US inches closer to change in how presidential elections are counted

[Hume]

lol says the clown who's incoherent.

forum really took a nosedive

 

[ULTRA MAGA]

bye troll

Should I "go kill myself"?

 

[Hume]

Should I "go kill myself"?

zzzzzzzz

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The Constitution needs to be amended so "the people elect the President."

Pretty much. There are several things that stop a National Popular Vote for president.

The current push is between blue states to use the popular vote overall to allocate electors. The problem with this is that the Constitution specifically prohibits states entering into separate compacts with one and another.

Overview of the Compact Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

The NPV is clearly just such a compact, and therefore illegal.

Next, since different states have different election laws, this too feeds back into the same issue. Then there's the problem with voters in one state voting for the opposing candidate and the state ignoring their choice in favor of voting that occurred in other states.

The Danger of the National Popular Vote Compact - Harvard Law Review

This past week, Colorado joined a growing list of states that have signed on to the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC). The NPVC is...

harvardlawreview.org

https://www.cato.org/blog/fatally-flawed-national-popular-vote-plan

Yet, the Left in particular is pushing this forward because they simply can't guarantee they'll get their way at the polls. That is, they want an assured tyranny when it comes to elections.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

forum really took a nosedive

Just because you faceplant every time you post doesn't mean it reflects on the whole forum.

 

[Hume]

Pretty much. There are several things that stop a National Popular Vote for president.

The current push is between blue states to use the popular vote overall to allocate electors. The problem with this is that the Constitution specifically prohibits states entering into separate compacts with one and another.

It does not. Article II, sect. 1 gives each state's legislature the right to make their own rules.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It does not. Article II, sect. 1 gives each state's legislature the right to make their own rules.

Yes, they can do that. What they can't do is get together and collude to make rules between them which is what the NPV does.

For example, let's say the popular vote nationally is 51% for the Democrat candidate, but in Virginia the Democrat wins only 49% of the vote. Virginia as a participant in the NPV then ignores the state vote and gives their electors to the Democrat who lost in their state. That is, it was other state's votes that determined Virginia's outcome.

 

[Hume]

Yes, they can do that. What they can't do is get together and collude to make rules between them which is what the NPV does.

Where does the Constitution say that? I see that nowhere.

 

[Hume]

Yet, the Left in particular is pushing this forward because they simply can't guarantee they'll get their way at the polls. That is, they want an assured tyranny when it comes to elections.

Popular vote by the people is the opposite of tyranny.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Where does the Constitution say that? I see that nowhere.

Then you aren't looking.

Article 1 section 10 clause 3

The Compact Clause prohibits states from entering into “any Agreement or Compact with another State” or with a foreign government without the consent of Congress.

Overview of the Compact Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Hume]

Then you aren't looking.

Article 1 section 10 clause 3

The Compact Clause prohibits states from entering into “any Agreement or Compact with another State” or with a foreign government without the consent of Congress.

Overview of the Compact Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

"A literal reading of the Compact Clause would require congressional approval for any agreement or compact.12 In the context of interstate compacts, however, the Supreme Court has adopted a functional interpretation in which only compacts that increase the political power of the states while undermining federal sovereignty require congressional consent."

Again, no violation of the Constitution.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

"A literal reading of the Compact Clause would require congressional approval for any agreement or compact.12 In the context of interstate compacts, however, the Supreme Court has adopted a functional interpretation in which only compacts that increase the political power of the states while undermining federal sovereignty require congressional consent."

Again, no violation of the Constitution.

No, and Cornell's law school explains that. On important questions like a national election, states would be held to that standard and there is precedent with the Supreme Court for it. You clearly didn't read the linked material.

 

[Hume]

No, and Cornell's law school explains that. On important questions like a national election, states would be held to that standard and there is precedent with the Supreme Court for it. You clearly didn't read the linked material.

I read it. And you did not refute the quote I posted.

 

[Hume]

No, and Cornell's law school explains that. On important questions like a national election, states would be held to that standard and there is precedent with the Supreme Court for it. You clearly didn't read the linked material.

By the way, I want the Electoral College eliminated.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I read it. And you did not refute the quote I posted.

Yes, I did and actually demolished it. I even gave an example why. If one state's vote goes to candidate A and the national popular vote goes to candidate B, then a state in that compact would be obliged to ignore the will of its voters and allocate their electors to candidate B. This is clearly a violation of the compact clause where two states are colluding outside of federal jurisdiction on an interstate matter. Here, it is votes in other states that are determining the outcome of the state in question's elections. That is clearly a violation and illegal.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

By the way, I want the Electoral College eliminated.

That's nice. I suppose you'd like to wear a tutu in public as well.

 

[Hume]

Yes, I did and actually demolished it. I even gave an example why. If one state's vote goes to candidate A and the national popular vote goes to candidate B, then a state in that compact would be obliged to ignore the will of its voters and allocate their electors to candidate B. This is clearly a violation of the compact clause where two states are colluding outside of federal jurisdiction on an interstate matter.

No. Last time. As I quoted, the Supreme Court reads this as undermining the authority of the federal government. This Compact does no such thing. Again, The EC is just bad law.

 

[Hume]

That's nice. I suppose you'd like to wear a tutu in public as well.

Sorry, I keep thinking you are able to be rational.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Eliminate the Constitution...an outdated and antiquated document. That's what we'd have to do to eliminate the electoral college because America is far too divided to amend it with the means provided by the existing constitution. We'd essentially need to incorporate a new nation,
and it would probably end up being at least two or three.

Nonsense .... the whole design of the Constitution is to CHANGE, to EVOLVE. That is why we have AMENDMENTS. It can be done, it has been done .... BY THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Our history shows that. What generation will do this is up to debate.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

No. Last time. As I quoted, the Supreme Court reads this as undermining the authority of the federal government. This Compact does no such thing. Again, The EC is just bad law.

Yes, it does. It allows one state to determine the outcome of an election in another state, and I gave an example of that. You are just ignoring it.