Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
/—-/ I see this being challenged up to the USSCWhy do LWNJs believe that they should override the voters of a state? If Connecticut votes in favor of a candidate that doesn't get the majority of the nationwide popular vote, their votes are nullified.
It's a rhetorical question. We all understand that you Progs don't respect the Will of the People.
I certainly hope so. It's a move to completely undo our Federal Republic and turn it into a mass mob majority rules nightmare controlled by Blue State major metro areas.
I don't know why I keep trying with this question, but how is it that the method of presidential election is the one determining factor between being a Federal Republic and "a mass mob majority rules nightmare"?
The president is neither a monarch nor a dictator, so why does the method in which a president is elected determine the type of nation we have? Does the rest of government not matter? Will there be no more representational government with a popular vote elected president? Will Congress disband and the president rule by decree if elected by popular vote?
If the Electoral College (which, by the way, would still be the method of electing presidents in this compact) is the lone barrier between representational government and mob rule, where are the calls for all elections to follow an EC system? Why is it only important for the president?
I understand the arguments in favor of the EC, but this idea that changing to a popular vote in presidential elections would turn the country into one run by pure democracy is ludicrous.
Exactly. If it were anywhere within smelling distance of a valid point, states would for example elect their governors (and Senators) via a "state electoral college" that took state electoral votes from each county, lest the so-called "mob" "control" the state. The number of states that actually do that is still Zero, roughly equivalent to the number of states that have suggested doing that.
This "mob rule" canard is a crutch used by those who will not or cannot simply take the Electrical College for what it is -- a short circuit that has long since burned out its own purpose. And they won't address that state analogy because they know it exposes the flaw in that canard.
And, as always, if you don't like something the Constitution says, you're welcome to amend it. The Founders decided that the presidency is a unique role that should not be decided by a popularity contest. The states are allowed to select their leaders however they like.
/-----/ The argument about mob rule applies to the difference between a democracy and a republic. If 51% vote for slavery, then it's the law of the land in a democracy. It won't happen in a republic because we have elected representatives to protect the liberty of minorities. The EC was set up to protect the voices of the scarcely populated agricultural states from the overbearing manufacturing states with large populations. If only New York and California decide who is president with the popular vote, they can structure the government to secure their power base and run the country to what best suits those two states even to the detriment of the other 48./—-/ I see this being challenged up to the USSCQuestion:
Why don't RWNJs believe that their vote should be counted?
Hmmm ?
Why do LWNJs believe that they should override the voters of a state? If Connecticut votes in favor of a candidate that doesn't get the majority of the nationwide popular vote, their votes are nullified.
It's a rhetorical question. We all understand that you Progs don't respect the Will of the People.
I certainly hope so. It's a move to completely undo our Federal Republic and turn it into a mass mob majority rules nightmare controlled by Blue State major metro areas.
I don't know why I keep trying with this question, but how is it that the method of presidential election is the one determining factor between being a Federal Republic and "a mass mob majority rules nightmare"?
The president is neither a monarch nor a dictator, so why does the method in which a president is elected determine the type of nation we have? Does the rest of government not matter? Will there be no more representational government with a popular vote elected president? Will Congress disband and the president rule by decree if elected by popular vote?
If the Electoral College (which, by the way, would still be the method of electing presidents in this compact) is the lone barrier between representational government and mob rule, where are the calls for all elections to follow an EC system? Why is it only important for the president?
I understand the arguments in favor of the EC, but this idea that changing to a popular vote in presidential elections would turn the country into one run by pure democracy is ludicrous.
/—-/ I see this being challenged up to the USSC
I certainly hope so. It's a move to completely undo our Federal Republic and turn it into a mass mob majority rules nightmare controlled by Blue State major metro areas.
I don't know why I keep trying with this question, but how is it that the method of presidential election is the one determining factor between being a Federal Republic and "a mass mob majority rules nightmare"?
The president is neither a monarch nor a dictator, so why does the method in which a president is elected determine the type of nation we have? Does the rest of government not matter? Will there be no more representational government with a popular vote elected president? Will Congress disband and the president rule by decree if elected by popular vote?
