(03-24-2019 07:25 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Do these deep blue states realize that the only time this so-called compact would come into play is if/when a Republican won the popular vote, and they would have to overturn the will of their constituents?

Any other situation, it wouldn't make any difference. Zero upside, infinite downside. Genius.

And swing states will never be on board, because they aren't going to disenfranchise themselves.

but the tommy goons have repeatedly told us they're more edujimucated and wealthier....therefore, this path they're on must be the 'right' one, eh?

it's only going to get more fonzies going into '20....

(03-24-2019 08:38 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 07:38 PM)banker Wrote:  I just don't understand how people can be this stupid.

From the comment section of that article...

Quote:March 24, 2019
Really hope this succeeds, the Electoral College must fall, and as we’ll never get a constitutional amendment this is the next best thing. I have always maintained that if the American people knew what the college was and what it did they would want it gone. Red state politicians excepted.

it's too much fonzies watching them choke on their phlegm....

Liberals, in general, are naive people ruled by emotions. This is a law about feelings. The first time a Republican wins the popular vote all these states are going to howl bloody murder (and try some way not to award their EC votes to him retroactively).

(03-24-2019 08:55 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 08:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 07:32 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 07:25 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Do these deep blue states realize that the only time this so-called compact would come into play is if/when a Republican won the popular vote, and they would have to overturn the will of their constituents?

Any other situation, it wouldn't make any difference. Zero upside, infinite downside. Genius.

And swing states will never be on board, because they aren't going to disenfranchise themselves.

Well I think its pretty sinister of them that this wont go into affect until there are 270 votes in the compact. That way this doesnt go into effect until it WILL decide the election so that people dont get a reality check about what this means.

With CA and NY on board... this is simply a way to ensure that states can't flip red when the Dems have a bad candidate... since those states electoral college votes are locked with everyone else.

They can't guarantee winning by the rules... so they want to change the rules.

They arent changing any rules whatsoever.

The 'rule' is that any individual state can determine how to allot its electoral votes in any manner that that individual state determines.

If a state wants to piss away it's sovereign right to delegate its votes according to its voters wishes, and defer to a national total, that state has every right to do so.

They are changing the rules. Not the rule that states have control over their electors... but that the electors follow the will of the nation not the voters of the state.

The rule is not what you state. I suggest you re-read Article 2, Section 1.

Wait, here it is on my desk!

Quote:Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors

I dont see *anything* in there about the 'voters of the state'. Can you point that out to me?

(03-24-2019 09:58 PM)banker Wrote:  What happens when one of these pact states goes 70% for a candidate that loses the popular vote? How does the state government survive by saying "look, I know the vast majority of you didn't want Satan as president, but California really liked Satan and they have more people than we do and, if you remember, we decided to blindly follow them without your consent."

That is an issue that those Legislators have to face. To paraphrase Obama: 'Elections have consequences', in more than one way in the case you describe above.

So people in those 13 states will still vote? Because it is clear that their votes don't matter.

(03-24-2019 09:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  If this gets anywhere close to taking effect, I would expect some court challenges. Of course, all we need is one case where a republican wins the popular vote but loses in the EC, and that's the last we will ever hear of this. This is purely, "We didn't get our way, so we are going to change the rules."

There will be court challenges if it gets close to taking effect. But, those challenges will be throwing mud at the wall.

There is *no* way around Article 2, Section 1 that gives the Legislatures amazingly broad latitude to direct their electoral voters selection.

And the argument with respect to the Compact Clause will die as well, since no Federal right is being subverted or overwritten.

A legislature of a state (any state) has pretty much unfettered latitude in *how* they pick or allocate their electoral voters. Period. Finito. End of story.

If they choose to piss away their sovereignty to the citizens of other states, they are more than able to do that. And if they choose to piss away their few remaining leverage points under federalism, again, they are more than able to do that.

Not the brightest thing in the world, but very legal.

(03-25-2019 11:35 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  So people in those 13 states will still vote? Because it is clear that their votes don't matter.

Their votes will still matter, but their votes will be massively diluted.

(03-25-2019 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The rule is not what you state. I suggest you re-read Article 2, Section 1.

Wait, here it is on my desk!

Quote:Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors

I dont see *anything* in there about the 'voters of the state'. Can you point that out to me?

I'm not talking about the constitution. I've already acknowledged that the Constitution doesn't have anything to say about this. Stop trying to make this a constitutional issue. It's not. I'm not arguing that.

What I am talking about is the rule/law in each state that dictates how electors operate. The fact that they are passing a law to change the system to this 'popular vote' concept... shows that they are changing the existing laws for their states.

