- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,244
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Christ, that was insufferable. I stopped watching after five seconds. Do you have an argument of your own to present or is "Watch my video!" all you've got?
Sigh, "I Didn't watch it" but I hated it.... probably because it destroys the Popular Vote compact, actually, I bet you did watch it and are incapable of countering it, thus the immature response you gave.
PS You can mute the sound and turn on CC and then you could have something to refute... TECHNOLOGY!
Anyone have a summary of the arguments used in the video? I am not wasting my time on some radon youtube video without some evidence it isn't idiotic.
Sigh, "I Didn't watch it" but I hated it.... probably because it destroys the Popular Vote compact, actually, I bet you did watch it and are incapable of countering it, thus the immature response you gave.
PS You can mute the sound and turn on CC and then you could have something to refute... TECHNOLOGY!
I watched it ... ALL ....
I love these guys, absolutely shred the National Popular vote compact movement
Anyone have a summary of the arguments used in the video? I am not wasting my time on some radon youtube video without some evidence it isn't idiotic.
Actually, there is. It's unconstitutional.1. There is nothing "improper" about states passing the NPVIC.
This isn't about Abortion, and I'm not getting into that here.2. The anti-choice movement has been destroying settled law (Roe) by a thousand small cuts, STATE BY STATE, so it seems a bit hypocritical to whine about states doing what the Constitution says they can do re elections, namely handling the election laws as they see fit.
CU, the boogeyman of the uneducated.3. Left by itself, the EC had been a benign adjustment to rural versus urban all along but now, with Citizens United and gerrymandering, it forms a troika of nullification that is designed to favor the oligarchy. You want to preserve the EC?
You get to pick the EC, CU or gerrymandering. You get to pick ONE but you can't have all three.
The popular vote is supposed to not matter, for a reason.You want to nullify the popular vote election after election? Fine, then the EC WILL BE NULLIFIED in return.
See above.You do NOT get to have THREE "cheats".
Of course we could always reverse CU and gerrymandering and then the EC would go back to being what it was meant to be.
It's a terrible idea that would disenfranchise voters in the various states and the moment they try this **** there will be a hail storm of lawsuits against it.4. I believe that the total is now at 179 or something close to it. That is less than a hundred votes from the magic 270.
My bet is we will not get to 270 before the 2020 election but we probably will before 2024.
Of course, miracles CAN happen.
Repealing the 17th would be a very good move, it has lead to half the mess the Senate is in right now.5. Nice try...most of the people whining about the NPVIC DO want to get rid of the Senate elections. They want the 17A repealed, and they're pushing for a Constitutional Convention so that they can do just that.
Tweakers...
You have debunked NOTHING. 270 is inevitable.
Anyone have a summary of the arguments used in the video? I am not wasting my time on some radon youtube video without some evidence it isn't idiotic.
It's unconstitutional.
No, it's totally idiotic, The Debunkers is a never heard of low sub channel that's totally just nothingburger... /smh
Anyway, they play a video, of some twit arguing for the National Popular Vote compact, and break it down. I love Freedom toons, they are funny, informative and I think you should atleast watch one, and if you don't like it, you don't like it. But don't be a child about it.
There are 2 arguments I got out of that (admittedly annoying) video:
(1) Constitution wanted to give smaller states higher weight so that higher-population states do not have too much control over smaller states. Using popular vote reverses that intent.
(2) While it would be hard to do this with changing Constitution, the Popular Vote compact is a "loophole" abused by the States.
I suppose they are making the case that Constitution is "smart" to do #1 but dumb about allowing such loopholes.
I personally think this all depends on whether we value individual states as separate entities for representation or not. Clearly, Senate composition is doing so. Should Presidential election do so as well to a degree?
While EC did not serve its buffering purpose of protecting us from a conman in 2016, abolishing EC concept still does not mean we could not continue to give higher weighs to votes from smaller states for their better representation.
I could see it either way and do not lean strongly one way or another - perhaps a small bias toward populate vote but I don't care too much if we keep some weights but tilt them a little over to the populate vote side, simply because we are no longer as much of a collection of independent states as we used to be. Checkerboard Strangler has some good points too.
How is it "unconstitutional" exactly? Seems like Constitution allows it / has no problem with how States choose the assign the EC votes. Even your video characterized it as a "loophole" but said nothing about it being against a law, let alone not being Constitutional.
Actually, there is. It's unconstitutional.
Anyone have a summary of the arguments used in the video? I am not wasting my time on some radon youtube video without some evidence it isn't idiotic.
There are 2 arguments I got out of that (admittedly annoying) video:
(1) Constitution wanted to give smaller states higher weight so that higher-population states do not have too much control over smaller states. Using popular vote reverses that intent.
(2) While it would be hard to do this with changing Constitution, the Popular Vote compact is a "loophole" abused by the States.
