Nevada to join National Popular Vote compact

[HappyJoy]

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.

That can happen anyway. I'm sure we wouldn't find out who the winner is on the same night as the election, but it's not a race to get the results so I'm fine with that.

But if those votes from the one State impact the popular vote winner, the whole compact becomes a question.

When does the compact get executed, when is the drop dead date, what happens if a State doesn't like the end result of the compact and tried to withdraw from it?

I guess they'll need more time, those same states certify their numbers today and while on occasion there can be a delay, it gets done. There isn't much of a change here.

When does the compact get executed? Well, if you read anything about it the compact doesn't kick in unless there a minimum of 270 electoral votes in it. So if one state backs out and they are less than the 270 then they all revert to the electoral college. If a state backs out but those that remain are still over 270 then it doesn't matter.

See? logic!

Yes, because a large State leaving because it didn't get the result it wanted won't cause mayhem.

And it doesn't matter if the compact says you cant leave within 6 months of an election or in that period before the President is elected by the electors, There is NO enforcement of this because it is outside the Constitution.

Each state has a deadline to the federal government to certify their results. They can't certify those results without knowing how their vote went.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

As perviously stated the compact requires states that equal at least 270 electoral votes, if they don't have that they revert to the electoral college. If states outside of the compact hold back their votes then that would be that states problem and they would most likely have some explaining to do for their own residents.

This is really childish stuff.

As you have seen in 2016, the pact can get to 270 without having the popular vote. So, what you are basically accepting as fair is a group of states promising to vote for a particular party or candidate, regardless of the popular vote outcome.

.

 

[martybegan]

They would share, they signed up for it and they share it anyway today.

What if half the states refuse to share?

Will the pact members just make up a result based on guestimates?

No way in hell that backfires, right?



Thus, it is essentially a pact to vote for a particular party, regardless of the popular vote outcome.

.

As perviously stated the compact requires states that equal at least 270 electoral votes, if they don't have that they revert to the electoral college. If states outside of the compact hold back their votes then that would be that states problem and they would most likely have some explaining to do for their own residents.

This is really childish stuff.

The national popular vote compact is the ultimate in childishness.

"I don't like the current process, and I know trying to change it legally is HAAAARDDDD, so we come up with some bullshit end run that isn't constitutional but we play like it is because we are all partisan hack twat losers like HappyJoy"

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Each state has a deadline to the federal government to certify their results.

Results, not numbers.


Example:
California - Hillary Clinton was the winner.
Texas - Trump was the winner.

Vote totals? Not required.

.

 

[HappyJoy]

I don't understand why a state would want to be a follower like this.

They don't like the results, so they change the rules.

The decay continues.
.

Most Americans want to go by the popular vote, the EC has shown some chips in the armor.

 

[martybegan]

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.

That can happen anyway. I'm sure we wouldn't find out who the winner is on the same night as the election, but it's not a race to get the results so I'm fine with that.

But if those votes from the one State impact the popular vote winner, the whole compact becomes a question.

When does the compact get executed, when is the drop dead date, what happens if a State doesn't like the end result of the compact and tried to withdraw from it?

I guess they'll need more time, those same states certify their numbers today and while on occasion there can be a delay, it gets done. There isn't much of a change here.

When does the compact get executed? Well, if you read anything about it the compact doesn't kick in unless there a minimum of 270 electoral votes in it. So if one state backs out and they are less than the 270 then they all revert to the electoral college. If a state backs out but those that remain are still over 270 then it doesn't matter.

See? logic!

Yes, because a large State leaving because it didn't get the result it wanted won't cause mayhem.

And it doesn't matter if the compact says you cant leave within 6 months of an election or in that period before the President is elected by the electors, There is NO enforcement of this because it is outside the Constitution.

Each state has a deadline to the federal government to certify their results. They can't certify those results without knowing how their vote went.

That was before they knew their vote differential would impact the results for other States. A close State election would now paralyze the whole process.

 

[martybegan]

I don't understand why a state would want to be a follower like this.

They don't like the results, so they change the rules.

The decay continues.
.

Most Americans want to go by the popular vote, the EC has shown some chips in the armor.

Polls like that ask the question to get the positive answer. If asked HOW to do it, the results wouldn't be as clear cut.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Each state certifies their vote tallies to whom? They are not required to share those tallies with anyone else.

Well, that would be interesting, wouldn't it? To have a state refuse to tell anyone else what their results were.....kind of like a Presidential candidate refusing to share their tax returns.....technically not illegal but sure makes everyone wonder what they are hiding.

 

[HappyJoy]

As perviously stated the compact requires states that equal at least 270 electoral votes, if they don't have that they revert to the electoral college. If states outside of the compact hold back their votes then that would be that states problem and they would most likely have some explaining to do for their own residents.

This is really childish stuff.

As you have seen in 2016, the pact can get to 270 without having the popular vote. So, what you are basically accepting as fair is a group of states promising to vote for a particular party or candidate, regardless of the popular vote outcome.

.

What? No. The compact votes for whoever the popular vote winner is, end of story however that compact has to have a minimum of 270 electoral college votes.

 

[bodecea]

Democrats look more idiotic than ever before and that is saying something.

So....it's the Democrats who don't know that this is totally Constitutional?

