Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mean: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."?
Thank you for adding your expertise on Constitutional law. Apparently there are those who disagree with you and feel that the freedom of states to determine how their electoral votes will be determined in another clause of the Constitution brings into question the anti-compact clause you bring up. In other words, Constitutional law is not always clear and concise.
Agreed, however, the constitution is clear on the electoral votes, and it is up to the states to determine on how those electoral votes will be allocated. The proportion of electoral vote can be set up as winner take all or allocated by district, however the state chooses, but to base the allocation electoral votes based of a compact agreement with another state, without the consent of congress, is unconstitutional. Just the name itself suggest such an action, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Agreed, however, the constitution is clear on the electoral votes, and it is up to the states to determine on how those electoral votes will be allocated. The proportion of electoral vote can be set up as winner take all or allocated by district, however the state chooses, but to base the allocation electoral votes based of a compact agreement with another state, without the consent of congress, is unconstitutional. Just the name itself suggest such an action, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Why do you think there is a Supreme Court? One of the main reasons is to interpret the often confusing language of the Constitution.
Apparently there are Constitutional scholars -- and I doubt you are one, anymore than I am -- who feel this issue is up for interpretation.
Agreed, however, the constitution is clear on the electoral votes, and it is up to the states to determine on how those electoral votes will be allocated. The proportion of electoral vote can be set up as winner take all or allocated by district, however the state chooses, but to base the allocation electoral votes based of a compact agreement with another state, without the consent of congress, is unconstitutional. Just the name itself suggest such an action, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
You've contradicted yourself in this post. You say that a State may choose to allocate its electoral votes as it pleases, but that it would be unconstitutional to allocate electoral votes on the basis of the national popular vote. Why? The constitution does not bind electors to the vote of their State. If a State passed a law requiring its electors to vote for the national popular vote winner, then it would be the State's choice to so bind electors. No text of the Constitution prohibits that. There would be a democratic solution: voters could choose State legislators to change their laws on the allocation of electoral votes. I fail to see how Congress has a voice in how States choose to allocate electors. There is certainly no power of Congress implicated by State elector choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Why do you think there is a Supreme Court? One of the main reasons is to interpret the often confusing language of the Constitution.
Apparently there are Constitutional scholars -- and I doubt you are one, anymore than I am -- who feel this issue is up for interpretation.
It would be up to the judiciary to answer questions of constitutionality. I fail to see the argument against such an agreement.
You've contradicted yourself in this post. You say that a State may choose to allocate its electoral votes as it pleases, but that it would be unconstitutional to allocate electoral votes on the basis of the national popular vote. Why? The constitution does not bind electors to the vote of their State. If a State passed a law requiring its electors to vote for the national popular vote winner, then it would be the State's choice to so bind electors.
I fail to see any benefit to the voters in any particular state, who gave a majority of their popular vote to candidate A, but then would then have their state's electoral votes handed to candidate B. Would the voters in Texas or Pennsylvania or Indiana like it if their preferred choice was negated because their legislature foolishly chose to join an NPV compact?
It really is a terrible idea -- one of the worst that can be imagined.
The article doesn't discuss how you'd get 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the states, many of them small, to vote in an amendment following the article's recommendations. Because it can't. The EC is massively unpopular with deep blue voters in deep blue states. It is easy to run up vote totals there. Not so easy to run a truly national campaign.
I certainly don't worship the ground on which Trump walks. But give a 70 year old credit for running the first truly Internet-based campaign, and with very little money. He understood the way our voting works. I cannot say that someone couldn't figure out, in a popular vote election, how to spend lots of time in New York City's and Los Angeles' suburbs. They are nice places to stay and far more entertainment, than in the rural reaches of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.
In other words be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
The article doesn't discuss how you'd get 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the states, many of them small, to vote in an amendment following the article's recommendations. Because it can't. The EC is massively unpopular with deep blue voters in deep blue states. It is easy to run up vote totals there. Not so easy to run a truly national campaign.
I certainly don't worship the ground on which Trump walks. But give a 70 year old credit for running the first truly Internet-based campaign, and with very little money. He understood the way our voting works. I cannot say that someone couldn't figure out, in a popular vote election, how to spend lots of time in New York City's and Los Angeles' suburbs. They are nice places to stay and far more entertainment, than in the rural reaches of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.
In other words be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
You need to go back and read the article again. You missed the whole point.
The constitution also guarantees to each State a Republican form of government, not a democratic form of government. You people need to learn the difference between the two. The United States is NOT a democracy, it is a Republic with limited democracy. This Republic is made up of 50 individual and sovereign States comprised of the citizens of each state. To go to a NPV then you may as well do away with State borders and state rights. We already screwed this system up with the 17th amendment and now you wish do further screw it up with the NPV. To negate the way a states votes by a compact of other states is fundamentally wrong and would most likely violate the sovereignty of the state and its citizens.
People say the a NPV is the democratic way to elect a POTUS, I'm sorry, but the only elected federal officials, prior to the 17th amendment, that were elected by popular vote was the House of Representatives. This was for a reason because the House represents the People, the POTUS does not. The POTUS represents the Union as a whole, and the Union consist of the 50 States and Territories of the United States. It seems that every time a liberal loses an election because of the way the EC works, they cry foul. The election process goes by the majority of States and not by the majority of people. Yes, the EC has it's flaws, but not as much as going to a NPV would create.
