Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
National Popular Vote Compact
Author Message
solohawks Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,099
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 605
I Root For: UNCW
Location: Wilmington, NC
Post: #81
RE: National Popular Vote Compact
States have the right to do what they want with their electoral votes

While this interstate compact may be unconstitutional without Congress signing off, the remedy is simply to have the states interested change their electoral voting laws to remove mention of the compact and simply award their states votes to the popular vote winner

You do not have a constitutional right to vote for President and states can do what they want with those votes


Having said all this, if we go popular vote we will never see anything but a wish granter to big cities elected as President
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2021 07:09 AM by solohawks.)
10-16-2021 07:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BlueDragon Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,138
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 179
I Root For: TSU
Location:
Post: #82
RE: National Popular Vote Compact
(10-14-2021 11:19 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 09:39 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  So if the crooked states like CA and IL pile up a bazillion fake votes for the democrat, these other state's votes wont matter.

I get it. Typical democrat crookedness.


That’s about it in a nutshell.
If we all want to be ruled by those voting in NY, Califa, IL for all the good they do for their own constituents, then by all means vote for this rot.

My goodness, the levels to which ONE MAN wrecked these people is astonishing.

Sky scream somewhere else pls.

And this is the VERY REASON the Electoral College was founded to prevent this. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

Virginia was the California, NY, & IL of their day.
10-16-2021 08:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TheOriginalBigApp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,914
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 251
I Root For: Appalachian
Location:
Post: #83
RE: National Popular Vote Compact
Mods, Please have mymy cite the source(s) he's copy/pasting his posts from.

Plagiarism is frowned upon.
10-16-2021 08:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BlueDragon Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,138
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 179
I Root For: TSU
Location:
Post: #84
RE: National Popular Vote Compact
(10-15-2021 06:54 AM)mvymvy Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 10:27 PM)Todor Wrote:  I'm sure they have run the numbers and determined this trick will always work to the dems advantage, and never the Conservatives advantage.

All it does is add another finger to the scales.

Trump in June 2019 – Fox News interview
“It’s always tougher for the Republican because, . . . the Electoral College is very much steered to the Democrats. It’s a big advantage for the Democrats. It’s very much harder for the Republicans to win.”

Trump, April 26, 2018 on “Fox & Friends”
“I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign.”
“I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.”

“I would rather have a popular vote. “
Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview

“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”
Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”

"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.


Trump is dead wrong and needs to actually go back to history books to understand why it came about in the first place. Politicians are great at stoking the fire. Hillary and Pelosi have said similar stuff.

Rest assured when the Electoral College is done. So are we.
10-16-2021 08:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BlueDragon Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,138
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 179
I Root For: TSU
Location:
Post: #85
RE: National Popular Vote Compact
(10-16-2021 08:24 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  Mods, Please have mymy cite the source(s) he's copy/pasting his posts from.

Plagiarism is frowned upon.

You know learning how to copy and paste on your computer can be a lot of fun.
10-16-2021 09:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BlueDragon Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,138
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 179
I Root For: TSU
Location:
Post: #86
RE: National Popular Vote Compact
(10-15-2021 07:06 AM)mvymvy Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 12:20 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 12:01 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 11:43 AM)Niner National Wrote:  I wish we just awarded states cites as proportional to their votes. For example if a state with 10 votes votes 60/40, 6 go to one candidate, 4 to the other. Seems the most fair to me.

And allocate House seats this way as well…
right now, a state like Tennessee has 40% of its electorate vote Democratic, yet only 2 of 9 house seats. Arkansas has zero house seats, yet 35-40 of their voters are Democrats. I think it’s fair to say, gerrymandered districts & non competitive house races have helped lead to this intense polarization.

there’s no questioning Gerry-rigged-meandering …. however, that has nothing to do with senate/presidential elections … we’ve evolved past the founders’ schema …

there’s only one way to solve this relative to those elected to federal positions … and a constitutional convention ain’ a happenin’ in today’s world…. and if it were to happen, imagine what a clusterfk that would become…

the bottom line is having secure elections in all 50 states with a standard in place that eliminates fraud is THEE ONLY OPTION WORTH DISCUSSING!!!