If the Electoral College (which, by the way, would still be the method of electing presidents in this compact) is the lone barrier between representational government and mob rule, where are the calls for all elections to follow an EC system? Why is it only important for the president?
I understand the arguments in favor of the EC, but this idea that changing to a popular vote in presidential elections would turn the country into one run by pure democracy is ludicrous.
Federal Republic of STATES.
Read about it.
And a president elected by popular vote would change the nation from being a federal republic of states?
Are you aware that there have only been 5 instances in which a president took office without winning the popular vote?
Would a presidential election done by popular vote change the powers of the presidency?
Yes.
So what?
That's not the point - the issue is proper representation. Mob rule by NYC, DC, LA, SF, Seattle, Portland and Chicago is not at all desirable; especially considering the appalling conditions in the Democrat led hellholes.
It does not go into effect until 270 EC votes will be allocated by the PV. The fact they are dem states is irrelevant - should the measure succeed all presidential elections will be held by PV.This can only backfire on Democrats.
1: They are allowed to do this under the 10th Amendment, which protects the right of individuals states to determine their elections and their allocation of their electoral votes.
However,
1: These States always vote Democrat...so this change won't matter if the popular voter winner is a Democrat.
2: These States might end up voting Republican (by accident)...because the national popular vote has often been won by the Republican candidate throughout the last several decades as well...
So...they're only setting themselves up for failure. Let them go forward with this idea, it will allow us to pick up more votes every other presidential election.
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
It does not go into effect until 270 EC votes will be allocated by the PV. The fact they are dem states is irrelevant - should the measure succeed all presidential elections will be held by PV.This can only backfire on Democrats.
1: They are allowed to do this under the 10th Amendment, which protects the right of individuals states to determine their elections and their allocation of their electoral votes.
However,
1: These States always vote Democrat...so this change won't matter if the popular voter winner is a Democrat.
2: These States might end up voting Republican (by accident)...because the national popular vote has often been won by the Republican candidate throughout the last several decades as well...
So...they're only setting themselves up for failure. Let them go forward with this idea, it will allow us to pick up more votes every other presidential election.
Then this is clearly unconstitutional since the States are forbidden by the Constitution to make treaties and alliances with each other...they are clearly establishing a "confederation" within the Union to override the Electoral College instead of amending the Constitution via Article V.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
It does not go into effect until 270 EC votes will be allocated by the PV. The fact they are dem states is irrelevant - should the measure succeed all presidential elections will be held by PV.This can only backfire on Democrats.
1: They are allowed to do this under the 10th Amendment, which protects the right of individuals states to determine their elections and their allocation of their electoral votes.
However,
1: These States always vote Democrat...so this change won't matter if the popular voter winner is a Democrat.
2: These States might end up voting Republican (by accident)...because the national popular vote has often been won by the Republican candidate throughout the last several decades as well...
So...they're only setting themselves up for failure. Let them go forward with this idea, it will allow us to pick up more votes every other presidential election.
Then this is clearly unconstitutional since the States are forbidden by the Constitution to make treaties and alliances with each other...they are clearly establishing a "confederation" within the Union to override the Electoral College instead of amending the Constitution via Article V.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
How would the compact "override" the Electoral College?
I don't know if this compact would constitute a treaty, alliance, or confederation per Article 1 Section 10. It's an interesting question.
It does not go into effect until 270 EC votes will be allocated by the PV. The fact they are dem states is irrelevant - should the measure succeed all presidential elections will be held by PV.This can only backfire on Democrats.
1: They are allowed to do this under the 10th Amendment, which protects the right of individuals states to determine their elections and their allocation of their electoral votes.
However,
1: These States always vote Democrat...so this change won't matter if the popular voter winner is a Democrat.
2: These States might end up voting Republican (by accident)...because the national popular vote has often been won by the Republican candidate throughout the last several decades as well...
So...they're only setting themselves up for failure. Let them go forward with this idea, it will allow us to pick up more votes every other presidential election.