Otherwise they wouldn't need to pass a law to do it. Each state has its own laws in place as to how electors votes work. Thats what these states are changing. I have never claimed that a state can't change that.
I'm simply pointing out that they are changing the rules/laws in their own state.

So to repeat myself... they are changing the rules/laws.

(03-25-2019 11:35 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  So people in those 13 states will still vote? Because it is clear that their votes don't matter.

XACLY!

let the drown in the moat around their kingdum-dum-dum....

this how power corrupts TTT....

fk 'em....I want to watch 'em sink or swim...

(03-25-2019 11:46 AM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The rule is not what you state. I suggest you re-read Article 2, Section 1.

Wait, here it is on my desk!

Quote:Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors

I dont see *anything* in there about the 'voters of the state'. Can you point that out to me?

I'm not talking about the constitution. I've already acknowledged that the Constitution doesn't have anything to say about this. Stop trying to make this a constitutional issue. It's not. I'm not arguing that.

What I am talking about is the rule/law in each state that dictates how electors operate. The fact that they are passing a law to change the system to this 'popular vote' concept... shows that they are changing the existing laws for their states.

Otherwise they wouldn't need to pass a law to do it. Each state has its own laws in place as to how electors votes work. Thats what these states are changing. I have never claimed that a state can't change that.
I'm simply pointing out that they are changing the rules/laws in their own state.

So to repeat myself... they are changing the rules/laws.

And the bad thing about a Legislature changing them.... is......

You act as though the Legislature changing the method is bad in and of itself now. *That* is the job of the legislature, in fact it is their *duty* to which is *the* method employed.

Would you be upset it the state legislatures, individually, signed on to a national compact that awarded electoral votes in the nearest proportion to the vote in the state? I am confused as to whether you are upset that the Legislature's *changed* a method, or whether you are upset that the Legislature's changed it to one that you dont like.

(03-25-2019 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 11:46 AM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The rule is not what you state. I suggest you re-read Article 2, Section 1.

Wait, here it is on my desk!

Quote:Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors

I dont see *anything* in there about the 'voters of the state'. Can you point that out to me?

I'm not talking about the constitution. I've already acknowledged that the Constitution doesn't have anything to say about this. Stop trying to make this a constitutional issue. It's not. I'm not arguing that.

What I am talking about is the rule/law in each state that dictates how electors operate. The fact that they are passing a law to change the system to this 'popular vote' concept... shows that they are changing the existing laws for their states.

Otherwise they wouldn't need to pass a law to do it. Each state has its own laws in place as to how electors votes work. Thats what these states are changing. I have never claimed that a state can't change that.
I'm simply pointing out that they are changing the rules/laws in their own state.

So to repeat myself... they are changing the rules/laws.

And the bad thing about a Legislature changing them.... is......

You act as though the Legislature changing the method is bad in and of itself now. *That* is the job of the legislature, in fact it is their *duty* to which is *the* method employed.

Would you be upset it the state legislatures, individually, signed on to a national compact that awarded electoral votes in the nearest proportion to the vote in the state? I am confused as to whether you are upset that the Legislature's *changed* a method, or whether you are upset that the Legislature's changed it to one that you dont like.

When did I express upset in the legislature changing a law?
Go on... I'll wait...

I never expressed upset in the legislatures passing laws.
You're making that strawman to try to 'win the argument'.

I never made this an issue of the constitution. You did.
You made that strawman to try to 'win the argument'.

Re-read what I originally said...

(03-24-2019 07:32 PM)q5sys Wrote:  They can't guarantee winning by the rules... so they want to change the rules.

I stated that they are changing the rules so they can win.

Period. Full. Stop.

Anything else you read into that... is your brain adding in something I haven't said or expressed.

Objectivity.... Learn it.
Learn to read peoples words without imposing your own views of what they mean on them.

The only thing I expressed that I didn't like was that they were making this inactive until they hit the 270 mark, because then the population doesn't get a trial run to see how this may actually work in real life. Seeing a state who voted D have to vote R, would quickly result in people in those blue states that have signed on being angry.

People are already angry that the election didn't go the way they wanted. Anger at not getting your way wont go away by a new voting system. People that get angry at not getting their way... will get angry if they don't get their way, regardless of what voting system is in place.

Since apparently you're going to imply your own meaning to my words, i may as well clear one other thing up before you try to twist words into meaning something else.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact benefits political parties it does not benefit the people of a particular state.
This is why the Dems want it. They know on numbers of a few cities they have half the population so they can do an endrun around the Constitution and the 12th amendment without having to touch them. That you can quote me on if you'd like.

