.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us