Nevada to join National Popular Vote compact

[martybegan]

This doesn't increase the power of a state, so now what, genius?

How does it not? It increases the power of the States in the Compact vs. the ones outside the compact.

An end run is an end run, no matter how much you try to justify it.

No, the state still has the same amount of electors, where is the power grab?

Ironically, if one goes by how the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, there should be a Representative in the House for every 30,000 people....that means, instead of about 55 Reps (used for counting EC #'s) there should be over 1330 Representatives in California....assume 1330 plus 2 Senators......that means that the Founders meant for California to have 1332 Electors. Do the same math for other states.

Don't do math in front of Marty.

Math is scary.

This coming from someone who probably has a degree in basketweaving is comical.

How is the national number certified so that the compact is enforced?

 

[HappyJoy]

And we would still be a Republic. Maybe you need the civics class.

As such the popular vote doesn’t make sense. The states decide per state how their electoral votes are used.

I'm sorry, are we ignoring that you got that completely wrong? OK.

So, to abolish the electoral college would of course require a constitutional amendment and that's not going to happen for anything, maybe never. So the states are solving it by changing how they assign their electors, something that per the constitution is up to the states to do. Electoral college still in place, however effectively neutered.

Changing it because they are unhappy with 2016 results not because they believe it is the “right thing to do”. Being butthurt is not a reason to change rules. Next you’ll tell me that Bruce Jenner is a woman.

No, I and I'm sure Nevada does to feels like its the right thing to do. Most Americans want a national popular vote and this is probably the only feasible way of getting to that without jumping through impossible hurdles.

Most Americans also want a 0% tax rate. Doesn’t make it right.

I doubt it, prove it.

 

[martybegan]

That has nothing to do with States mandating their EV's go to someone based on the vote results outside the State.

Oh, Ok. So according to your wisdom an elector can vote for someone their state didn't vote for as long as the rest of the country didn't? Now that you spell it out....you still seem to be wrong.

You seem to still be grasping at straws to validate your attempted power grab.

The electors acting is covered by both State and Federal Laws. In cases of unfaithful electors, the only issue would be if it impacted the outcome of an election. It hasn't, to my knowledge, happened so far.

What's the power grab, exactly? and where in the constitution does it set forth how a state can use it's electors? Quote it.

I quoted several parts of the Constitution that have an issue with this. that you choose to ignore them is your problem.

No, you didn't. You seemed to have misunderstood several parts of it though.

you ignore that my issue is with certification. Who certifies it so the compact is enforced?

 

[sakinago]

The Nevada Senate approved Tuesday a National Popular Vote bill on a party-line vote, sending the legislation aimed at upending the Electoral College to the governor.

Assembly Bill 186, which passed the Senateon a 12-8 vote, would bring Nevada into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an agreement between participating states to cast their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote.

If signed as expected by Democratic Gov. Steve Sisolak, Nevada would become the 16th jurisdiction to join the compact, along with 14 states and the District of Columbia. The compact would take effect after states totaling 270 electoral votes, and with Nevada, the total would reach 195.

Nevada Senate passes National Popular Vote bill on party-line vote

That’s 2 new states in less than 2 months. The NPV keeps chugging along.

How is it that the left sets it’s hair on fire claiming voter suppression when it comes to voter ID laws...but praises a law that will ignore what it’s state constituents vote for in favor of what the rest of the country voted for. Let’s say it’s trump v Biden, Nevada votes Biden but the nation votes trump...ALL THE EC VOTES GO TO TRUMP???? Does that seem right to you? How the fuck is that not voter suppression?

I claim the popular vote should decide, and so I have to be okay with that being the outcome.

No you clearly don’t care about the popular vote in Nevada, let’s say this was a race for the governorship in Texas. In a bid to try and sway the election in favor of their party the mayor of Dallas says all our votes will be afforded to whatever candidate the rest of the state votes for in the end. You effectively take away the voting power of the constituents of Dallas, and give that power to the the rural/suburban areas. This is exactly the same thing as this bat shit legislation.

