Thwarting the will of the Majority[W:99]

[Master PO]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

That could be argued. It could also be argued like I said that faithless electors are legal and therefore this law is legal.

no it would not, because the have denied people their state representation, for a national a representation which the state cannot do.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

NO - your statement was unintelligible nonsense that you kept defending over and over and over and over again saying it was perfectly okay and it was my problem...... before you finally admitted that it was YOUR OWN DAMN PROBLEM BECAUSE OF YOUR OWN DAMN TYPO.

oh, you stated it was nonsense because of a typo, yet you made a typo in trying to correct me.

now dont you look foolish

 

[haymarket]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

oh, you stated it was nonsense because of a typo, yet you made a typo in trying to correct me.

now dont you look foolish

NO - you stated there was nothing wrong with it and it was my fault. You did this over and over and over again for hours and hours and hours before you were man enough to admit your own mistake.

It took just a few minutes shy of 12 hours for you to finally man up on your admission that you made your own mistake. But in the meantime you made at least seven posts where you tried to pretend the problem was mine. Here is the list of your posts in which you did that

232
239
241
248
249
261
263

You defended your ridiculous nonsense statement in each of them and attacked me in many of them like or mistake was somehow my fault.

Here was your statement that you claimed repeatedly was just fine.

i was a reminder to me, ..sorry you dont get it.

I make typos also. That is part of being human. But I DO NOT do as you do and pretend that my typo was perfect and the problem was with the reader - as you so dishonestly attempted to do over and over and over again until you realized it was you who was looking stupid trying to defend it.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

NO - you stated there was nothing wrong with it and it was my fault. You did this over and over and over agin for hours and hours and hours before you were man enough to admit your own mistake.

Here was your statement that you claimed repeatedly was just fine.




I make typos also. That is part of being human. But I DO NOT do as you do and pretend that my typo was perfect and the problem was with the reader - as you so dishonestly attempted to do over and over and over again until you realized it was you who was looking stupid trying to defend it.

dude you really need to move on and not worry about typos......really, dont you have something better to do?

 

[haymarket]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

dude you really need to move on and not worry about typos......really, dont you have something better to do?

The issue is not you making a typo. The issue is you pretending for 12 hours that it was my problem and what you wrote was just fine.

See the documentation in my last post for a post by post listing of where you did exactly this.

 

[Master PO]

He does. He is just using it to distract from the fact that not only he being dishonest but his entire premise is little more then whining that his side lost.

there could be another angle for this, and that is to screw with the EC to piss people off to where they will call for the popular vote.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

The issue is not you making a typo. The issue is you pretending for 12 hours that it was my problem and what you wrote was just fine.

See the documentation in my last post for a post by post listing of where you did exactly this.

your problem?

i made a reminder to myself which you stated was opinion.

i made it clear my reminder to myself is not opinion, and its your problem for not understanding that aspect.

 

[poweRob]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

no it would not, because the have denied people their state representation, for a national a representation which the state cannot do.

Then you are arguing that faithless electors are illegal. This hasn't been the case in the past.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

your problem?

i made a reminder to myself which you stated was opinion.

i made it clear my reminder to myself is not opinion, and its your problem for not understanding that aspect.

And for 12 hours you pretended in seven different posts that you did nothing wrong and it was my fault for not understanding your post which had nothing wrong in it.

Why can't you just admit you were caught in a mistake and continued denial of it and continue attack on me for pointing it out was simply a tactic of yours that ended up biting you in your own ass?

For gods sake man - just man up and let this be done with.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

Then you are arguing that faithless electors are illegal. This hasn't been the case in the past.

i am arguing that a state cannot give away the peoples representation to other states.

because the EC is a combination representation vote of states and people, so i have no doubt the law was be ruled unconstitutional

 

[Master PO]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

And for 12 hours you pretended in seven different posts that you did nothing wrong and it was my fault for not understanding your post which had nothing wrong in it.

Why can't you just admit you were caught in a mistake and continued denial of it and continue attack on me for pointing it out was simply a tactic of yours that ended up biting you in your own ass?

For gods sake man - just man up and let this be done with.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

So why can't you take your own advice?