The Arizona fraudit reported finding more votes for Biden.
A multitude of unsubstantiated claims, and no proof of fraud.

“Georgia’s historic first statewide audit reaffirmed that the state’s new secure paper ballot voting system accurately counted and reported results,” said Secretary Raffensperger.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger recertified the results with a second recount.
Both recounts upheld the race’s original outcome

Election investigators in Georgia couldn't find the counterfeit ballots that Republican vote-counters said they observed last November. Georgia judge dismissed lawsuit seeking Georgia election audit.


Michigan Republicans proved that 2020 election conspiracy theories are utterly bonkers.

Wisconsin's 2020 election recount resulted in Biden gaining 87 votes overall, reaffirming his victory over Trump

Idaho’s re-canvass resulted in a lower number of votes for Trump.

A judge in Pennsylvania asked the Trump campaign to provide evidence of mail-in ballot fraud after it sued to prevent the state from using drop boxes for mail voting
In 524 pages the Trump campaign couldn't cite a single instance of mail-in voting fraud.

Trump and his Republican allies have tapped into the power of the mob that the Founders feared could subvert the country. The Trump Republican’s Big Lie illustrates how keen they are to prey on the disaffected and uninformed, Republican leaders have successfully manipulated and exploited the mob to harvest their votes and their donations. The lie is so big, blatant, pernicious and damaging it prevails over intelligence, truth and conscience. – Neil Baron

The Trump campaign knew days after the 2020 election that wild claims of voting machine tampering — pushed by Sidney Powell and others allied with Donald Trump — were not true, court filings show. Still, they promoted the false theories.

Voter fraud allegations in the 2020 presidential election were rejected by more than 50 courts including the Supreme Court (three times), state election officials in every state, and all federal election officials and agencies, including Trump’s own Attorney General and FBI Director.

“We have not seen historically any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election — whether it’s by mail or otherwise,”
There is no sign of national voter fraud effort now.
There is no evidence of a voter fraud effort targeting mail-in or other ballots.– Trump’s FBI Director,

Senators Lindsey Graham and Mike Lee personally vetted Trump’s fraud claims. They were unpersuaded

Trump’s Attorney General Barr bluntly dismissed Trump's election fraud allegations as bulls***.
"There had been no discrepancy reported anywhere, and I'm still not aware of any discrepancy."

John Boehner, the Republican former House speaker says the former president “incited that bloody insurrection” by his supporters at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and that the Republican Party has been taken over by “whack jobs.” . . . After the election — Trump refusing to accept the results and stoking the flames of conspiracy that turned into violence in the seat of our democracy, the building over which I once presided.” . . . Trump “incited that bloody insurrection for nothing more than selfish reasons, perpetuated by the bull**** he’d been shoveling since he lost a fair election the previous November.” . . . “He claimed voter fraud without any evidence, and repeated those claims, taking advantage of the trust placed in him by his supporters and ultimately betraying that trust.”

Former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said “It was not rigged. It was not stolen. Donald Trump lost the election. Joe Biden won the election. It's really clear,”

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie urged Republicans "to face the realities of the 2020 election and learn, not hide from them,"…"Pretending we won when we lost is a waste of time and energy and credibility."

There is no actual proof of widespread fraud.
There are conspiracy theories that hurt our system of government.

The Freedom to Vote act includes voter ID requirements.


Why are Democrats fighting so hard to allow folks with no ID to vote and saying some of the outlandish racist lies about this?
10-16-2021 09:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BlueDragon Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,138
Joined: Jan 2021
Reputation: 179
I Root For: TSU
Location:
Post: #87
RE: National Popular Vote Compact
(10-15-2021 07:32 AM)mvymvy Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 10:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 09:07 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 08:55 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So I know we've had this brought up a few times over the past.. But earlier this week I saw where Michigan was trying to get in on it.