This clearly shows that y’all could give 2 shits about “voter suppression”. You care about winning by whatever means. You’re acting like the EC is evil for forcing candidates to not just be the most popular, but be the most popular in ALL of the regions. You call foul on EC for taking and watering down people’s votes...and then go ahead and pass legislation to completely ignore the will of an entire state. You can officially stop hiding behind good intentions now

 

[HappyJoy]

Oh, Ok. So according to your wisdom an elector can vote for someone their state didn't vote for as long as the rest of the country didn't? Now that you spell it out....you still seem to be wrong.

You seem to still be grasping at straws to validate your attempted power grab.

The electors acting is covered by both State and Federal Laws. In cases of unfaithful electors, the only issue would be if it impacted the outcome of an election. It hasn't, to my knowledge, happened so far.

What's the power grab, exactly? and where in the constitution does it set forth how a state can use it's electors? Quote it.

I quoted several parts of the Constitution that have an issue with this. that you choose to ignore them is your problem.

No, you didn't. You seemed to have misunderstood several parts of it though.

you ignore that my issue is with certification. Who certifies it so the compact is enforced?

Each...state...certifies...their...vote...tallies.

 

[martybegan]

Wow, talk about ignoring the actual text of the document.


I can copy someone else's interpretation of it as well

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

And from the one SC case related:

Virginia v. Tennessee - Wikipedia

This doesn't increase the power of a state, so now what, genius?

How does it not? It increases the power of the States in the Compact vs. the ones outside the compact.

An end run is an end run, no matter how much you try to justify it.

No, the state still has the same amount of electors, where is the power grab?

It's States banding together to pool their EV's to the detriment of States not in the compact.

Power grab. At least admit it.

That's not a power grab, the state individually has not gotten any stronger.

Bullshit. The States in the compact override the States out of the compact, using an agreement between States not (currently) recognized by Congress.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

As such the popular vote doesn’t make sense. The states decide per state how their electoral votes are used.

I'm sorry, are we ignoring that you got that completely wrong? OK.

So, to abolish the electoral college would of course require a constitutional amendment and that's not going to happen for anything, maybe never. So the states are solving it by changing how they assign their electors, something that per the constitution is up to the states to do. Electoral college still in place, however effectively neutered.

Changing it because they are unhappy with 2016 results not because they believe it is the “right thing to do”. Being butthurt is not a reason to change rules. Next you’ll tell me that Bruce Jenner is a woman.

No, I and I'm sure Nevada does to feels like its the right thing to do. Most Americans want a national popular vote and this is probably the only feasible way of getting to that without jumping through impossible hurdles.

Most Americans also want a 0% tax rate. Doesn’t make it right.

I doubt it, prove it.

LOL if you polled most Americans you think they would say we want to pay more taxes? Come on man.

 

[martybegan]

You seem to still be grasping at straws to validate your attempted power grab.

The electors acting is covered by both State and Federal Laws. In cases of unfaithful electors, the only issue would be if it impacted the outcome of an election. It hasn't, to my knowledge, happened so far.

What's the power grab, exactly? and where in the constitution does it set forth how a state can use it's electors? Quote it.

I quoted several parts of the Constitution that have an issue with this. that you choose to ignore them is your problem.

No, you didn't. You seemed to have misunderstood several parts of it though.

you ignore that my issue is with certification. Who certifies it so the compact is enforced?

Each...state...certifies...their...vote...tallies.

But. who. certifies. the. national. vote.

There is no such thing as a national vote, and even if the compact passes enough States to have the EV's, there won't be an actual, certified, national vote either.

The States are required to send the electors of the winner of the national vote, that doesn't exist.

 

[HappyJoy]

I'm sorry, are we ignoring that you got that completely wrong? OK.

So, to abolish the electoral college would of course require a constitutional amendment and that's not going to happen for anything, maybe never. So the states are solving it by changing how they assign their electors, something that per the constitution is up to the states to do. Electoral college still in place, however effectively neutered.