Then this is clearly unconstitutional since the States are forbidden by the Constitution to make treaties and alliances with each other...they are clearly establishing a "confederation" within the Union to override the Electoral College instead of amending the Constitution via Article V.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
How would the compact "override" the Electoral College?
I don't know if this compact would constitute a treaty, alliance, or confederation per Article 1 Section 10. It's an interesting question.
The same way the 17th Amendment overrided the check and balance of the State governments against the Federal Government.
There's a reason the Founders made these compromises between the large and the small States (Senate and Electoral College) and the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists (17th Amendment vs original method of selecting Senators via the State Legislature).
These institutions were not subject to popular vote for a reason, and such plentiful reasons can be found in the Federalist Papers and other literature by Federalists and Anti-Federalists during that time.
It does not go into effect until 270 EC votes will be allocated by the PV. The fact they are dem states is irrelevant - should the measure succeed all presidential elections will be held by PV.This can only backfire on Democrats.
1: They are allowed to do this under the 10th Amendment, which protects the right of individuals states to determine their elections and their allocation of their electoral votes.
However,
1: These States always vote Democrat...so this change won't matter if the popular voter winner is a Democrat.
2: These States might end up voting Republican (by accident)...because the national popular vote has often been won by the Republican candidate throughout the last several decades as well...
So...they're only setting themselves up for failure. Let them go forward with this idea, it will allow us to pick up more votes every other presidential election.
Then this is clearly unconstitutional since the States are forbidden by the Constitution to make treaties and alliances with each other...they are clearly establishing a "confederation" within the Union to override the Electoral College instead of amending the Constitution via Article V.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
How would the compact "override" the Electoral College?
I don't know if this compact would constitute a treaty, alliance, or confederation per Article 1 Section 10. It's an interesting question.
The same way the 17th Amendment overrided the check and balance of the State governments against the Federal Government.
There's a reason the Founders made these compromises between the large and the small States (Senate and Electoral College) and the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists (17th Amendment vs original method of selecting Senators via the State Legislature).
These institutions were not subject to popular vote for a reason, and such plentiful reasons can be found in the Federalist Papers and other literature by Federalists and Anti-Federalists during that time.
The Electoral College would still be in place under the compact; the states involved would simply be changing the way they choose electors. That power belongs to the state legislatures according to the Constitution.
The election of presidents is currently subject to a popular vote, just not a national popular vote.
/----/ We need to change the rules so only democRATs win.I certainly hope so. It's a move to completely undo our Federal Republic and turn it into a mass mob majority rules nightmare controlled by Blue State major metro areas.
I don't know why I keep trying with this question, but how is it that the method of presidential election is the one determining factor between being a Federal Republic and "a mass mob majority rules nightmare"?
The president is neither a monarch nor a dictator, so why does the method in which a president is elected determine the type of nation we have? Does the rest of government not matter? Will there be no more representational government with a popular vote elected president? Will Congress disband and the president rule by decree if elected by popular vote?
If the Electoral College (which, by the way, would still be the method of electing presidents in this compact) is the lone barrier between representational government and mob rule, where are the calls for all elections to follow an EC system? Why is it only important for the president?
I understand the arguments in favor of the EC, but this idea that changing to a popular vote in presidential elections would turn the country into one run by pure democracy is ludicrous.
Federal Republic of STATES.
Read about it.
And a president elected by popular vote would change the nation from being a federal republic of states?
Are you aware that there have only been 5 instances in which a president took office without winning the popular vote?
Would a presidential election done by popular vote change the powers of the presidency?
Yes.
So what?
That's not the point - the issue is proper representation. Mob rule by NYC, DC, LA, SF, Seattle, Portland and Chicago is not at all desirable; especially considering the appalling conditions in the Democrat led hellholes.
Again, how is the election of president the only thing standing between a representational government and mob rule? Why do all the government officials currently elected through popular vote systems not turn the country into one of mob rule? How does electing the president through popular vote change the powers of anyone in government? Does the fact that presidential elections have gone the way of the national popular vote more than 90% of the time mean anything?