For those who don't know, several states are trying to band together and when they hit 270 electoral votes they'll have legislation in place to award their electoral votes to the President who wins the popular vote not who wins their state.

So my question to the group is do you think this is constitutional or even legal?

It seems to be a clear violation of the Compact Clause and the 12th and 20th Amendments. If it ever passed the required number of states I can't see the supreme court not striking it down.

Im pretty sure it says the state legislatures run the election in each state. Its probably legal---but its stupid. Why would you want to undermine the wishes of your own states voters? Wouldnt the wiser choice be to apportion your states electoral votes to reflect the outcome of the election (rounded to the nearest elector)? So, if the vote was 60% to 40%---the states winning candidates would get 6 of the states 10 electoral votes and the loser would get 4 electoral votes. At least that reflects the actual voter outcome in your state.

Proportional awarding of electors by state would not be a fair “compromise” or solution.

There are good reasons why no state even proposes, much less chooses, to award their electors proportionally.

In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President).
Based on the composition of the House at the time, the national popular vote winner would not have been chosen in 3 of those 4 cases, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system.

Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.


It would also ensure mob rule and minority rights will become a thing of the past.

Are you and those likeminded so blind that you have no idea why the process that is now in place was adopted?

Let's say brain dead politicians enact what you and likeminded uneducated trolls want. The first thing you have is disenfranchised rural voters. These rural voters make up 1% of the GDP. These folks are producing what urban people have the luxury of going in supermarkets and buying affordable groceries.

Are you really willing to exclude them from the process for a ton of government subsidized people living in government facilities in urban areas?

What happens next rural stop producing large amounts and just enough to sustain themselves in effect starve out the municipalities. Most people like yourself have no idea that are always going to be negatives that come along with your fake blue sky.
10-16-2021 09:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mvymvy Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 45
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation: -14
I Root For: democracy
Location:
Post: #88
RE: National Popular Vote Compact
(10-16-2021 09:28 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  
(10-15-2021 07:32 AM)mvymvy Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 10:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 09:07 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 08:55 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So I know we've had this brought up a few times over the past.. But earlier this week I saw where Michigan was trying to get in on it.

For those who don't know, several states are trying to band together and when they hit 270 electoral votes they'll have legislation in place to award their electoral votes to the President who wins the popular vote not who wins their state.

So my question to the group is do you think this is constitutional or even legal?

It seems to be a clear violation of the Compact Clause and the 12th and 20th Amendments. If it ever passed the required number of states I can't see the supreme court not striking it down.

Im pretty sure it says the state legislatures run the election in each state. Its probably legal---but its stupid. Why would you want to undermine the wishes of your own states voters? Wouldnt the wiser choice be to apportion your states electoral votes to reflect the outcome of the election (rounded to the nearest elector)? So, if the vote was 60% to 40%---the states winning candidates would get 6 of the states 10 electoral votes and the loser would get 4 electoral votes. At least that reflects the actual voter outcome in your state.

Proportional awarding of electors by state would not be a fair “compromise” or solution.

There are good reasons why no state even proposes, much less chooses, to award their electors proportionally.

In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President).
Based on the composition of the House at the time, the national popular vote winner would not have been chosen in 3 of those 4 cases, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system.

Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.


It would also ensure mob rule and minority rights will become a thing of the past.

Are you and those likeminded so blind that you have no idea why the process that is now in place was adopted?

Let's say brain dead politicians enact what you and likeminded uneducated trolls want. The first thing you have is disenfranchised rural voters. These rural voters make up 1% of the GDP. These folks are producing what urban people have the luxury of going in supermarkets and buying affordable groceries.

Are you really willing to exclude them from the process for a ton of government subsidized people living in government facilities in urban areas?

What happens next rural stop producing large amounts and just enough to sustain themselves in effect starve out the municipalities. Most people like yourself have no idea that are always going to be negatives that come along with your fake blue sky.

Mob rule is defined as “control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation.”