I suppose they are making the case that Constitution is "smart" to do #1 but dumb about allowing such loopholes.
I personally think this all depends on whether we value individual states as separate entities for representation or not. Clearly, Senate composition is doing so. Should Presidential election do so as well to a degree?
While EC did not serve its buffering purpose of protecting us from a conman in 2016, abolishing EC concept still does not mean we could not continue to give higher weighs to votes from smaller states for their better representation.
I could see it either way and do not lean strongly one way or another - perhaps a small bias toward populate vote but I don't care too much if we keep some weights but tilt them a little over to the populate vote side, simply because we are no longer as much of a collection of independent states as we used to be. Checkerboard Strangler has some good points too.
How is it "unconstitutional" exactly? Seems like Constitution allows it / has no problem with how States choose the assign the EC votes. Even your video characterized it as a "loophole" but said nothing about it being against a law, let alone not being Constitutional.
That's a big NOPE, Where do you come up with this ****?That is not the intent of the EC. The EC was implemented because the founding fathers did not trust the unwashed masses to choose wisely, and wanted to instead have the elite pick some one to be president.
Nothing in the constitution to ban Popular Vote Compact.
The Danger of the National Popular Vote CompactHarvard 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 a proposed interstate compact in which the signatory states agree that they will appoint their presidential electors in accordance with the national popular vote rather than their own state electorate’s vote....)I have written at length elsewhere about the problems with the NPVC. In my view, it is unconstitutional for states to appoint electors against the wishes of their own state electorate but in accordance with the will of voters outside the state. I also think that the practical problems with the NPVC will invite litigation on a far greater scale—and with far greater consequences for the legitimacy of our presidential elections—than what the nation witnessed in Bush v. Gore.
To raise just a few practical questions, how would a nationwide recount be ordered or conducted if the national popular vote is close? And, if a nationwide recount were not conducted—if only some states conducted a recount in that situation—would not that violate the Equal Protection Clause for the same reason that the lack of uniformity in Florida’s county-by-county recount in Bush v. Gore did? Equally importantly, would not the absence of a uniform, nationwide recount call into question the legitimacy of the President so elected? Supporters of the NPVC do not have even remotely convincing responses to these problems. Even they acknowledge the need for a nationwide recount and that no individual state can order other states to undertake a recount. They merely respond that Congress theoretically could enact a statute ordering a nationwide recount even though the NPVC, as an interstate compact, does not and cannot require Congress to enact such a statute.
You really don't understand the constitution....The constitution is smart. It left it up to the states to determine how they picked which elites voted for president.
It doesn't allow it. You can assign electors based on YOUR state, not other states voting.
Where does Constitution say this exactly?
Natelson: Why the ‘National Popular Vote’ scheme is unconstitutional – Complete Colorado – Page TwoThe U.S. Supreme Court says each state legislature has “plenary” (complete) power to decide how its state’s presidential electors are chosen.
But suppose a state legislature decided to raise cash by selling its electors to the highest bidder. Do you think the Supreme Court would uphold such a measure?
File photo – Todd Shepherd
If your answer is “no,” then you intuitively grasp a basic principle of constitutional law—one overlooked by those proposing the “National Popular Vote Compact” (NPV).
\\
In answer to this question, NPV advocates point out that the Constitution seemingly gives state legislatures unlimited authority to decide how their electors are appointed. They further note that the Constitution recognizes the reserved power of states to make compacts with each other. Although the Constitution’s text requires that interstate compacts be approved by Congress, NPV advocates claim congressional approval of NPV is not necessary. They observe that in U.S. Steel v. Multistate Tax Comm’n (1978) the Supreme Court held that Congress must approve a compact only when the compact increases state power at the expense of federal power.
NPV advocates may be wrong about congressional approval. It is unclear that the justices would follow U.S. Steel’s ruling now. The Constitution’s language requiring congressional approval is crystal clear, and the court today is much more respectful of the Constitution’s text and historical meaning than it was in 1978. Moreover, you can make a good argument that U.S. Steel requires congressional approval for NPV because NPV would weaken federal institutions: It would (1) abolish the role of the U.S. House of Representatives in the electoral process and (2) alter the presidential election system without congressional involvement. Furthermore, even the U.S. Steel case suggested that compacts require congressional approval whenever they “impact . . . our federal structure.”
Electoral College is an outdated relic from the past.....America needs to get rid of it.......
It's not unconstitutional at all. The Constitution ALLOWS for the Constitution to be changed. Also the Constitution doesn't tell the states where it has to put electors.
That people are coming up with this trash like "well, they might just inflate their figures", means what? Electoral fraud is electoral fraud no matter how it's carried out. That gerrymandering in House shows that people will compartmentalize just to get whatever the hell they want.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?