re: New Mexico National Popular Vote Bill Headed to Governer's Desk

quote:

---

Just objectively the EC doesn’t make sense anymore.

---

Without the EC, eight cities would control the county. The interests of someone in NYC are not the same as someone in Des Moines. The EC allows that someone in Des Moines to cast a vote that actually means something.

quote:

---

I would be suing the state in federal court if I lived in one of these cuckholded states. You would lose

---

I don’t think you can know that. This thing will wind up in the SCOTUS, and it will probably start with a citizen suing his state.

quote:

---

Without the EC, eight cities would control the county.

---

Which 8? Doe they all vote the same? Does EVERYONE in those cities vote? Do they all vote the same?

People keep using this worst case scenario to bash political

Here is the reality of the EC as is

If you win the 11 most states with the most electors by 1 vote each you win the election even if you lose 100% of the rest of the vote.

It’s simply a broken system that enables the a minority to overrule a plurality.

And most of the time it doesn’t matter almost always the 2 are the same.

quote:

---

I can't believe people would give up their voice willingly

---

It's really worse than that. They are actually telling candidates "Don't campaign here. Go campaign in California and issue promises there."

quote:

---

Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

---

LINK

The notes from the convention seem to think it’s true.

But your are just backing this up with?

We are a democratic republic, and we would still be electing a representative.

To be a pure democracy we’d have to do away with congress and the president and have a popular vote on everything.

quote:

---

The notes from the convention seem to think it’s true.

---

You need to read the entirety of your own link. The debate taking place is whether the Executive could gain a second term by Congressional Appointment. It was not a debate on the Electoral College as a whole:

quote:

---

On reconsideration of the vote rendering the Executive re-eligible a 2d. time, Mr. MARTIN moved to reinstate the words, "to be ineligible a 2d. time."

---

quote:

---

Mr. RANDOLPH urged the motion of Mr. L. Martin for restoring the words making the Executive ineligible a 2d. time. If he ought to be independent, he should not be left under a temptation to court a re-appointment. If he should be re-appointable by the Legislature, he will be no check on it.

---

quote:

---

Mr. KING. did not like the ineligibility. He thought there was great force in the remark 8 of Mr. Sherman, that he who has proved himself to be 9 most fit for an Office, ought not to be excluded by the constitution from holding it. He would therefore prefer any other reasonable plan that could be substituted. He was much disposed to think that in such cases the people at large would chuse wisely. There was indeed some difficulty arising from the improbability of a general concurrence of the people in favor of any one man. On the whole he was of opinion that an appointment by electors chosen by the people for the purpose, would be liable to fewest objections.

Mr. PATTERSON's ideas nearly coincided he said with those of Mr. King. He proposed that the Executive should be appointed by Electors to be chosen by the States in a ratio that would allow one elector to the smallest and three to the largest States.

Mr. WILSON. It seems to be the unanimous sense that the Executive should not be appointed by the Legislature, unless he be rendered in-eligible a 2d. time: he perceived with pleasure that the idea was gaining ground, of an election mediately or immediately by the people.

---

So Madison is not debating whether to hold a national popular vote; he is debating whether the Congress should have the power to appoint the President to a second term.

His position:

quote:

---

Mr. MADISON. If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should: A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself.

---

And, in fact, he clearly speaks of his hesitation of a vote-at-large and instead believes the selection of electors the best option: He states:

quote:

---

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.

---

quote:

---

But your are just backing this up with?

---

Here is a good source; unfortunately, I can't quote directly from it but it clearly holds that "Madison largest critique of electoral reform was that it departs from the system laid out by the Constitution.

Madison's Views on Electoral Reform

quote:

---

We are a democratic republic,

---

No.

We live in a Federalized Constitutional Republic.

quote:

---

To be a pure democracy we’d have to do away with congress and the president and have a popular vote on everything.

---

The term Republic doesn't mean "representative democracy." It is a system of government based on the power of law. It holds that no group - one person, a group or party, or even the majority of citizens is superior to the law.

quote:

---

It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself.

---

Again, read it. They’re debating if Congress should reappoint the president and Madison comes in saying “I don’t like it in the first place.”

And saying an option would be least objected to sound like he things it’s the most likely one to pass.