“ . . . the mechanics of the Electoral College allowed the defeated president to incite his followers into mounting the first attempt in U.S. history to seize the presidency by violence. Far from preventing them, the anti-majoritarian mechanisms of presidential elections were the crucial culprit in creating the “tumult and disorder” and the “heats and ferments” that so worried the authors of the Constitution.”- David Frum, 2/15/21

"In the past, [Republican] party elders, party leaders … exploited the crazies in order to win elections and then largely ignored them after the elections," "What has happened since then is that Trump opened Pandora's box and let them out. He not only let them out, he affirmed them and provoked them. And so now they're running wild and they are legitimatizing these delusions."- Mac Stipanovich, former GOP operative from Florida

Every other elected political office in the US is elected by one person, one vote popular vote.

We would not do away with the Electoral College, U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, state legislatures, etc. etc. etc.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The state based winner take all system was not adopted by a majority of the states until the 11th presidential election. - decades after the U.S. Constitution was written, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting the National Popular Vote bill would not need an amendment. State-by-state statewide winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by 48 states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral vote

National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes (and all three stopped using it by 1800).

In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.

As a result of changes in state laws enacted since 1789, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the state-by-state winner-take-all method is used by 48 of the 50 states. States can, and have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years.

Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws

The normal process of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified in the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national popularity is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.
10-16-2021 03:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mvymvy Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 45
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation: -14
I Root For: democracy
Location:
Post: #89
RE: National Popular Vote Compact
(10-16-2021 09:28 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  
(10-15-2021 07:32 AM)mvymvy Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 10:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 09:07 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 08:55 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So I know we've had this brought up a few times over the past.. But earlier this week I saw where Michigan was trying to get in on it.

For those who don't know, several states are trying to band together and when they hit 270 electoral votes they'll have legislation in place to award their electoral votes to the President who wins the popular vote not who wins their state.

So my question to the group is do you think this is constitutional or even legal?

It seems to be a clear violation of the Compact Clause and the 12th and 20th Amendments. If it ever passed the required number of states I can't see the supreme court not striking it down.

Im pretty sure it says the state legislatures run the election in each state. Its probably legal---but its stupid. Why would you want to undermine the wishes of your own states voters? Wouldnt the wiser choice be to apportion your states electoral votes to reflect the outcome of the election (rounded to the nearest elector)? So, if the vote was 60% to 40%---the states winning candidates would get 6 of the states 10 electoral votes and the loser would get 4 electoral votes. At least that reflects the actual voter outcome in your state.

Proportional awarding of electors by state would not be a fair “compromise” or solution.

There are good reasons why no state even proposes, much less chooses, to award their electors proportionally.

In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President).
Based on the composition of the House at the time, the national popular vote winner would not have been chosen in 3 of those 4 cases, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system.

Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.


It would also ensure mob rule and minority rights will become a thing of the past.

Are you and those likeminded so blind that you have no idea why the process that is now in place was adopted?

Let's say brain dead politicians enact what you and likeminded uneducated trolls want. The first thing you have is disenfranchised rural voters. These rural voters make up 1% of the GDP. These folks are producing what urban people have the luxury of going in supermarkets and buying affordable groceries.

Are you really willing to exclude them from the process for a ton of government subsidized people living in government facilities in urban areas?

What happens next rural stop producing large amounts and just enough to sustain themselves in effect starve out the municipalities. Most people like yourself have no idea that are always going to be negatives that come along with your fake blue sky.

“I would rather have a popular vote. “
Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview

“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”
Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”

"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.

In 1970, The U.S. House of Representatives voted 338–70 for a national popular vote.
3 Southern segregationist Senators filibustered it.

Presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX), Bob Dole (R-KS), Gerald Ford (R-MI), Richard Nixon (R-CA),

Supporters of the National Popular Vote bill have included former Gov. Gary Johnson (Libertarian – NM), Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)

Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote has included former Congressman John Buchanan (R–Alabama), and former Senators David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah), plus Michael Steele (former RNC Chair), and Rick Tyler

Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the National Popular Vote plan would not help either party over the other.