 

[Master PO]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

So why can't you take your own advice?

move along

 

[haymarket]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

move along

It was you who beat the dead horse for 12 hours and tried to pretend it was me who shot it and was at fault. And now you just can't accept that it was you who humiliated yourself for those 12 hours with your own tactics.

And you still cannot take your own advice and have to try to get in the last word.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

It was you who beat the dead horse for 12 hours and tried to pretend it was me who shot it and was at fault. And now you just can't accept that it was you who humiliated yourself for those 12 hours with your own tactics.

And you still cannot take your own advice and have to try to get in the last word.

dude, you need to move on and stop tormenting yourself

 

[haymarket]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

dude, you need to move on and stop tormenting yourself

But its so much fun watching you trying to get in the last word after for 12 hours you pretended that it was me making them mistake before you finally broke down and admitted it was yourself.

Please do continue.

 

[Master PO]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

But its so much fun watching you trying to get in the last word after for 12 hours you pretended that it was me making them mistake before you finally broke down and admitted it was yourself.

Please do continue.

another typo "making them mistake"

it seems i cant help you, but you have my pity and so has Mister "T"

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

move along

Can the real Master PO please stand up?

 

[Tangmo]

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is required for this to take effect. That is a violation of the contract clause of Article I, Section 10, Clause three of the Constitution:

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.​

It also violates the guarantee clause of Article IV, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.​

Is also violates Article II. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact takes away the state’s legislative powers over the electoral votes.

That's a pretty fierce stance there. So let's look at some arguments between the two sides of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that are in favor vs those who are (fiercely) opposed to it. I write to the reader more than I write to you btw.

(I'd note also that during my 72 years I've noticed Libertarian politicos (such as yourself) are right of center or pretty far right of it, probably 80 percent of 'em and on any given issue -- that's a ballpark figure but I've always spent a lot of time in ballparks from coast to coast and border to border.)

Let's start at the start, the Constitution and Electors of the EC:

Supporters believe the compact is legal under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the plenary power of the states to appoint their electors in any manner they see fit: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

So each state legislature is by the Constitution the determining factor in anything involving its Electors to the EC. This negates your misunderstanding, i.e, that legislatures would be politically castrated by the Compact being adopted.


Further...

Ian Drake, an assistant professor of Political Science and another critic of the compact, has argued that the constitution both requires and prohibits Congressional approval of the compact. In Drake's view, only a constitutional amendment could make the compact valid.[42] Authors Michael Brody,[43] Jennifer Hendricks,[44] and Bradley Turflinger[45] have examined the compact and concluded that the NPVIC, if successfully enacted, would pass constitutional muster.

Nothing about the Compact is as clear or as absolute as your post asserts ever so aggressively and one dimensionally.


Moreover...

It is possible that Congress would have to approve the NPVIC before it could go into effect. Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution states that: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power." However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), and in several more recent cases, that such consent is not necessary except where a compact encroaches on federal supremacy.[47]


From the 17th century forward to the present, each colony then each state is a sovereign entity of government. We know that from the charters granted by the British Crown until the successful war of independence. From the Articles of Confederation adopted by a convention of the states in 1783 then the Constitution adopted by a convention of the states in 1789. The fundamental limitation to the sovereignty of a state -- to include the present 50 of 'em -- is the federal government Supremacy Clause, only. And the Feds have no authority in respect of Electors to the EC. Congress simply receives 'em and records their vote.

So it is not as simple, commanding or as straightforward as the post asserts in the absolute. There are Constitutional arguments for and against the Compact. It is my position that the preponderance of the arguments of Constitutional law, case/common law jurisprudence, to include each state having sovereignty over its Electors to the EC, weight the Compact favorably.

After all, until 1830 several states chose their EC Electors by popular vote, the winning candidate for EC Elector position determined by either a majority or a plurality of the popular votes cast in each state. This changed however due to the advent and the dominance of something not mentioned in the Constitution, i.e., organised formal political parties.

 

[code1211]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

Can you explain to us all how you can have a state expressing its opinion without the individuals who actually make up the state?

The votes of the individuals who do vote are compiled to reflect the voice of the various states.