(03-25-2019 02:50 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 11:46 AM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The rule is not what you state. I suggest you re-read Article 2, Section 1.

Wait, here it is on my desk!

Quote:Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors

I dont see *anything* in there about the 'voters of the state'. Can you point that out to me?

I'm not talking about the constitution. I've already acknowledged that the Constitution doesn't have anything to say about this. Stop trying to make this a constitutional issue. It's not. I'm not arguing that.

What I am talking about is the rule/law in each state that dictates how electors operate. The fact that they are passing a law to change the system to this 'popular vote' concept... shows that they are changing the existing laws for their states.

Otherwise they wouldn't need to pass a law to do it. Each state has its own laws in place as to how electors votes work. Thats what these states are changing. I have never claimed that a state can't change that.
I'm simply pointing out that they are changing the rules/laws in their own state.

So to repeat myself... they are changing the rules/laws.

And the bad thing about a Legislature changing them.... is......

You act as though the Legislature changing the method is bad in and of itself now. *That* is the job of the legislature, in fact it is their *duty* to which is *the* method employed.

Would you be upset it the state legislatures, individually, signed on to a national compact that awarded electoral votes in the nearest proportion to the vote in the state? I am confused as to whether you are upset that the Legislature's *changed* a method, or whether you are upset that the Legislature's changed it to one that you dont like.

When did I express upset in the legislature changing a law?
Go on... I'll wait...

I never expressed upset in the legislatures passing laws.
You're making that strawman to try to 'win the argument'.

I never made this an issue of the constitution. You did.
You made that strawman to try to 'win the argument'.

Re-read what I originally said...

(03-24-2019 07:32 PM)q5sys Wrote:  They can't guarantee winning by the rules... so they want to change the rules.

I stated that they are changing the rules so they can win.

Period. Full. Stop.

Anything else you read into that... is your brain adding in something I haven't said or expressed.

Objectivity.... Learn it.
Learn to read peoples words without imposing your own views of what they mean on them.

The only thing I expressed that I didn't like was that they were making this inactive until they hit the 270 mark, because then the population doesn't get a trial run to see how this may actually work in real life. Seeing a state who voted D have to vote R, would quickly result in people in those blue states that have signed on being angry.

People are already angry that the election didn't go the way they wanted. Anger at not getting your way wont go away by a new voting system. People that get angry at not getting their way... will get angry if they don't get their way, regardless of what voting system is in place.

Since apparently you're going to imply your own meaning to my words, i may as well clear one other thing up before you try to twist words into meaning something else.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact benefits political parties it does not benefit the people of a particular state.
This is why the Dems want it. They know on numbers of a few cities they have half the population so they can do an endrun around the Constitution and the 12th amendment without having to touch them. That you can quote me on if you'd like.

(03-25-2019 02:50 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 11:46 AM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The rule is not what you state. I suggest you re-read Article 2, Section 1.

Wait, here it is on my desk!

Quote:Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors

I dont see *anything* in there about the 'voters of the state'. Can you point that out to me?

I'm not talking about the constitution. I've already acknowledged that the Constitution doesn't have anything to say about this. Stop trying to make this a constitutional issue. It's not. I'm not arguing that.

What I am talking about is the rule/law in each state that dictates how electors operate. The fact that they are passing a law to change the system to this 'popular vote' concept... shows that they are changing the existing laws for their states.

Otherwise they wouldn't need to pass a law to do it. Each state has its own laws in place as to how electors votes work. Thats what these states are changing. I have never claimed that a state can't change that.
I'm simply pointing out that they are changing the rules/laws in their own state.

So to repeat myself... they are changing the rules/laws.

And the bad thing about a Legislature changing them.... is......

You act as though the Legislature changing the method is bad in and of itself now. *That* is the job of the legislature, in fact it is their *duty* to which is *the* method employed.

Would you be upset it the state legislatures, individually, signed on to a national compact that awarded electoral votes in the nearest proportion to the vote in the state? I am confused as to whether you are upset that the Legislature's *changed* a method, or whether you are upset that the Legislature's changed it to one that you dont like.

When did I express upset in the legislature changing a law?
Go on... I'll wait...

I never expressed upset in the legislatures passing laws.
You're making that strawman to try to 'win the argument'.

I never made this an issue of the constitution. You did.
You made that strawman to try to 'win the argument'.

Re-read what I originally said...

(03-24-2019 07:32 PM)q5sys Wrote:  They can't guarantee winning by the rules... so they want to change the rules.

I stated that they are changing the rules so they can win.

Period. Full. Stop.

Anything else you read into that... is your brain adding in something I haven't said or expressed.