Bob Barr (2008 Libertarian presidential candidate) supports the National Popular Vote bill: “Only when the election process is given back to all of the people of all of the states will we be able to choose a President based on what is best for all 50 states and not just a select few.”

The Advisory Board of Libertarians for National Popular Vote consists of Gary Johnson (2016 Libertarian presidential candidate), Lincoln Chafee, Ed Lopez, Kevin R. L. Martin, and Michael Melendez.

“In each presidential election, millions of libertarian votes go either unheard as third-party ballots or unappreciated by the major party candidates that receive them. The 4.5 million votes cast for Gary Johnson in the 2016 election represent a population greater than any of the 25 least-populated states. The many libertarians who felt they had no other choice but to vote for an establishment candidate, or not vote at all, make that population even larger. But, with the current state-based winner-take-all method, this population of libertarians spread across the country has none of the electoral power afforded to states. A citizen’s individualized right to electoral power should not be endowed to political forces larger than themselves.”

Supporters include:
The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson.

Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State

Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:"A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College."

Rick Tyler, senior member of Senator Ted Cruz's campaign team, serving as the National Spokesman and Communications Director for Cruz for President.

Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote" include:

Laura Brod served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

James Brulte the California Republican Party chairman, served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

Ray Haynes served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served as a Republican in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

Dean Murray was a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

Thomas L. Pearce who served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

Since polling began in 1944 until the 2016 election, support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in polls

On March 7, 2019, the Delaware Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill in a bi-partisan 14-7 vote

In 2018, the National Popular Vote bill in the Michigan Senate was sponsored by a bipartisan group of 25 of the 38 Michigan senators, including 15 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.

In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin.

In 2009, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed the bill

On March 25, 2014 in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.

Since 2006, the bill has passed 41 state legislative chambers in 25 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 283 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (15), Minnesota (10), North Carolina (16), Oklahoma (7) and Virginia (13), and both houses in Nevada (6).
The bill has been enacted by 16 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 195 electoral votes – 72% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes.

When enacted by states with 270 electoral votes, it would change state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, without changing anything in the Constitution, again using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to choose how to vote.
10-16-2021 03:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mvymvy Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 45
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation: -14
I Root For: democracy
Location:
Post: #90
RE: National Popular Vote Compact
(10-16-2021 09:28 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  
(10-15-2021 07:32 AM)mvymvy Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 10:45 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 09:07 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 08:55 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So I know we've had this brought up a few times over the past.. But earlier this week I saw where Michigan was trying to get in on it.

For those who don't know, several states are trying to band together and when they hit 270 electoral votes they'll have legislation in place to award their electoral votes to the President who wins the popular vote not who wins their state.

So my question to the group is do you think this is constitutional or even legal?

It seems to be a clear violation of the Compact Clause and the 12th and 20th Amendments. If it ever passed the required number of states I can't see the supreme court not striking it down.

Im pretty sure it says the state legislatures run the election in each state. Its probably legal---but its stupid. Why would you want to undermine the wishes of your own states voters? Wouldnt the wiser choice be to apportion your states electoral votes to reflect the outcome of the election (rounded to the nearest elector)? So, if the vote was 60% to 40%---the states winning candidates would get 6 of the states 10 electoral votes and the loser would get 4 electoral votes. At least that reflects the actual voter outcome in your state.

Proportional awarding of electors by state would not be a fair “compromise” or solution.

There are good reasons why no state even proposes, much less chooses, to award their electors proportionally.

In 4 of the 8 elections between 1992 and 2020, the choice of President would have been thrown into the U.S. House (where each state has one vote in electing the President).
Based on the composition of the House at the time, the national popular vote winner would not have been chosen in 3 of those 4 cases, regardless of the popular vote anywhere.

Electors are people. They each have one vote. The result would be a very inexact whole number proportional system.