Each State is allowed to express that preference (determined under methods that they prefer) in the Electoral college as the voice of the state, determined by that state's vote. That is reflective of our union being a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. This is one measure set in place to help to avoid the "tyranny of the majority".

Federalist Papers touches in many of the essays the need for a balance between the "National" and the "Federal" and why the particular point at question may help to maintain that balance.

They are equally vigilant, it seems to me as I read them, that the government become neither completely National, pure democracy, or completely Federal, oligarchy.

To me, the Electoral College is a very nice balance between the two sides of the coin. the individuals vote: Democratic. The States are represented: Federal.

It also gives a voice to the smaller population states like North Dakota and Wyoming as well as the large population states like California and New York.

Without the Electoral College, the President effectively becomes a Super Mayor of the big cities and does not reflect the will of the rural folks at all. Take away cities that have major league franchises and Clinton won almost nothing. The opposite is true about Trump's totals.

[h=3]States themselves are not monolithically blue or red. Here's the projected winner in each county in the US. At first glance, there are a handful of blue islands, mostly concentrated along the coasts, surrounded by a sea of red.[/h]

 

[code1211]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

It does support the voice of people in that state. People elect the electors based on a popular vote in that state.
Their voice is heard and their vote counts.

Just like people in ND get their voice heard instead of getting wiped out by
A large city like LA.

the system works and gives everyone a voice in the election.

These people want to claim some fallacy.

Exactly! A pretty good balance between nationalism and Federalism.

Our Framers were pretty smart guys! Hamilton in particular was a genius.

Hamilton's Machine is fueled by Jefferson's dreams.

Our country is founded on, planned by, developed under and moving forward

powered by the tension of opposites pulling and pushing.

 

[code1211]

Re: Thwarting the will of the Majority

There is no need for a Constitutional convention to "fix" the electoral college. The Constitution allows States to choose how they pick their electors.
https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/how-work-around-electoral-college-without-amending-constitution

I think the question was not on how to fix the Electoral College, but on why the Electoral College exists to thwart the will of the people.

 

[Tennyson]

That's a pretty fierce stance there. So let's look at some arguments between the two sides of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that are in favor vs those who are (fiercely) opposed to it. I write to the reader more than I write to you btw.

(I'd note also that during my 72 years I've noticed Libertarian politicos (such as yourself) are right of center or pretty far right of it, probably 80 percent of 'em and on any given issue -- that's a ballpark figure but I've always spent a lot of time in ballparks from coast to coast and border to border.)

I am limited on how many characters I can use in my post.

Part 1​

(I'd note also that during my 72 years I've noticed Libertarian politicos (such as yourself) are right of center or pretty far right of it, probably 80 percent of 'em and on any given issue -- that's a ballpark figure but I've always spent a lot of time in ballparks from coast to coast and border to border.)

When used in the context of the Constitution, declaring that Libertarians are right of center is a false premise. Authentic Lockean Libertarianism sits in the middle of the constitutional political spectrum. When in the context of American political parties and their current ideologies, Libertarianism does exist in the right of center of the contemporary political spectrum.

Let's start at the start, the Constitution and Electors of the EC:

Supporters believe the compact is legal under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the plenary power of the states to appoint their electors in any manner they see fit: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…"​

Let us start with the basics. The Constitution is an anti-democratic document. The President was not to be elected any form of a national election or a national influence on any state’s choosing of electors. This concept would have fallen under the Virginia Plan, which was strongly rejected. The Connecticut Plan was settled on with the Great Compromise.

Article II, Section 1 does not grant plenary power to the states regarding electors. If it did, it would not have any text beyond that. In the context and language of the Constitution, a plenary power would read as it does in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2’s appointment and advice and consent clauses. Moving beyond the textualism limitations of the electors, the understanding of the intent of the states to choose electors based on the sentiments of the citizens either by representation in the state legislatures or directly by the citizens of the states themselves needs to be understood and accounted without a national connection or dependency. The state’s electoral power was limited to selecting electors uniformly in each state based on the sentiment of the citizens of each state independently of any other state or national affiliation.

 

[Tennyson]

.

Part 2​

So each state legislature is by the Constitution the determining factor in anything involving its Electors to the EC. This negates your misunderstanding, i.e, that legislatures would be politically castrated by the Compact being adopted.