Objectivity.... Learn it.
Learn to read peoples words without imposing your own views of what they mean on them.

The only thing I expressed that I didn't like was that they were making this inactive until they hit the 270 mark, because then the population doesn't get a trial run to see how this may actually work in real life. Seeing a state who voted D have to vote R, would quickly result in people in those blue states that have signed on being angry.

People are already angry that the election didn't go the way they wanted. Anger at not getting your way wont go away by a new voting system. People that get angry at not getting their way... will get angry if they don't get their way, regardless of what voting system is in place.

Since apparently you're going to imply your own meaning to my words, i may as well clear one other thing up before you try to twist words into meaning something else.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact benefits political parties it does not benefit the people of a particular state.
This is why the Dems want it. They know on numbers of a few cities they have half the population so they can do an endrun around the Constitution and the 12th amendment without having to touch them. That you can quote me on if you'd like.

Why not let each state determine what the hell they want to do? The base rules are utterly silent on *how* the state should select their electors.

It is apparent you are just mad at the 'outcome' of the individual state choices for those that want to sign on to the National Vote Compact.

Does it occur to you that, while you are ranting about 'having a decision rammed down your throat' you are preaching the exact same position? *That* is the funny thing to me. If a state, any state, has the unfettered *right* to do what the fk it wants to do re: electoral college votes, it seems just as intolerant for you to preach that 'the current way is the WAY it *should* be done.'

Look, I think that any state that signs on to the 270 compact is idiotic. But, they have every fking right to be as stupid as they wish.

If Delaware wants to piss away their votes to the US voting population as a whole --- go for it!

If Texas wants to award their electoral votes over a game of Roshambo for each electoral vote --- go for it!

That is *exactly* what the Constitution allows each and every state to do.

But all you are is apparently steamed up about is that it is *your* party that is seemingly not benefited by it.

Look, I am a state's rights purist. You obviously are not; probably more a party purist. I think those last two sentences explain our positions on the National Vote Compact more succinctly than anything else, tbh.

(03-25-2019 03:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 02:50 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 11:46 AM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The rule is not what you state. I suggest you re-read Article 2, Section 1.

Wait, here it is on my desk!


I dont see *anything* in there about the 'voters of the state'. Can you point that out to me?

I'm not talking about the constitution. I've already acknowledged that the Constitution doesn't have anything to say about this. Stop trying to make this a constitutional issue. It's not. I'm not arguing that.

What I am talking about is the rule/law in each state that dictates how electors operate. The fact that they are passing a law to change the system to this 'popular vote' concept... shows that they are changing the existing laws for their states.

Otherwise they wouldn't need to pass a law to do it. Each state has its own laws in place as to how electors votes work. Thats what these states are changing. I have never claimed that a state can't change that.
I'm simply pointing out that they are changing the rules/laws in their own state.

So to repeat myself... they are changing the rules/laws.

And the bad thing about a Legislature changing them.... is......

You act as though the Legislature changing the method is bad in and of itself now. *That* is the job of the legislature, in fact it is their *duty* to which is *the* method employed.

Would you be upset it the state legislatures, individually, signed on to a national compact that awarded electoral votes in the nearest proportion to the vote in the state? I am confused as to whether you are upset that the Legislature's *changed* a method, or whether you are upset that the Legislature's changed it to one that you dont like.

When did I express upset in the legislature changing a law?
Go on... I'll wait...

I never expressed upset in the legislatures passing laws.
You're making that strawman to try to 'win the argument'.

I never made this an issue of the constitution. You did.
You made that strawman to try to 'win the argument'.

Re-read what I originally said...

(03-24-2019 07:32 PM)q5sys Wrote:  They can't guarantee winning by the rules... so they want to change the rules.

I stated that they are changing the rules so they can win.

Period. Full. Stop.

Anything else you read into that... is your brain adding in something I haven't said or expressed.

Objectivity.... Learn it.
Learn to read peoples words without imposing your own views of what they mean on them.

The only thing I expressed that I didn't like was that they were making this inactive until they hit the 270 mark, because then the population doesn't get a trial run to see how this may actually work in real life. Seeing a state who voted D have to vote R, would quickly result in people in those blue states that have signed on being angry.

People are already angry that the election didn't go the way they wanted. Anger at not getting your way wont go away by a new voting system. People that get angry at not getting their way... will get angry if they don't get their way, regardless of what voting system is in place.

Since apparently you're going to imply your own meaning to my words, i may as well clear one other thing up before you try to twist words into meaning something else.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact benefits political parties it does not benefit the people of a particular state.
This is why the Dems want it. They know on numbers of a few cities they have half the population so they can do an endrun around the Constitution and the 12th amendment without having to touch them. That you can quote me on if you'd like.