Let's look at representation: 38.5% of Californians who voted voted for someone other than Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. None of their votes counted, as all 55 electoral votes went to Clinton. 47.8% of Texas voters voted for someone other than Donald Trump in the 2016 election. None of their votes counted, as all 38 electoral votes went to Trump. There are only 2 states which are not winner-take-all for their electoral votes. Is that particularly representative of the people in those states? Were the 1.2 million people who voted for Trump in Colorado represented by the WTA EC system? How about the almost 1.4 million who voted for Clinton in Wisconsin?
I personally favor a system more like those used by Nebraska or Maine, with electors chosen by district voting results; or perhaps a runoff system, as FA_Q2 has proposed. However, if the US were to elect the president through a national popular vote, it would not turn the nation into a pure democracy. The vote for president is not the only bastion of representation standing between us and mob rule.
/---/ "a short circuit that has long since burned out its own purpose." Please pinpoint the time in US History that the EC burned out. Surely you have the date at your fingertips since you made the proclamation. TIA./—-/ I see this being challenged up to the USSCQuestion:
Why don't RWNJs believe that their vote should be counted?
Hmmm ?
Why do LWNJs believe that they should override the voters of a state? If Connecticut votes in favor of a candidate that doesn't get the majority of the nationwide popular vote, their votes are nullified.
It's a rhetorical question. We all understand that you Progs don't respect the Will of the People.
I certainly hope so. It's a move to completely undo our Federal Republic and turn it into a mass mob majority rules nightmare controlled by Blue State major metro areas.
I don't know why I keep trying with this question, but how is it that the method of presidential election is the one determining factor between being a Federal Republic and "a mass mob majority rules nightmare"?
The president is neither a monarch nor a dictator, so why does the method in which a president is elected determine the type of nation we have? Does the rest of government not matter? Will there be no more representational government with a popular vote elected president? Will Congress disband and the president rule by decree if elected by popular vote?
If the Electoral College (which, by the way, would still be the method of electing presidents in this compact) is the lone barrier between representational government and mob rule, where are the calls for all elections to follow an EC system? Why is it only important for the president?
I understand the arguments in favor of the EC, but this idea that changing to a popular vote in presidential elections would turn the country into one run by pure democracy is ludicrous.
Exactly. If it were anywhere within smelling distance of a valid point, states would for example elect their governors (and Senators) via a "state electoral college" that took state electoral votes from each county, lest the so-called "mob" "control" the state. The number of states that actually do that is still Zero, roughly equivalent to the number of states that have suggested doing that.
This "mob rule" canard is a crutch used by those who will not or cannot simply take the Electrical College for what it is -- a short circuit that has long since burned out its own purpose. And they won't address that state analogy because they know it exposes the flaw in that canard.
/—-/ I see this being challenged up to the USSCQuestion:
Why don't RWNJs believe that their vote should be counted?
Hmmm ?
Why do LWNJs believe that they should override the voters of a state? If Connecticut votes in favor of a candidate that doesn't get the majority of the nationwide popular vote, their votes are nullified.
It's a rhetorical question. We all understand that you Progs don't respect the Will of the People.
I certainly hope so. It's a move to completely undo our Federal Republic and turn it into a mass mob majority rules nightmare controlled by Blue State major metro areas.
I don't know why I keep trying with this question, but how is it that the method of presidential election is the one determining factor between being a Federal Republic and "a mass mob majority rules nightmare"?
The president is neither a monarch nor a dictator, so why does the method in which a president is elected determine the type of nation we have? Does the rest of government not matter? Will there be no more representational government with a popular vote elected president? Will Congress disband and the president rule by decree if elected by popular vote?
If the Electoral College (which, by the way, would still be the method of electing presidents in this compact) is the lone barrier between representational government and mob rule, where are the calls for all elections to follow an EC system? Why is it only important for the president?
I understand the arguments in favor of the EC, but this idea that changing to a popular vote in presidential elections would turn the country into one run by pure democracy is ludicrous.
