- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Michigan Democrats approve National Popular Vote scheme
Posted on 7/13/23 at 10:03 am to Indefatigable
Posted on 7/13/23 at 10:03 am to Indefatigable
quote:
I agree with that. Would be much better if all 50 states did that -- 2 EV's for each statewide winner, with the remaining EV's being determined by congressional district
same.
gives the winner of the state a "bonus" while allowing each district to have a "voice" regardless of the leanings of the state.
0
Posted on 7/13/23 at 10:15 am to cajunangelle
no chance, till supreme court flips
Posted on 7/13/23 at 10:17 am to keks tadpole
quote:
Mitt wins 2012 this way.
Thats not exactly a great point for changing winner take all state EVs
Posted on 7/13/23 at 10:23 am to RobbBobb
quote:
Thats not exactly a great point for changing winner take all state EVs
You prefer Democrats in the White House?
Posted on 7/13/23 at 10:42 am to SlowFlowPro
Personally, I think this runs afoul of the interstate compact clause. These states are coming into an agreement with each other as a means for several states to dictate to another how its EVs should be cast. The Presidential election is not a national election. It is an amalgamation of 50 separate state-wide elections. A state law that determines that a state’s EVs are awarded by circumstances determined by voters other than that state’s voters could be ruled unconstitutional. Even though another clause states a state can award its EVs how it likes, the intention of the Founders was to have autonomous states expressing their will as separate states. SCOTUS could rule that a state cannot award its EVs based on vote totals from other autonomous states.
It also disenfranchises voters within a state by telling them that, even though a majority of that state’s voters have stated they want their EVs awarded to one candidate, the results of voters from other states mandates that the results of the state election be invalidated.
Likewise, said compact disenfranchises any state that does not enter into the compact because a group of states would essentially be “ganging up” on states that do not participate. The states in the compact change their sovereignty to become one large state that can bully its will onto states outside of the compact. The states in the compact are no longer acting on the will of their own populations, but rather on the will of the compacted superstate.
Again, we do not have a national election in any form in this country. Making this change would be like determining House representation by popular vote (like a Parliamentary system). It rips apart the intention of the Constitution which states that states must choose their electors without any other interference or influence from other states as the states themselves are sovereign entities. This compact destroys the innate sovereignty of each state.
It’s an attempt to change the Electoral College to a popular vote without passing an amendment to the Constitution.
Food for thought: in 2016, if Los Angeles County, Cook County (Chicago), and Manhattan were removed from the Popular Vote total, Trump wins the PV by 200k. Do you really think the intention of the Founders in creating the EC and allowing states’ sovereignty of awarding its own EVs as they choose was to elect a President by the margins of three large metropolitan areas?
It also disenfranchises voters within a state by telling them that, even though a majority of that state’s voters have stated they want their EVs awarded to one candidate, the results of voters from other states mandates that the results of the state election be invalidated.
Likewise, said compact disenfranchises any state that does not enter into the compact because a group of states would essentially be “ganging up” on states that do not participate. The states in the compact change their sovereignty to become one large state that can bully its will onto states outside of the compact. The states in the compact are no longer acting on the will of their own populations, but rather on the will of the compacted superstate.
Again, we do not have a national election in any form in this country. Making this change would be like determining House representation by popular vote (like a Parliamentary system). It rips apart the intention of the Constitution which states that states must choose their electors without any other interference or influence from other states as the states themselves are sovereign entities. This compact destroys the innate sovereignty of each state.
It’s an attempt to change the Electoral College to a popular vote without passing an amendment to the Constitution.
Food for thought: in 2016, if Los Angeles County, Cook County (Chicago), and Manhattan were removed from the Popular Vote total, Trump wins the PV by 200k. Do you really think the intention of the Founders in creating the EC and allowing states’ sovereignty of awarding its own EVs as they choose was to elect a President by the margins of three large metropolitan areas?
Posted on 7/13/23 at 10:47 am to Jjdoc
quote:quote:
The Constitution literally gives states the sole discretion in how they choose to award EC votes.
It will be struck down by the SCOTUS should it actually pass
Posted on 7/13/23 at 10:48 am to bluestem75
quote:
Do you really think the intention of the Founders in creating the EC and allowing states’ sovereignty of awarding its own EVs as they choose was to elect a President by the margins of three large metropolitan areas?