Changing it because they are unhappy with 2016 results not because they believe it is the “right thing to do”. Being butthurt is not a reason to change rules. Next you’ll tell me that Bruce Jenner is a woman.

No, I and I'm sure Nevada does to feels like its the right thing to do. Most Americans want a national popular vote and this is probably the only feasible way of getting to that without jumping through impossible hurdles.

Most Americans also want a 0% tax rate. Doesn’t make it right.

I doubt it, prove it.

LOL if you polled most Americans you think they would say we want to pay more taxes? Come on man.

You said 0% taxes. Don't change your argument just because you know you can't win it.

 

[HappyJoy]

What's the power grab, exactly? and where in the constitution does it set forth how a state can use it's electors? Quote it.

I quoted several parts of the Constitution that have an issue with this. that you choose to ignore them is your problem.

No, you didn't. You seemed to have misunderstood several parts of it though.

you ignore that my issue is with certification. Who certifies it so the compact is enforced?

Each...state...certifies...their...vote...tallies.

But. who. certifies. the. national. vote.

There is no such thing as a national vote, and even if the compact passes enough States to have the EV's, there won't be an actual, certified, national vote either.

The States are required to send the electors of the winner of the national vote, that doesn't exist.

I'm going to say this one more time. Each state certifies their vote tallies. So, Nevada would count all those votes up, add their own to it and then they would be able to give the winner of the popular vote their ec votes. Whoa...magic and shit.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Changing it because they are unhappy with 2016 results not because they believe it is the “right thing to do”. Being butthurt is not a reason to change rules. Next you’ll tell me that Bruce Jenner is a woman.

No, I and I'm sure Nevada does to feels like its the right thing to do. Most Americans want a national popular vote and this is probably the only feasible way of getting to that without jumping through impossible hurdles.

Most Americans also want a 0% tax rate. Doesn’t make it right.

I doubt it, prove it.

LOL if you polled most Americans you think they would say we want to pay more taxes? Come on man.

You said 0% taxes. Don't change your argument just because you know you can't win it.

Hyperbole. LOL
You’re such a fool.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But. who. certifies. the. national. vote.

There is no such thing as a national vote, and even if the compact passes enough States to have the EV's, there won't be an actual, certified, national vote either.

The States are required to send the electors of the winner of the national vote, that doesn't exist.

And, non-participating states are not required to share the election results with other states, so now we have a bunch of electors who can do whatever the fuck they want because no state will give up the election results.

So, now we are back to the original intent of the EC? Sounds like a GREAT plan.



.

 

[HappyJoy]

No, I and I'm sure Nevada does to feels like its the right thing to do. Most Americans want a national popular vote and this is probably the only feasible way of getting to that without jumping through impossible hurdles.

Most Americans also want a 0% tax rate. Doesn’t make it right.

I doubt it, prove it.

LOL if you polled most Americans you think they would say we want to pay more taxes? Come on man.

You said 0% taxes. Don't change your argument just because you know you can't win it.

Hyperbole. LOL
You’re such a fool.

Oh, is that what were calling it? OK.

Let's go with your dodge then. Let's pretend you said "Most Americans also want a lower tax rate. Doesn't make it right". Remember that Republic thing you got wrong? Yeah, if we're talking about federal taxes, you don't vote on that. Who does you ask? Your representatives. Get it?

 

[bodecea]

IF you had ever read the Constitution....Article II in particular....you would have known that it is the states that determine how to distribute Electoral College votes. IF you had ever read the Constitution, you would have known this is totally Constitutional. IF.

How is allowing people outside the State determine the State's vote for President a "Republican Form of Government", Something that the Federal Constitution guarantees under Article 4, Clause 1?"

It probably also falls foul of the 14th amendment, requiring equal protection under the law. How does transferring a whole States vote to another voting block provide equal protection?

States Rights to determine how they distribute their Electoral Votes....if the people of that state don't like it that way, they vote in state legislators who set up the state's distribution of Electoral Votes to their liking.

