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.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,462,489 times
Reputation: 12187
Advertisements
Presidents who loose the popular vote selecting a majority of justices AND a popularly elected president added many more justices to form a majority are both unhealthy ways to fill the 3rd arm of govt. Wish there was an easy way to tweak the system, like popular elections to vote for justices who had a 20 year term.
Presidents who loose the popular vote selecting a majority of justices AND a popularly elected president added many more justices to form a majority are both unhealthy ways to fill the 3rd arm of govt. Wish there was an easy way to tweak the system, like popular elections to vote for justices who had a 20 year term.
Why do you feel this way? Apart from the fact that we don't elect our presidents based on a national popular vote, I've never understood the point for the sake of argument as the baseline is skewed. Indeed, given that we do not elect presidents based on a national popular vote, there is not a campaign for the national popular vote and, thus, the popular vote totals we find ourselves with are not the popular vote totals we'd receive if there was a national campaign for the popular vote. Indeed, if we elected people on a national popular vote basis, you'd see Republicans campaigning in NYC, California, Washington, D.C., Oregon, Washington State, New Jersey, etc., and Democrats campaigning in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, etc. in order to get their party's numbers up in those states; they would know that they wouldn't win those states, but that wouldn't be the point.
As to your other point, I actually support popular elections for judges, especially for those judges who claim to interpret a living constitution and law based on changing circumstances. The best way for people to check these judges is to express support or to dismiss judges based on the fact that times actually haven't changed like some judges claim.
The argument you make about the city/state dilema could just as easily, maybe even more so, be made about state legislatures, and I'm going to make it for you now.
Currently, there are only two states MN & NE, where there is split party control of the legislature. In all others, both houses are controlled by one party, 29 R, 19 D. So, in every one of those states, you can argue that the minority party has zero input, just like your example.
I'm not talking about political parties. I'm talking about people in a state who vote for a state representative for their district and a state senator for their district. The population in those districts is unique with their own sets of problems and desires for solutions. Therefore, they vote in who they best think will represent them at the state government level.
Anyway, I am getting way off topic.
Using that criteria, we would also need to grant statehood to the US Virgin Islands (St Thomas, St John, and St Croix, where I happen to reside), as well as Guam and a couple other territories. I do know that the federal income taxes we pay goes to our territory, not to the IRS (interestingly, the amount is exactly the same as it would be if we lived in a state of the US.) So there is no "taxation without representation." I'm fairly certain no territory could be forced to become a state if said territory did not wish to.
You're right...I'm not saying we shouldn't. The reality is that the vast majority of residents of the District want statehood representation. PR is a bit trickier, but the last couple of referendums show a majority wanting statehood with another non-binding referendum happening this year on the island. If USVI, Guam, etc. want it, give it to them.
Why do you feel this way? Apart from the fact that we don't elect our presidents based on a national popular vote, I've never understood the point for the sake of argument as the baseline is skewed. Indeed, given that we do not elect presidents based on a national popular vote, there is not a campaign for the national popular vote and, thus, the popular vote totals we find ourselves with are not the popular vote totals we'd receive if there was a national campaign for the popular vote. Indeed, if we elected people on a national popular vote basis, you'd see Republicans campaigning in NYC, California, Washington, D.C., Oregon, Washington State, New Jersey, etc., and Democrats campaigning in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, etc. in order to get their party's numbers up in those states; they would know that they wouldn't win those states, but that wouldn't be the point.
As to your other point, I actually support popular elections for judges, especially for those judges who claim to interpret a living constitution and law based on changing circumstances. The best way for people to check these judges is to express support or to dismiss judges based on the fact that times actually haven't changed like some judges claim.
You can't have a national popular vote campaign if the organizing etc. is left to the discretion of 50 individual states. The interstate compact goes some way toward countering that by asking the participating states to forfeit some of what are their current rights.
If the national popular vote compact achieves its goal (currently 73% toward goal), that will leave the Electoral College in place, but change the way the Electors are selected, by awarding the Electors of each participating state to the winner of the national popular vote. That would obviate the need for blues to campaign in red, and visa versa.
I don't think the voters are sufficiently qualified to choose federal judges from a number of candidates. The issues are too complex and the ABA and other vetting procedures would be rendered meaningless.*
I don't know what you mean by "Good Ole Days" but yes, I absolutely do advocate repeal of the 17th Amendment. The States, who are the signatories to the Constitution, have lost their representation. The Constitution was originally a compact between the States.
This amendment was adopted during the years of "populism" when the Federal Reserve Act was passed and a "graduated or progressive income tax" was adopted. People let their passions badly damage our system of government during those years.
And as much as I detest the phrase "elections have consequences" I have read it was Mr. Trump's predecessor who coined that little ditty.
Both major parties have turned to political thuggery to obtain their goals at the expense of the States and America's law-abiding citizens.
Your bolded would describe a confederation. We were originally a confederation. It was an abject failure and we quickly moved away from it. Or if a confederation was so great, the CSA could have shown how awesome it was. Again...didn't really work.
So, we not only voted out a confederation style after less than 10 years of existence as a country, but then kicked the smack out of that form of government less than 100 years after our nation's founding.
But, hey, keep talking about that "compact between the states."
The United States IS, brother, not these United States ARE.
You can't have a national popular vote campaign if the organizing etc. is left to the discretion of 50 individual states. The interstate compact goes some way toward countering that by asking the participating states to forfeit some of what are their current rights.
If the national popular vote compact achieves its goal (currently 73% toward goal), that will leave the Electoral College in place, but change the way the Electors are selected, by awarding the Electors of each participating state to the winner of the national popular vote. That would obviate the need for blues to campaign in red, and visa versa.
I don't think the voters are sufficiently qualified to choose federal judges from a number of candidates. The issues are too complex and the ABA and other vetting procedures would be rendered meaningless.*
The interstate compact clause is likely unconstitutional due to the compact clause of the Constitution.
The interstate compact clause is likely unconstitutional due to the compact clause of the Constitution.
I doubt it. The federal government has no role in federal elections. Compacts are not explicitly prohibited, enumerated powers..... There are over 200 interstate compacts in existence.
I doubt it. The federal government has no role in federal elections. Compacts are not explicitly prohibited, enumerated powers..... There are over 200 interstate compacts in existence.
Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:
Quote:
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
This hasn't been litigated much, but it seems clear from a plain reading of the clause at least that Congress would have to bless any such election compact for it to be constitutional.
This hasn't been litigated much, but it seems clear from a plain reading of the clause at least that Congress would have to bless any such election compact for it to be constitutional.
Congressional approval of interstate*compacts is only necessary if the compact would cause the states to encroach on federal power. As previously noted, the feds have no role in federal elections.
Library of Congress........
Quote:
C.*Consented to by Congress, if Required
Although the US Constitution contains an express requirement for approval by Congress of compacts between states, the US Supreme Court has held that some agreements between states do not require such congressional consent.* Article I, section 10 of the Constitution, provides that “[n]o State shall, without the Consent of Congress, . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.”[14]* The Court in 1893, however, stated in*Virginia v. Tennessee*that congressional consent is required only for a compact if it is “directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”[15]
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.
