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.
If the EC is to be changed, it needs to be done via the amendment process, and not through some backdoor process. The problem with the NPV is it could be seen as unconstitutional. This idea of one state acquiescing it's votes due to the votes in another state is nonsense. Since when in the history of this Republic have we seen such an action take place. Historically the states have always use the electoral vote system, and in the manner as the states have setup, to force a state to vote contrary to the general public vote of that state is not the Republic form of government as promised in the Constitution. Each State represents the residence of that State, and not the nation, so I do think that historical presidence would come into play in a court of law.
Nonsense. Practically there are only two ways to amend the EC. Either use the NPV or rewrite the Constitution. My personal view is that in the end we will rewrite the Constitution. But we have not gotten to that level of polarization yet. And I suspect it will be over the Senate not the President.
And again...the EC is a Constitutional quirk. And using the Constitutional quirk to go to a popular vote is quite reasonable.
Actually the Senate is much harder...and may well lead to a rewrite. And we should all hope that the Bill of Rights survive that rewrite.
It is just like the Electoral College - a compromise. Driven by the fact that the clause is not practically amendable. I can see no problem in law for it...the mechanism the state chooses is open ended. And I see no moral or social counter argument. It shouild be decided by popular vote.
So you would be OK if the majority vote in your state was rendered completely null and void, based on votes in other states? Seriously?
If the EC is to be changed, it needs to be done via the amendment process, and not through some backdoor process. The problem with the NPV is it could be seen as unconstitutional. This idea of one state acquiescing it's votes due to the votes in another state is nonsense. Since when in the history of this Republic have we seen such an action take place. Historically the states have always use the electoral vote system, and in the manner as the states have setup, to force a state to vote contrary to the general public vote of that state is not the Republic form of government as promised in the Constitution. Each State represents the residence of that State, and not the nation, so I do think that historical presidence would come into play in a court of law.
The only constitutional issue would be whether Congress has to agree to such a compact or agreement between the states or not. Other than that there is no specific provision of the Constitution that would be at question.
If NPV is adopted, I'm content to let the Supreme Court rule on its constitutionality.
No one is disenfranchised. All votes count with the same weight toward electing the President. The split in a particular governmental subdivision is of no consequences.
Not under the NPV plan. NPV renders majority votes in a state null and void, if the other candidate earns a larger number of votes nation-wide. And has the perverse result of that states electoral votes being allocated based on votes from other states, rather than based on the vote within that state.
Elimination of the EC would bring about what you want to happen. But as long as the EC exists, the NPV plan is orders of magnitude worse (from the perspective of disenfranchised voters).
Not under the NPV plan. NPV renders majority votes in a state null and void, if the other candidate earns a larger number of votes nation-wide. And has the perverse result of that states electoral votes being allocated based on votes from other states, rather than based on the vote within that state.
Elimination of the EC would bring about what you want to happen. But as long as the EC exists, the NPV plan is orders of magnitude worse (from the perspective of disenfranchised voters).
Your argument is absurd. There is nothing particularly sacred about the in state vote. The crucial one is the vote in the national count. And there everyone is equal. You think I should feel bad if my candidate loses in my county or state but wins in the US? That is plain silly.
Your argument is absurd. There is nothing particularly sacred about the in state vote. The crucial one is the vote in the national count. And there everyone is equal. You think I should feel bad if my candidate loses in my county or state but wins in the US? That is plain silly.
Not sure why you would call it absurd - it makes perfect sense. Perhaps you didn't understand it.
Here's an example to try to simplify it a bit. The state of North Wyoming signs on with the NPV plan. In the next election, 100% of North Wyoming's 150,000 voters vote for the Democrat candidate. However, the Republican candidate wins the popular vote. NPV results in all three of North Wyoming's EC votes going to the Republican, even though not one voter in North Wyoming voted for the Republican. All of North Wyoming's votes are assigned based on votes in OTHER states rather than on votes cast within North Wyoming. The end result is that 150,000 voters have been completely disenfranchised.
As I said previously, it takes a rather "unique" liberal mindset for this to make sense.
Not sure why you would call it absurd - it makes perfect sense. Perhaps you didn't understand it.
Here's an example to try to simplify it a bit. The state of North Wyoming signs on with the NPV plan. In the next election, 100% of North Wyoming's 150,000 voters vote for the Democrat candidate. However, the Republican candidate wins the popular vote. NPV results in all three of North Wyoming's EC votes going to the Republican, even though not one voter in North Wyoming voted for the Republican. All of North Wyoming's votes are assigned based on votes in OTHER states rather than on votes cast within North Wyoming. The end result is that 150,000 voters have been completely disenfranchised.
As I said previously, it takes a rather "unique" liberal mindset for this to make sense.
And every single one of North Wyoming votes for the Democrat went into his US total and were counted. And He still lost. The fact that I and my wife vote for the Democrat in no way makes us feel deprived because we lost. Our vote was correctly scored in the national total. We certainly won in our house, likely on our block and congressional district. Why would we feel deprived because we lost natlionally.
The President should be elected by "We the People". Not by some right tilted contraption.
And every single one of North Wyoming votes for the Democrat went into his US total and were counted.
Yes, the votes went into the total, but that's irrelevant. With the EC in place, every state holds a statewide election to determine how their electoral votes will be allocated. You have Nebraska and Maine who have sort of done their own thing in how they will allocate electoral votes, but they still have statewide elections. Even with NPV, the EC is still in place with statewide, not nationwide, elections. NPV simply subverts the allocation, potentially away from the vote of the state in question.
The only defense of the EC is that it gives the right about a 35 EC vote advantage from the 20 smallest states. And that is where it support comes from.
Exactly. There is no actual logic to these EC defenses. It is pure partisanship and nothing more. Nothing new there through. You can depend on seeing such misbegotten detritus across these board these days.
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.