Every voter in every state would not be politically relevant or equal in presidential elections.

It would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote;

It would reduce the influence of any state, if not all states adopted.

It would not improve upon the current situation in which four out of five states and four out of five voters in the United States are ignored by presidential campaigns, but instead, would create a very small set of states in which only one electoral vote is in play (while making most states politically irrelevant),

It would not make every vote equal.

It would not guarantee the Presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

The National Popular Vote bill is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees the majority of Electoral College votes to the candidate who gets the most votes among all 50 states and DC.


It would also ensure mob rule and minority rights will become a thing of the past.

Are you and those likeminded so blind that you have no idea why the process that is now in place was adopted?

Let's say brain dead politicians enact what you and likeminded uneducated trolls want. The first thing you have is disenfranchised rural voters. These rural voters make up 1% of the GDP. These folks are producing what urban people have the luxury of going in supermarkets and buying affordable groceries.

Are you really willing to exclude them from the process for a ton of government subsidized people living in government facilities in urban areas?

What happens next rural stop producing large amounts and just enough to sustain themselves in effect starve out the municipalities. Most people like yourself have no idea that are always going to be negatives that come along with your fake blue sky.

The bill is ONLY about presidential elections.

The U.S. Senate and U.S. House and Governors, state legislatures, and local government officials, etc. would continue to represent us.

With the National Popular Vote bill, every voter, in every state, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
All votes would matter and count equally in the national vote total.

The vote of every voter in the country (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or Green) would help his or her preferred candidate win the Presidency. Every vote in the country would become as important as a vote in a battleground state such as Florida.

Of the Top Ten States by total agricultural receipts (by largest to smallest), which provided over half of the total of the U.S, Total Agricultural Receipts which were surveyed, support for a national popular vote was CA - 70% (enacted the National Popular Vote), IA - 75%, NE - 67%, MN - 75% (passed in House), IL (enacted), NC - 74% (passed in Senate), WI - 71%, and FL - 78%.

There aren’t anywhere near enough big city voters nationally. And all big city voters do not vote for the same candidate.

The population of the top 5 cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) has been only 6% of the population of the United States.

Voters in the biggest cities in the US have been almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

59,849,899 people have lived in the 100 biggest cities.

59,492,267 in rural America.

In 2004, 17.4% of votes were cast in rural counties, while only 16.5% of votes were cast within the boundaries of our nation’s 100 largest cities.

19% of the U.S. population have lived outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

19% of the U.S. population have lived in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

The rest of the U.S., in SUBurbs, have divided almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws, in some states, big city Democratic votes can outnumber all other people not voting Democratic in the state. All of a state’s votes may go to Democrats.

Without state winner-take-all laws, every conservative in a state that now predictably votes Democratic would count. Right now they count for 0

The current system completely ignores conservative presidential voters in states that vote predictably Democratic.

Under a national popular vote, rural voters throughout the country would have their votes matter, rather than being ignored because of state boundaries.
10-16-2021 03:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mvymvy Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 45
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation: -14
I Root For: democracy
Location:
Post: #91
RE: National Popular Vote Compact
(10-16-2021 08:27 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  
(10-15-2021 06:54 AM)mvymvy Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 10:27 PM)Todor Wrote:  I'm sure they have run the numbers and determined this trick will always work to the dems advantage, and never the Conservatives advantage.

All it does is add another finger to the scales.

Trump in June 2019 – Fox News interview
“It’s always tougher for the Republican because, . . . the Electoral College is very much steered to the Democrats. It’s a big advantage for the Democrats. It’s very much harder for the Republicans to win.”

Trump, April 26, 2018 on “Fox & Friends”
“I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign.”
“I would rather have the popular vote because it’s, to me, it’s much easier to win the popular vote.”

“I would rather have a popular vote. “
Trump, October 12, 2017 in Sean Hannity interview

“I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”
Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”

"The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.


Trump is dead wrong and needs to actually go back to history books to understand why it came about in the first place. Politicians are great at stoking the fire. Hillary and Pelosi have said similar stuff.