I fail to see any benefit to the voters in any particular state, who gave a majority of their popular vote to candidate A, but then would then have their state's electoral votes handed to candidate B. Would the voters in Texas or Pennsylvania or Indiana like it if their preferred choice was negated because their legislature foolishly chose to join an NPV compact?
It really is a terrible idea -- one of the worst that can be imagined.
Why do you think it's a bad idea? What you have written is conclusory.
If voters choose a legislature that will support NPV, then voters have made their preference clear: NPV. Several States have already made that choice. I have heard of no candidate for office who has ran against NPV. Polling indicates that Americans prefer a popular vote to an electoral college vote. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-mo...the-president/
In our era, with increasing power to the Executive, it makes more sense for the Executive to be representative of the public as a whole. That is best achieved through the simplest principle: one person, one vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj
The constitution also guarantees to each State a Republican form of government, not a democratic form of government. You people need to learn the difference between the two. The United States is NOT a democracy, it is a Republic with limited democracy. This Republic is made up of 50 individual and sovereign States comprised of the citizens of each state. To go to a NPV then you may as well do away with State borders and state rights. We already screwed this system up with the 17th amendment and now you wish do further screw it up with the NPV. To negate the way a states votes by a compact of other states is fundamentally wrong and would most likely violate the sovereignty of the state and its citizens.
People say the a NPV is the democratic way to elect a POTUS, I'm sorry, but the only elected federal officials, prior to the 17th amendment, that were elected by popular vote was the House of Representatives. This was for a reason because the House represents the People, the POTUS does not. The POTUS represents the Union as a whole, and the Union consist of the 50 States and Territories of the United States. It seems that every time a liberal loses an election because of the way the EC works, they cry foul. The election process goes by the majority of States and not by the majority of people. Yes, the EC has it's flaws, but not as much as going to a NPV would create.
There are plenty of limitations on democracy without the electoral college (especially the Senate and the Judiciary). Your post has little sense of proportion.
Also, the States are not individually sovereign. They are collectively sovereign. United we stand, divided we fall.
The United States is more democratic than it was in 1789. It has gotten more democratic through near-universal suffrage over the age of 18 and through direct election of Senators.
What flaw do you believe an NPV would create? Why do you think it worse than the flaws of the EC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
The article doesn't discuss how you'd get 2/3 of each house and 3/4 of the states, many of them small, to vote in an amendment following the article's recommendations. Because it can't. The EC is massively unpopular with deep blue voters in deep blue states. It is easy to run up vote totals there. Not so easy to run a truly national campaign.
I certainly don't worship the ground on which Trump walks. But give a 70 year old credit for running the first truly Internet-based campaign, and with very little money. He understood the way our voting works. I cannot say that someone couldn't figure out, in a popular vote election, how to spend lots of time in New York City's and Los Angeles' suburbs. They are nice places to stay and far more entertainment, than in the rural reaches of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin.
In other words be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
The current Presidential campaign is not national. It represents about a dozen of our States, and only one of the four largest. That's a problem.
Why do you think it's a bad idea? What you have written is conclusory.
If voters choose a legislature that will support NPV, then voters have made their preference clear: NPV. Several States have already made that choice. I have heard of no candidate for office who has ran against NPV. Polling indicates that Americans prefer a popular vote to an electoral college vote. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-mo...the-president/
In our era, with increasing power to the Executive, it makes more sense for the Executive to be representative of the public as a whole. That is best achieved through the simplest principle: one person, one vote.
There are plenty of limitations on democracy without the electoral college (especially the Senate and the Judiciary). Your post has little sense of proportion.
Also, the States are not individually sovereign. They are collectively sovereign. United we stand, divided we fall.
The United States is more democratic than it was in 1789. It has gotten more democratic through near-universal suffrage over the age of 18 and through direct election of Senators.
What flaw do you believe an NPV would create? Why do you think it worse than the flaws of the EC?
The current Presidential campaign is not national. It represents about a dozen of our States, and only one of the four largest. That's a problem.
I beg to differ with you, each states is a sovereign government, each state has the ability to lay its own laws, property rights and the way its legislature operates. This makes the state sovereign, it's collectively operation comes it the compact called the constitution, in which it was agreed to treat each state equal to each other state and to create a central government to regulate commerce and to supply protection to the Union that was created. The federal government did not grant the state their sovereign rights, the states reserved these rights when they form the federal government. The States existed as sovereign governments before the federal government was created, they came together to propose a compact to created a central government that operated on the behest of the States and the People.
I beg to differ with you, each states is a sovereign government, each state has the ability to lay its own laws, property rights and the way its legislature operates. This makes the state sovereign, it's collectively operation comes it the compact called the constitution, in which it was agreed to treat each state equal to each other state and to create a central government to regulate commerce and to supply protection to the Union that was created. The federal government did not grant the state their sovereign rights, the states reserved these rights when they form the federal government. The States existed as sovereign governments before the federal government was created, they came together to propose a compact to created a central government that operated on the behest of the States and the People.
While State governments continue to have spheres of authority, the ultimate right of self-government is collective, through the United States. Texas may not join the United Nations. The United States can. Individual States have no power to leave the United States. That, alone, establishes that the United States is sovereign.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