Exactly. If it were anywhere within smelling distance of a valid point, states would for example elect their governors (and Senators) via a "state electoral college" that took state electoral votes from each county, lest the so-called "mob" "control" the state. The number of states that actually do that is still Zero, roughly equivalent to the number of states that have suggested doing that.
This "mob rule" canard is a crutch used by those who will not or cannot simply take the Electrical College for what it is -- a short circuit that has long since burned out its own purpose. And they won't address that state analogy because they know it exposes the flaw in that canard.
It does not go into effect until 270 EC votes will be allocated by the PV. The fact they are dem states is irrelevant - should the measure succeed all presidential elections will be held by PV.This can only backfire on Democrats.
1: They are allowed to do this under the 10th Amendment, which protects the right of individuals states to determine their elections and their allocation of their electoral votes.
However,
1: These States always vote Democrat...so this change won't matter if the popular voter winner is a Democrat.
2: These States might end up voting Republican (by accident)...because the national popular vote has often been won by the Republican candidate throughout the last several decades as well...
So...they're only setting themselves up for failure. Let them go forward with this idea, it will allow us to pick up more votes every other presidential election.
Then this is clearly unconstitutional since the States are forbidden by the Constitution to make treaties and alliances with each other...they are clearly establishing a "confederation" within the Union to override the Electoral College instead of amending the Constitution via Article V.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
How would the compact "override" the Electoral College?
I don't know if this compact would constitute a treaty, alliance, or confederation per Article 1 Section 10. It's an interesting question.
The same way the 17th Amendment overrided the check and balance of the State governments against the Federal Government.
There's a reason the Founders made these compromises between the large and the small States (Senate and Electoral College) and the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists (17th Amendment vs original method of selecting Senators via the State Legislature).
These institutions were not subject to popular vote for a reason, and such plentiful reasons can be found in the Federalist Papers and other literature by Federalists and Anti-Federalists during that time.
The Electoral College would still be in place under the compact; the states involved would simply be changing the way they choose electors. That power belongs to the state legislatures according to the Constitution.
The election of presidents is currently subject to a popular vote, just not a national popular vote.
If the Electoral College is abolished, or changed like this we might as well abolish states. They will be essentially meaningless, and we can one big collective like the USSR.
/----/ "The idea that "only New York and California decide who is president with the popular vote" is ridiculous." It's not ridiculous. I was trying to make a point with an analogy. Of course it's more complex that that./-----/ The argument about mob rule applies to the difference between a democracy and a republic. If 51% vote for slavery, then it's the law of the land in a democracy. It won't happen in a republic because we have elected representatives to protect the liberty of minorities. The EC was set up to protect the voices of the scarcely populated agricultural states from the overbearing manufacturing states with large populations. If only New York and California decide who is president with the popular vote, they can structure the government to secure their power base and run the country to what best suits those two states even to the detriment of the other 48./—-/ I see this being challenged up to the USSCWhy do LWNJs believe that they should override the voters of a state? If Connecticut votes in favor of a candidate that doesn't get the majority of the nationwide popular vote, their votes are nullified.
It's a rhetorical question. We all understand that you Progs don't respect the Will of the People.
I certainly hope so. It's a move to completely undo our Federal Republic and turn it into a mass mob majority rules nightmare controlled by Blue State major metro areas.
I don't know why I keep trying with this question, but how is it that the method of presidential election is the one determining factor between being a Federal Republic and "a mass mob majority rules nightmare"?
The president is neither a monarch nor a dictator, so why does the method in which a president is elected determine the type of nation we have? Does the rest of government not matter? Will there be no more representational government with a popular vote elected president? Will Congress disband and the president rule by decree if elected by popular vote?
If the Electoral College (which, by the way, would still be the method of electing presidents in this compact) is the lone barrier between representational government and mob rule, where are the calls for all elections to follow an EC system? Why is it only important for the president?
I understand the arguments in favor of the EC, but this idea that changing to a popular vote in presidential elections would turn the country into one run by pure democracy is ludicrous.