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah, that doesn't mean what you want it to. Here is the whole clause to put it into context:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing 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.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

And here is the meaning:

Article I, Section 10, limits the power of the states. States may not enter into a treaty with a foreign nation; that power is given to the president, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate present. States cannot make their own money, nor can they grant any title of nobility.

As is Congress, states are prohibited from passing laws that assign guilt to a specific person or group without court proceedings (bills of attainder), that make something illegal retroactively(ex post facto laws) or that interfere with legal contracts.

No state, without approval from Congress, may collect taxes on imports or exports, build an army or keep warships in times of peace, nor otherwise engage in war unless invaded or in imminent danger.
Article I, Section 10

Getting desparate.

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


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

The idea of allowing Congress to have say over agreements between states traces back to the numerous controversies that arose between various colonies. Eventually compromises would be created between the two colonies and these compromises would be submitted to the Crown for approval. After the American Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation allowed states to appeal to Congress to settle disputes between the states over boundaries or "any cause whatever". The Articles of Confederation also required Congressional approval for "any treaty or alliance" in which a state was one of the parties.

Article One of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

And from the one SC case related:

Virginia v. Tennessee - Wikipedia

As to what represents a compact requiring approval from Congress, it is those types of agreements that would, in some fashion, increase the power of a state. If a state, for example, wanted to send an exhibit to a World's Fair in another state, it would not have to have approval of Congress to contract to use a canal owned by another state that its exhibit or its people had to pass through along the way.

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.

The states not in the compact still cast votes which determine who will get the compact states vote

Nothing says the compact can’t go Republican

 

[HappyJoy]

Each state has a deadline to the federal government to certify their results.

Results, not numbers.


Example:
California - Hillary Clinton was the winner.
Texas - Trump was the winner.

Vote totals? Not required.

.

OMG, how do you know Clinton won California or Trump won Texas? Gosh, what metric did they use....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well, that would be interesting, wouldn't it? To have a state refuse to tell anyone else what their results were.....kind of like a Presidential candidate refusing to share their tax returns.....technically not illegal but sure makes everyone wonder what they are hiding.

Oh, no. They can be very clear about what they are hiding:

"We're hiding our totals from you motherfucking idiot pact members, so you can't fuck over the EC like a bunch of crybaby pussies. All you need to know is X candidate won. Next."



.

 

[HappyJoy]

I don't understand why a state would want to be a follower like this.

They don't like the results, so they change the rules.

The decay continues.
.

Most Americans want to go by the popular vote, the EC has shown some chips in the armor.

Polls like that ask the question to get the positive answer. If asked HOW to do it, the results wouldn't be as clear cut.

You're obviously confused about how they do it, that's for sure.

 

[Nosmo King]

You bed wetters can't win according to the rules, so you have to change them.

It will fail as soon as it ends up in a court with non-bed wetter judges.

Like in 2000?

 

[HappyJoy]

Well, that would be interesting, wouldn't it? To have a state refuse to tell anyone else what their results were.....kind of like a Presidential candidate refusing to share their tax returns.....technically not illegal but sure makes everyone wonder what they are hiding.

Oh, no. They can be very clear about what they are hiding:

"We're hiding our totals from you motherfucking idiot pact members, so you can't fuck over the EC like a bunch of crybaby pussies. All you need to know is X candidate won. Next."



.

Couldn't a state do that today? Hide their vote numbers?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

OMG, how do you know Clinton won California or Trump won Texas? Gosh, what metric did they use....

Because the SOS of Texas said "Trump won." California's SOS said "Hillary won." They are not required to share numbers with other states. What you end up with is a bunch of party members in a particular non-participating state filing lawsuits to get the numbers, while compact states are still waiting on numbers.

This goes on forever and no election is final until the term of office has already expired.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Couldn't a state do that today? Hide their vote numbers?

Yes. And?

What can another state do about it?

What can anybody do about it?

.

 

[HappyJoy]

OMG, how do you know Clinton won California or Trump won Texas? Gosh, what metric did they use....

Because the SOS of Texas said "Trump won." California's SOS said "Hillary won." They are not required to share numbers with other states. What you end up with is a bunch of party members in a particular non-participating state filing lawsuits to get the numbers, while compact states are still waiting on numbers.

This goes on forever and no election is final until the term of office has already expired.

.

They all prove vote totals. If a state didn't, good luck with that, not going to go well for them.

 

[bodecea]

I don't understand why a state would want to be a follower like this.

They don't like the results, so they change the rules.

The decay continues.
.

Most Americans want to go by the popular vote, the EC has shown some chips in the armor.

Two good solutions....
1) Actually provide the number of EC voters based on the original Constitutional requirement for members of the House....one per 30,000 citizens....don't cap it like the House of Representatives is right now.

For example: California has about 40 million people....that's about 1330 electors based on the Founding Fathers' original figures...plus 2 for the Senate....1332 EV

Wyoming has about 580K people...that's about 19 electors based on the same formula set up by the Founders...plus 2 for the Senate....21 EV

2) do like Maine (and I think New Jersey) does....drop "winner takes all" and distribute EC votes based on % votes....i.e. if 40 % vote for candidate A...they get 40% of the EC votes from that state.