And how does this go against Equal Protection Under the Law? Explain, please.

The States are still bound by the Constitution.

It's the same thing that killed things like the Board of Estimates in NYC, where each Boro had representation regardless of population. The 14th guarantees 1 person, 1 vote. Now a person's vote in a State is meaningless with regards to the IN STATE election for electors, because the outcome would be determined by people OUTSIDE the State.

Exactly...the states are still bound by the Constitution. Now show how this would be against the Constitution.

I pointed it out, Article 4 Clause 1, and the 14th amendment equal protection clause.

That you want to ignore both because you think this end run would suit you isn't my problem.

You know.....I just did a double check with my copy of the Constitution....there is NO SUCH THING as an Article 4 Clause 1.

There IS an Article IV, Section 1 which says this:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given to each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

And the 14th Amendment equal protection clause:


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis added]

So....where do either of those keep Nevada from passing the law they are working on?

 

[bodecea]

How does it not? It increases the power of the States in the Compact vs. the ones outside the compact.

An end run is an end run, no matter how much you try to justify it.

No, the state still has the same amount of electors, where is the power grab?

Ironically, if one goes by how the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, there should be a Representative in the House for every 30,000 people....that means, instead of about 55 Reps (used for counting EC #'s) there should be over 1330 Representatives in California....assume 1330 plus 2 Senators......that means that the Founders meant for California to have 1332 Electors. Do the same math for other states.

Don't do math in front of Marty.

Math is scary.

This coming from someone who probably has a degree in basketweaving is comical.

How is the national number certified so that the compact is enforced?

More name calling.

And still struggling with the math concept of adding up 50 certified counts, I see.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You said 0% taxes. Don't change your argument just because you know you can't win it.

Which fallacy is this, where one responds by being absurdly literal and ignoring the fact that the "0%" number was stated solely for hyperbolic effect?

Strawman?

.

 

[bodecea]

I quoted several parts of the Constitution that have an issue with this. that you choose to ignore them is your problem.

No, you didn't. You seemed to have misunderstood several parts of it though.

you ignore that my issue is with certification. Who certifies it so the compact is enforced?

Each...state...certifies...their...vote...tallies.

But. who. certifies. the. national. vote.

There is no such thing as a national vote, and even if the compact passes enough States to have the EV's, there won't be an actual, certified, national vote either.

The States are required to send the electors of the winner of the national vote, that doesn't exist.

I'm going to say this one more time. Each state certifies their vote tallies. So, Nevada would count all those votes up, add their own to it and then they would be able to give the winner of the popular vote their ec votes. Whoa...magic and shit.

Math is hard! They be using them Arabic numbers....that's the problem!

 

[martybegan]

I quoted several parts of the Constitution that have an issue with this. that you choose to ignore them is your problem.

No, you didn't. You seemed to have misunderstood several parts of it though.

you ignore that my issue is with certification. Who certifies it so the compact is enforced?

Each...state...certifies...their...vote...tallies.

But. who. certifies. the. national. vote.

There is no such thing as a national vote, and even if the compact passes enough States to have the EV's, there won't be an actual, certified, national vote either.

The States are required to send the electors of the winner of the national vote, that doesn't exist.

I'm going to say this one more time. Each state certifies their vote tallies. So, Nevada would count all those votes up, add their own to it and then they would be able to give the winner of the popular vote their ec votes. Whoa...magic and shit.

that's not certification of the entire vote. All it would take is one State in the Compact to have an issue and the whole thing would collapse.

 

[blackhawk]

Good luck with it will be shot down in court state law does not override federal law.

 

[HappyJoy]

You said 0% taxes. Don't change your argument just because you know you can't win it.

Which fallacy is this, where one responds by being absurdly literal and ignoring the fact that the "0%" number was stated solely for hyperbolic effect?

Strawman?

.

Another yutz who doesn't know what a strawman argument is. I answered your tax question, basically taxes aren't voted on by the people so you're point doesn't make sense at all, even if you did realize your orignal statement is kind of dumb and you followed up with more dumb.