I don't think the Founders ever imagined we would have the disparities of this system with states like California v. Wyoming, or, hell, that California or Wyoming would be part of this federal system in the first place
Posted on 7/13/23 at 10:50 am to SlowFlowPro
It does not seem correct that a state could, as here, decide to cast its electoral votes in a manner completely untethered to the vote of that state's electorate. Carried to its logical conclusion, this thinking would permit a state to make the casting of its electoral votes dependent on a coin flip in Bangladesh. Is that really how the Republic is intended to work?
Posted on 7/13/23 at 10:51 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Winner take all laws bastardized and corrupted the electoral college.
This. All states should use the Maine/Nebraska model of apportioning EV's to respective congressional districts, with the winner of the state's PV getting the two Senatorial electors. However, that could turn states like California and New York nearly red, or at least purple, and we all know that can't happen.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 10:53 am to Zachary
in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct
It's up to the voters of that state to elect state-level reps to promote their interests. That's how the Republic is intended to work. If the voting population doesn't like policies of their representative, then they can do something about it (at the next election or via recall, if their state permits it). The system is designed to put as much power as close to the voters as possible, and there aren't many levels closer than voter to a state rep.
It's up to the voters of that state to elect state-level reps to promote their interests. That's how the Republic is intended to work. If the voting population doesn't like policies of their representative, then they can do something about it (at the next election or via recall, if their state permits it). The system is designed to put as much power as close to the voters as possible, and there aren't many levels closer than voter to a state rep.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 10:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I know this may seem crazy to you, but not all arguments have to be made under a partisan lens to promote a partisan point.
Sometimes analysis is objective and has no relationship to the personal desires of the analyzer.
You are correct. The thing is though...getting this benefit of the doubt is earned and maintained by the analyzer, and you don't have that. Not sure when you lost that with others on here, if you ever had it, but you don't have it now. I can say in my short time here, I've never taken your points as a bi-partisan one. You try hard, but you always have a tell, once people learn about you more and more.
That's not a dig or a bad thing, its hard to be seen as down middle of the road, but that's not self-proclaimed, that is awarded.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 10:56 am to KAGTASTIC
quote:
, and you don't have that. Not sure when you lost that with others on here, if you ever had it,
My multiple Droppie awards for best poli board poster says otherwise, good sir.
quote:
You try hard, but you always have a tell,
quote:
I've never taken your points as a bi-partisan one.
What does bi-partisan have to do with anything I said?
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
they are repeating what they've been told.
Like you keep repeating, "States' Rights". Can you point to where the Constitution recognizes any government as having "rights"? I can only see where powers are recognized. "Rights" seem to be reserved to the People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Articles of Confederation recognized states' rights, but it was removed in the Constitution.
But otherwise, I'm with you. Posters aren't realizing the fact that the People don't elect the president, the states do. And the Constitution allows the state to vote however their legislatures want. Apparently, they don't even have to poll the citizenry. Sort of like how senators used to be selected.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:03 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
disparities of this system with states like California v. Wyoming
You don't think that was on their minds when they had the likes of NY,PA, and VA and also New Hampshire and Delaware at that time?
It's the exact reason why they created two separate houses in Congress with the State house having equal representation of all member states.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:11 am to SlowFlowPro
Saying to a state's electorate, "We don't care if you vote 100% for Candidate A; if California and New York vote for Candidate B, you are voting for Candidate B," does not sound like putting "power... close to the voters."
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:16 am to udtiger
quote:
A right to a meaningless vote is no right at all.
Currently, in a winner take all state, if you don't vote with the majority in your state, it's a meaningless vote.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:18 am to Jjdoc
quote:
nothing is going to change his mind
I don't know, you've brought plenty of nothing, and he hasn't changed his mind yet.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:19 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
My multiple Droppie awards
Is that like something a baby is given by his mother after he made a good boom-boom in his diapers? no clue what that means.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:25 am to Cuz413
quote:
It's the exact reason why they created two separate houses in Congress with the State house having equal representation of all member states.
How about the Senate? How was their membership originally determined? It wasn't by a vote of the People.
Posted on 7/13/23 at 11:28 am to Zachary
quote:
"We don't care if you vote 100% for Candidate A; if California and New York vote for Candidate B, you are voting for Candidate B," does not sound like putting "power... close to the voters."
The "We" to whom you refer are elected to their offices by a vote of the People. If they don't represent the People's wishes, or "don't care" as you say, they should be removed from office by a vote of the People, and replaced with legislators that will better represent the People. SFP already covered that.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News