In a pure democracy perhaps. The US can be considered a democratic republic or a representational democracy, though.
The idea that "only New York and California decide who is president with the popular vote" is ridiculous. In fact, the winner-take-all electoral college system in place in those states actually creates a situation in which those states appear far more uniformly supportive of a particular candidate than they actually are. In a national popular vote system, based on the previous election, Clinton would only have gotten about 8.7 million votes from California, while Trump would have gotten close to 4.5 million. The system as it stands, however, gave all 55 electoral votes to Clinton. It was closer than that in NY, with Clinton getting 4.5 million votes while Trump got 2.8 million. How would using those results lead to NY and California deciding who is president? How would it be less representational than the current WTA system?
What about Texas and Florida? More people voted in each of those states than voted in New York. How is NY deciding the election in a popular vote system, but those states are not?
When the EC was set up many states did not have voting for president at all.
Does the president decide how the government is structured? Are there no checks on presidential power?
I'm not even arguing in favor of a national popular vote for president. However, arguing against such a system because it would turn the US into a pure democracy is simply foolish.
Apples and oranges. Electors are chosen to elect the PRESIDENT. State leaders are governors, etc.l
/—-/ I see this being challenged up to the USSC
I certainly hope so. It's a move to completely undo our Federal Republic and turn it into a mass mob majority rules nightmare controlled by Blue State major metro areas.
I don't know why I keep trying with this question, but how is it that the method of presidential election is the one determining factor between being a Federal Republic and "a mass mob majority rules nightmare"?
The president is neither a monarch nor a dictator, so why does the method in which a president is elected determine the type of nation we have? Does the rest of government not matter? Will there be no more representational government with a popular vote elected president? Will Congress disband and the president rule by decree if elected by popular vote?
If the Electoral College (which, by the way, would still be the method of electing presidents in this compact) is the lone barrier between representational government and mob rule, where are the calls for all elections to follow an EC system? Why is it only important for the president?
I understand the arguments in favor of the EC, but this idea that changing to a popular vote in presidential elections would turn the country into one run by pure democracy is ludicrous.
Exactly. If it were anywhere within smelling distance of a valid point, states would for example elect their governors (and Senators) via a "state electoral college" that took state electoral votes from each county, lest the so-called "mob" "control" the state. The number of states that actually do that is still Zero, roughly equivalent to the number of states that have suggested doing that.
This "mob rule" canard is a crutch used by those who will not or cannot simply take the Electrical College for what it is -- a short circuit that has long since burned out its own purpose. And they won't address that state analogy because they know it exposes the flaw in that canard.
And, as always, if you don't like something the Constitution says, you're welcome to amend it. The Founders decided that the presidency is a unique role that should not be decided by a popularity contest. The states are allowed to select their leaders however they like.
"However they like" would include choosing electors based on the national popular vote, wouldn't it?
It does not go into effect until 270 EC votes will be allocated by the PV. The fact they are dem states is irrelevant - should the measure succeed all presidential elections will be held by PV.
Then this is clearly unconstitutional since the States are forbidden by the Constitution to make treaties and alliances with each other...they are clearly establishing a "confederation" within the Union to override the Electoral College instead of amending the Constitution via Article V.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1
No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
How would the compact "override" the Electoral College?
I don't know if this compact would constitute a treaty, alliance, or confederation per Article 1 Section 10. It's an interesting question.
The same way the 17th Amendment overrided the check and balance of the State governments against the Federal Government.
There's a reason the Founders made these compromises between the large and the small States (Senate and Electoral College) and the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists (17th Amendment vs original method of selecting Senators via the State Legislature).
These institutions were not subject to popular vote for a reason, and such plentiful reasons can be found in the Federalist Papers and other literature by Federalists and Anti-Federalists during that time.
The Electoral College would still be in place under the compact; the states involved would simply be changing the way they choose electors. That power belongs to the state legislatures according to the Constitution.
The election of presidents is currently subject to a popular vote, just not a national popular vote.