Further...

Ian Drake, an assistant professor of Political Science and another critic of the compact, has argued that the constitution both requires and prohibits Congressional approval of the compact. In Drake's view, only a constitutional amendment could make the compact valid.[42] Authors Michael Brody,[43] Jennifer Hendricks,[44] and Bradley Turflinger[45] have examined the compact and concluded that the NPVIC, if successfully enacted, would pass constitutional muster.

Nothing about the Compact is as clear or as absolute as your post asserts ever so aggressively and one dimensionally.​

Moreover...

It is possible that Congress would have to approve the NPVIC before it could go into effect. Article I, Section 10 of the US Constitution states that: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power." However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503 (1893), and in several more recent cases, that such consent is not necessary except where a compact encroaches on federal supremacy.[47]​

The compact clause is very clear when its intent is taken into consideration.

Congress cannot approve the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, much less the states, so that is a moot point. Congress cannot create a popular vote for the President without submitting a joint resolution to the states after they met the required majority to approve a popular vote joint resolution. If Congress, for some off reason, ever approved the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that would make it federal law, and the supremacy clause would preempt Congress from approving any law that violates the Constitution, which the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact does.

Virginia v. Tennessee 148 U.S. 503 (1893) is a non-starter. So is US Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission 434 U.S. 452 (1978). They have both been bandied around by the national popular vote cabal and both preclude the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact happening.

There was no the ground broken in the Virginia v Tennessee ruling as the court relied on Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.
Looking at the clause in which the terms "compact" or "agreement" appear, it is evident that the prohibition 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. Story, in his Commentaries, (§ 1403,) referring to a previous part of the same section of the Constitution in which the clause in question appears, observes that its language "may be more plausibly interpreted from the terms used, `treaty, alliance or confederation,' and upon the ground that the sense of each is best known by its association (noscitur a sociis) to apply to treaties of a political character; such as treaties of alliance for purposes of peace and war; and treaties of confederation, in which the parties are leagued for mutual government, political coöperation, and the exercise of political sovereignty, and treaties of cession of sovereignty, or conferring internal political jurisdiction, or external political dependence, or general commercial privileges"; and that "the latter clause, `compacts and agreements,' might then very properly apply to such as regarded what might be deemed mere private rights of sovereignty; such as questions of boundary; interests in land situate in the territory of each other, and other internal regulations for the mutual comfort and convenience of States bordering on each other." And he adds: "In such cases the consent of Congress may be properly required, in order to check any infringement of the rights of the national government; and, at the same time, a total prohibition to enter into any compact or agreement might be attended with permanent inconvenience or public mischief."​

 

[Tennyson]

.

Part 3​

From the 17th century forward to the present, each colony then each state is a sovereign entity of government. We know that from the charters granted by the British Crown until the successful war of independence. From the Articles of Confederation adopted by a convention of the states in 1783 then the Constitution adopted by a convention of the states in 1789. The fundamental limitation to the sovereignty of a state -- to include the present 50 of 'em -- is the federal government Supremacy Clause, only. And the Feds have no authority in respect of Electors to the EC. Congress simply receives 'em and records their vote.

So it is not as simple, commanding or as straightforward as the post asserts in the absolute. There are Constitutional arguments for and against the Compact. It is my position that the preponderance of the arguments of Constitutional law, case/common law jurisprudence, to include each state having sovereignty over its Electors to the EC, weight the Compact favorably.

State sovereignty was provisionally established in the eighteenth century on March 1, 1781, in Article II of the Articles of Confederation:

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.​

Absolute state sovereignty was created in the eighteenth century on September 30, 1783, in Article I of the Paris Peace Treaty:

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
The states retained all their sovereignty in the Constitution other than the enumerated powers in Article I, which included the contract clause, and state-to-state interactions in Article IV.​

After all, until 1830 several states chose their EC Electors by popular vote, the winning candidate for EC Elector position determined by either a majority or a plurality of the popular votes cast in each state. This changed however due to the advent and the dominance of something not mentioned in the Constitution, i.e., organised formal political parties.

This confirms the premise in my third paragraphs regarding the sentiments of the citizens of the state.