Why not let each state determine what the hell they want to do? The base rules are utterly silent on *how* the state should select their electors.

It is apparent you are just mad at the 'outcome' of the individual state choices for those that want to sign on to the National Vote Compact.

Does it occur to you that, while you are ranting about 'having a decision rammed down your throat' you are preaching the exact same position? *That* is the funny thing to me. If a state, any state, has the unfettered *right* to do what the fk it wants to do re: electoral college votes, it seems just as intolerant for you to preach that 'the current way is the WAY it *should* be done.'

Look, I think that any state that signs on to the 270 compact is idiotic. But, they have every fking right to be as stupid as they wish.

If Delaware wants to piss away their votes to the US voting population as a whole --- go for it!

If Texas wants to award their electoral votes over a game of Roshambo for each electoral vote --- go for it!

That is *exactly* what the Constitution allows each and every state to do.

But all you are is apparently steamed up about is that it is *your* party that is seemingly not benefited by it.

Look, I am a state's rights purist. You obviously are not; probably more a party purist. I think those last two sentences explain our positions on the National Vote Compact more succinctly than anything else, tbh.

you're getting ready to find out what the next civil war is going to be all about....guess who has the bulk of the 'goons'...watch what happens to the USD when that happens and the armory is realized...we won't miss this time

watching the south rise again couldn't be better right now...

you benedict sw dipshites are beggin' for a fight you don't want....

I'm going to stop replying to you because I'm tired of you flat out lying about what i'm saying. I'm tired of you projecting your own twisted ideas on the words that I have chosen. And trying to imply that I have said something which I have no.

(03-25-2019 03:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  It is apparent you are just mad at the 'outcome' of the individual state choices for those that want to sign on to the National Vote Compact.

I am not mad. I have never stated that I am mad. This is a lie that you made up.

(03-25-2019 03:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  it seems just as intolerant for you to preach that 'the current way is the WAY it *should* be done.'

I am not intolerant. I never said that the current way it the way it should be done. This is a lie that you made up.
I am pointing out details about what this will do, and what will happen as a result. There are many ways that electors are assigned currently. Some states are winner take all, others are done by districts. I did not make any comments about those methods or my opinions on this methods.
Stop lying about what I am saying.

(03-25-2019 03:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But all you are is apparently steamed up about is that it is *your* party that is seemingly not benefited by it.

I have never once stated what my party is, or that this would benfit or hurt my party. I never said that. This is a lie that you made up.

(03-25-2019 03:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Look, I am a state's rights purist. You obviously are not; probably more a party purist.

I have never said I'm against states rights. I never said that. This is a lie that you made up.
I never said that I am a party purist. I never said that. This is a lie that you made up.

(03-25-2019 04:12 PM)q5sys Wrote:  I'm going to stop replying to you because I'm tired of you flat out lying about what i'm saying. I'm tired of you projecting your own twisted ideas on the words that I have chosen. And trying to imply that I have said something which I have no.

(03-25-2019 03:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  It is apparent you are just mad at the 'outcome' of the individual state choices for those that want to sign on to the National Vote Compact.

I am not mad. I have never stated that I am mad. This is a lie that you made up.

(03-25-2019 03:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  it seems just as intolerant for you to preach that 'the current way is the WAY it *should* be done.'

I am not intolerant. I never said that the current way it the way it should be done. This is a lie that you made up.
I am pointing out details about what this will do, and what will happen as a result. There are many ways that electors are assigned currently. Some states are winner take all, others are done by districts. I did not make any comments about those methods or my opinions on this methods.
Stop lying about what I am saying.

(03-25-2019 03:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But all you are is apparently steamed up about is that it is *your* party that is seemingly not benefited by it.

I have never once stated what my party is, or that this would benfit or hurt my party. I never said that. This is a lie that you made up.

(03-25-2019 03:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Look, I am a state's rights purist. You obviously are not; probably more a party purist.

I have never said I'm against states rights. I never said that. This is a lie that you made up.
I never said that I am a party purist. I never said that. This is a lie that you made up.

The only thing that resonates is that you dont like *that* particular rule change.

I dont understand why only *that* particular rule change gets under your skin, then.

The only reason you give is that 'it is one that one side wants'.

The simple case exists that a state has an unfettered right to award Electoral votes *however* it wishes. You are now 'onboard' with that, except for when a state chooses to award its electors, on its own volition, in a manner that *you* dont like.

I cant think of many other reasons to be so against the National Voting Compact. Educate me.