And if the national popular vote goes against the state vote (for instance NPV goes Republic, and California goes Democrat) and the Electors individually vote Democrat anyway...as the Constitution permits them to...then what?
The vote of an Elector cannot be bound by law, the Elector is independent of such things...to subject an Elector to a state law is overriding the Electoral College. The Elector may vote however they choose, and even betray the party (sic rarely in practice) who selected them.
Now that I'm reading through this entire proposal, I see all kinds of constitutional questions with it, two of problems which are clearly unconstitutional.
1: States cannot enter into a confederation
2: The vote of an Elector cannot be bound to any other entity, the elector is truly independent from all outside influence.
So, here's my question what happens when California Elector #27, #31, #43, votes Democrat, even though the national popular vote went Republican, and these three votes determine the outcome of a razor-thin election.
I can personally tell you two things that will happen:
A: Elector #27, #31, #43 claim authority under the US Constitution to cast his/her ballot however he/she chooses, and is not bound to any state of law.
B: Red States sue California for not allocating all of their votes all to the national popular vote, as California agreed to in the pact, the Supreme Court steps in and strikes this lawsuit down, since States may not enter a confederation and Electors cannot be bound to any outside force.
C: Texans get real angry since they allocated their Electoral Votes to Democrats in previous elections under this pact, allowing the Dems to win, even though Texas voted Republican and had they allocated their votes to the R's, R's would have won.
D: Texas interprets this as betrayal and an act of war, and realizes they've been duped by the Dems for the past few elections and the Dems were never going to follow their own pact if it was going to cause them the election.
E: Civil War.
/----/ We need to change the rules so only democRATs win.I don't know why I keep trying with this question, but how is it that the method of presidential election is the one determining factor between being a Federal Republic and "a mass mob majority rules nightmare"?
The president is neither a monarch nor a dictator, so why does the method in which a president is elected determine the type of nation we have? Does the rest of government not matter? Will there be no more representational government with a popular vote elected president? Will Congress disband and the president rule by decree if elected by popular vote?
If the Electoral College (which, by the way, would still be the method of electing presidents in this compact) is the lone barrier between representational government and mob rule, where are the calls for all elections to follow an EC system? Why is it only important for the president?
I understand the arguments in favor of the EC, but this idea that changing to a popular vote in presidential elections would turn the country into one run by pure democracy is ludicrous.
Federal Republic of STATES.
Read about it.
And a president elected by popular vote would change the nation from being a federal republic of states?
Are you aware that there have only been 5 instances in which a president took office without winning the popular vote?
Would a presidential election done by popular vote change the powers of the presidency?
Yes.
So what?
That's not the point - the issue is proper representation. Mob rule by NYC, DC, LA, SF, Seattle, Portland and Chicago is not at all desirable; especially considering the appalling conditions in the Democrat led hellholes.
Again, how is the election of president the only thing standing between a representational government and mob rule? Why do all the government officials currently elected through popular vote systems not turn the country into one of mob rule? How does electing the president through popular vote change the powers of anyone in government? Does the fact that presidential elections have gone the way of the national popular vote more than 90% of the time mean anything?
Let's look at representation: 38.5% of Californians who voted voted for someone other than Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. None of their votes counted, as all 55 electoral votes went to Clinton. 47.8% of Texas voters voted for someone other than Donald Trump in the 2016 election. None of their votes counted, as all 38 electoral votes went to Trump. There are only 2 states which are not winner-take-all for their electoral votes. Is that particularly representative of the people in those states? Were the 1.2 million people who voted for Trump in Colorado represented by the WTA EC system? How about the almost 1.4 million who voted for Clinton in Wisconsin?
I personally favor a system more like those used by Nebraska or Maine, with electors chosen by district voting results; or perhaps a runoff system, as FA_Q2 has proposed. However, if the US were to elect the president through a national popular vote, it would not turn the nation into a pure democracy. The vote for president is not the only bastion of representation standing between us and mob rule.
View attachment 194327
If the Electoral College is abolished, or changed like this we might as well abolish states. They will be essentially meaningless, and we can one big collective like the USSR.