Rest assured when the Electoral College is done. So are we.

The Founders did not intend that women, black people, and native Americans vote.
Most of the Founders intended that only in some states white men with significant money could vote for president.

Prior to arriving at the eventual wording of section 1 of Article II, the Constitutional Convention specifically voted against a number of different methods for selecting the President, including
● having state legislatures choose the President,
● having governors choose the President, and
● a national popular vote.
After these (and other) methods were debated and rejected, the Constitutional Convention decided to leave the entire matter to the states.

The Constitutional Convention rejected states awarding electors by state legislatures or governors (as the majority did for decades), or by Districts (as Maine and Nebraska now do), or by letting the people vote for electors (as 48 states now do).

Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 38+ states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant.
9 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant now.

Now, and with the National Popular Vote bill, states have 3 – 54 electors.

Less than 100 people in a state in 2020 not filling out the census cost a state an elector.

The 25 smallest states combined have had 57 Democratic electors and 58 Republican electors.
CA has 54 electors

Now, states with 3 electors range in population of less than 760,000 to almost a million. Mathematically NOT balanced, fair, equal, equitable, or proportional.

Constitutionally, the number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the 23rd Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three. No Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Now, Each political party in each state nominates a slate of candidates for the position of presidential elector. This is most commonly done at the party’s congressional-district conventions and the party’s state convention during the summer or early fall. It is sometimes done in a primary.

Typically, each political party chair certifies to the state’s chief election official the names of the party’s candidate for President and Vice President and the names of the party’s candidates for presidential elector.

Under the “short presidential ballot” (now used in all states), the names of the party’s nominee for President and Vice President appear on the ballot.

When a voter casts a vote for a party’s presidential and vice-presidential slate on Election Day (the Tuesday after the first Monday in November), that vote is deemed to be a vote for all of that party’s candidates for presidential elector.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Under statewide “winner-take-all” laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed in the Constitution, now used in 48 states, the presidential-elector candidates who receive the most popular votes statewide are elected.

In district winner states, the candidate for the position of presidential elector who wins the most popular votes in each congressional district is elected (with the two remaining electors being based on the statewide popular vote).

In states enacting the National Popular Vote bill, when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538, all of the 270+ presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC).

Non-enacting states could award their electors however they want. Continuing with statewide winner-take-all, or enacting some other law.

Each state’s elected presidential electors travel to their State Capitol on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December to cast their votes for President and Vice President.

The Electoral College will continue to elect the President.
10-16-2021 03:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mvymvy Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 45
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation: -14
I Root For: democracy
Location:
Post: #92
RE: National Popular Vote Compact
(10-16-2021 08:11 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 11:19 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  
(10-14-2021 09:39 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  So if the crooked states like CA and IL pile up a bazillion fake votes for the democrat, these other state's votes wont matter.

I get it. Typical democrat crookedness.


That’s about it in a nutshell.
If we all want to be ruled by those voting in NY, Califa, IL for all the good they do for their own constituents, then by all means vote for this rot.

My goodness, the levels to which ONE MAN wrecked these people is astonishing.

Sky scream somewhere else pls.
And this is the VERY REASON the Electoral College was founded to prevent this. Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

Virginia was the California, NY, & IL of their day.

The bill is ONLY about presidential elections.

The U.S. Senate and U.S. House and Governors, state legislatures, and local government officials, etc. would continue to represent us.

Math.

The most populous 6 states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois.
All voters in those state, and all other states, do not all vote for the same candidate.

In 2016,
CA, New York state, and Illinois Democrats together cast 12% of the total national popular vote.

In total New York state (29 electors), Illinois (20), and California (55), with 19% of U.S. electors, cast 20% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20), with 16% of U.S. electors, cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states

All the voters – 62% -- in the 44 other states and DC would have mattered and counted equally.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ electoral votes to the winner of the most national popular votes.

All votes would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.
10-16-2021 03:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.